As explained in detail in Part Three, the
Act is running over with incentives galore
to deeply embed abortion in our medical care
system (including by commandeering lots and
lots of your tax dollars) and to shortchange
America’s senior citizens by whacking
Medicare and promoting a “race to the
bottom,” in the words of NRLC Executive
Director David N. O’Steen, Ph.D, by which
he means a “relentless financial pressure on
doctors to limit health care for their older
patients.”
Let me highlight just two points.
#1. The more those who are joined at the hip
to the Abortion Establishment insist their
proposals are benevolent, the more we should
go through the proposal with a fine-tooth
comb. That’s what NRLC’s Federal Legislation
Department has done. (Please take the time
to read Part Three carefully.)
One bottom line (the assurances of
pro-abortionists to the contrary
notwithstanding) is that the proposal is “a
drastic break from longstanding federal
policy, under which federal funds do not pay
for elective abortions or subsidize health
plans that cover elective abortions.” The
Baucus plan “would allow the federal
government to declare abortion to be a
‘mandated benefit as part of a minimum
benefits package.’”
Although this may
not be well known, the public is clearly
with us! Last week Public Opinion
Strategies conducted a national poll which
found that 43 % of registered voters said
they would be "less likely" to support the
president's health plan "if the government
paid for abortions," and only 8% said
"more likely." No wonder Representatives
Pelosi and Capps and President Obama and
other pro-abortion Democrats deny that the
government pays for abortion in any of the
various plans
Second, on the
rationing front, there has been a lot of
attention rightly paid to elements of the
House Democrats’ proposal which could easily
be used to “bend the cost curve” by denying
treatment.
But there are
other dangers that are not only susceptible
to abuse but build abuse in! Under the
Baucus’ “America’s Healthy Future
Act,” if a physician is among the top 10% in
per capital expenditures on Medicare
patients, he or she will have their
reimbursements from the government reduced
by 5% beginning in 2015.
Think about that for a second. Say you are a
conscientious physician who in many cases is
not getting enough compensation from the
government for your Medicare patients to
begin with. You
believe your patient would benefit from an
important test that may cost a bit, and
because you
care and because you have years of
experience, you order it.
Presto! The chances of you being in that top
10% have just gone up, and will every time
your medical judgment puts your patient’s
best interests first. But that’s only half
of it.
There is
always a "top 10%," even if every
physician radically reduces her or his care
to patients. Let’s say that in the first
year this penalty applies, $10,000 per
patient hits the 90% trigger.
Because of a
desire to avoid the penalties, in the next
year physicians cut
back on the tests and treatments they offer.
As a consequence the trigger for the penalty
drops to $8,000 per patient. So it will go
on from year-to-year.
That is why NRLC talks about a “race to the
bottom”—a “relentless financial pressure”
for physicians to shortchange their
patients.
“This is the
cruelest and most effective way to ensure
that
doctors are forced to ration care for their
senior citizen patients,” says NRLC’s
O’Steen. “It takes the telltale
fingerprints from the government.
Instead of
bureaucrats directly specifying the
treatment denials that will mean death and
poorer health for older people, it compels
individual doctors to do the dirty work. It
is an outrageous way to ‘reform’ health care
– by taking it away from America’s senior
citizens.”
Lots to chew over. Please remember to use
your social networks to get TN&V out to your
friends (Part One)
and to carefully read NRLC’s critique of
“America’s Healthy Future Act” (Part
Three).
