Questions
Does this have anything to do with me? I already have insurance and a doctor I like.
The quality and affordability of health care is a concern for all Americans. A one-size-fits-all system will not improve care; it will bring the quality of care down for those who currently have insurance.
Dig Deeper:
The Lewin Group recently published a study showing just how many people would lose their private insurance with a government option. The number reached as high as 119 million Americans.
Some employers would drop coverage simply because their workers would have a government plan available, and it’s one less thing for the company to worry about. Others would try to continue offering their existing plans, but private insurers would find it difficult to compete with a government-run plan that has access to taxpayer dollars when needed and is big enough to force health care providers to accept lower prices.
How long will I wait for care? Will my children have to wait in lines?
A government-run health care system is almost certain to lead to lengthy delays and denied treatments. Your quality of care will go down if politicians in Washington make decisions for you. Government officials could decide what care you and your family receive – and what care you are denied.
Dig Deeper:
In Massachusetts, one likely model state for health reform, it can take up to 100 days to see a non-specialist for a doctor’s appointment. Many doctors have stopped accepting new patients, and people who have been going to the same doctor for years are having trouble making appointments with short notice. The average wait to see a doctor is 50 days.
In Canada, over 800,000 people are on waitlists to see a doctor.
Could the government take away my right to research different treatments and choose with my doctor what’s best for me?
Yes. The recent “stimulus” bill created the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (FCCCER). We all support research that helps determine which treatments work best. But councils like this in other countries decide which patients are “worth” the cost of critical treatments and which should be denied care based on age and pre-existing conditions – or simply based on the cost of the treatment. Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) tried to pass an amendment to protect American patients from having a council focused on cost instead of clinical effectiveness – but the amendment lost 44-54.
Dig Deeper:
Senator Kyl Amendment: ensures that comparative effectiveness research accounts for advancements in genomics and personalized medicine.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said during her confirmation hearings, “When authorizing comparative effectiveness research in both the Medicare Modernization Act and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Congress did not impose any limits on it.”
Senator and Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) said during debate on the Senate floor (April 1, 2009): “by meaningful health care reform, I mean controlling costs.”
When the stimulus bill was originally drafted, House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-WI) said the intent of comparative effectiveness research was that drugs and treatments "that are found to be less effective and in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed.”
Will I be allowed to buy something better than the government plan?
Probably not. We already have significant restrictions on Medicare patients seeking to direct their own care by spending their own money for health care. And Massachusetts, the place Sen. Baucus (D-MT) wants to use as the model for U.S. health care reform, by law imposes prices controls on physicians based on the Medicare fee schedule, with a 5 percent penalty on doctors who don’t participate. In effect, this makes Medicare participation all-but mandatory.
Whether you have one dollar or a billion dollars, once Washington mandates that all Americans participate in a government-controlled health care plan and every doctor and treatment are required to be a part of the government plan, you will have no right to be in control of your health care decisions.
I trust my doctor, but will he or she have to follow Washington’s rules or his or her own good judgment?
Under government-controlled health care, doctors will be forced to play by the government’s rules. The government plan will be so big and command such a big portion of the market that most doctors will have no choice but to accept government funding along with all kinds of strings and mandates that tell them what they can and can’t do. Patients will lose control of their own health care to bureaucrats and bean counters seeking to control costs by delaying and denying treatments.
It was recently reported that in the Britain, which has a government-run system, 80 percent of doctors won’t even tell their patients about treatments not covered by the government plan.
Could my care be denied because of my age or because I am too sick?
It’s possible, if we continue down the path we’re on. This happens to patients in Britain. Their version of cost-benefit analysis means that you can be denied treatments that are judged to cost “the system” too much because your life is worth less to save after a certain age or because you’re so sick that they decide you’re not worth saving. That’s wrong. Patients, at any age and in any condition, with their families should be empowered to make their own health care choices with their doctors.
Could my care be denied because it is expensive?
Yes, if the government health insurance plan becomes reality. The Washington vision of making health care “affordable” is to lower the quality of care, judging certain procedures too expensive based on arbitrary bureaucratic standards and taking choices away from patients.
Will my privacy be respected?
No. Unfortunately, patients are already at great risk. The already-passed stimulus bill forces every American to have his or her private health information accessible on the internet by 2014. And, your private health information can be accessed and shared without your permission as long as a government bureaucrat calls it “research.”
Dig Deeper:
The “stimulus bill” legally permits electronic health records to be sold for several purposes, including public-health and research purposes.
Every American medical record must be compliant with, and linkable with the proposed national health surveillance system.
Isn’t there a health care crisis?
Yes, for many Americans who don’t have health insurance, this is a crisis. But a takeover by Washington? Imposing a one-size-fits-all plan designed by politicians and lobbyists will make things worse – not better. We need to support health care reforms that do not deny and delay health care. Do we really trust the government to make our most private health care decisions for us? We need to find ways to provide more access to treatments with less interference from Washington bureaucrats. We need real health care reform that puts patients first.
Are insurance companies out of control?
The private health insurance industry does have serious flaws that must be addressed. We should have more choices to seek out health plans that fit our families’ needs, that are more accountable to us as customers, and that we can take with us when we move or change jobs. Not a Washington takeover. Most of us will be much worse off if bureaucrats take control of our health care. Real reform needs to put patients first, not replace insurance company bureaucracy with an even more dangerous Washington bureaucracy.
What’s wrong with a public option? Isn’t that just more choice?
No. No matter what the politicians say, government will undoubtedly use its power to manipulate the rules and force people into its plan. Employers will drop coverage and force patients into the government plan. Taxpayers will then end up paying to bail out the government plan and give it enough money to run private health care out of business.
This has been tried, and it has failed. Arizona, Hawaii, and Massachusetts have all offered a public plan option… and in every case the plan has been abandoned, bureaucrats have severely reduced the quality of care, or the skyrocketing costs threaten to bankrupt us all.
Dig Deeper:
Arizona offered a public plan option: the state’s taxpayers needed to bail out the plan, and benefits and options were reduced for the families who relied on the plan. See The Arizona Republic: instead of becoming self-sufficient, the growth only increased costs.
A public plan for health insurance for all children in Hawaii was introduced in 2008. After only 7 months, the plan was repealed and abandoned because of high costs. 85% of all children who enrolled in the government plan ALREADY had private coverage. See Heartland Institute: unwise to spend public money to replace private coverage that children already had.
Massachusetts instituted a plan for “universal health insurance” for all of its residents. Since enacting the plan in 2006, the state’s spending on health care has increased 42%. And compared to the national average, Massachusetts, which already spent on average 25% more per person, now spends 33% more than the national average. New York Times: The day of reckoning has arrived.
Why not mandate everyone to have insurance?
A mandate that you purchase health insurance—or pay fines, tax penalties, even have your wages garnished—will do nothing to reduce overall health care costs or improve access for most Americans. The private health insurance industry would like nothing more than to see individuals being forced to buy their product. This is really just a bailout for big insurance companies.
The health insurance industry has worked alongside Washington politicians to advance a national health insurance mandate. Politicians and bureaucrats are busily hammering out the details in secret, and patients have no voice.
Some people who can’t afford insurance—possibly based on political considerations—will likely receive care at taxpayer expense. Subsidized care cost Massachusetts $794 million last year.
Are there real ways to make health care less expensive without sacrificing quality?
Yes. We should look first to reduce fraud and abuse in the system. We also need to focus on preventive treatments and early detection to promote wellness. The best way to reduce costs is to prevent people from getting sick in the first place. Unfortunately, there is rampant waste and abuse in Medicaid and Medicare, so you can imagine how much worse things would be if Washington controlled even more people’s health care. The most important thing to keep in mind is that we shouldn’t cut costs in ways that would take benefits and choices away from patients.
Is it true that a New York doctor was blocked by the government from offering care to the uninsured for $79 per month because he was NOT CHARGING ENOUGH?
Yes. Insurance company lobbyists and government bureaucrats forced him to charge the uninsured at least $33 per visit in addition to the $79-per-month fee. We should be very concerned that government will not have reducing costs and increasing access as their first priorities in heath care reform.
Email this page