Windy Recycling Day

When it comes to health care, do you want politicized rationing or private decision making?

Last year the president and Democratic Congress demonstrated that they believed “smart professionals,” or successful politicians, at least, should decide how much health care all the “morons called U.S. citizens” should receive.  And that is always how Medicare has operated.  Recipients get one set of benefits.  Government sets the payment rates.  If a retiree doesn’t like it, tough!

Instead, people should be able to choose the health insurance plan which best meets their and their family’s needs.  Obviously, purchasing medical care isn’t as simple as buying a car.  Most of us are going to want to rely on advice from “smart professionals.”  But ultimately, only individuals and families can decide the best coverage and the right trade-offs.  Instead of voting to nationalize medical decisions, Congress should have encouraged more personal decision-making in the purchase of health insurance.

Legislators also should apply this principle to Medicare.  Help those who need help, but let them choose the benefits best for them.

Last year, in the midst of fevered debate over ObamaCare, Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams flew to Miami for heart surgery.  It seems Canada’s vaunted socialized system limited his treatment options.  Williams responded to criticism:  “This is my heart, it’s my choice and it’s my health.”

So it is for all of us.

Those who advocate government control of health care decision-making contend that “rationing” is inevitable.  If the government’s doesn’t do it, someone else will do it.

But there is a dramatic difference between individuals deciding how to spend limited resources while choosing among competing goods and services and government telling individuals how to spend their money or spending it for them.  Even in today’s highly regulated and restricted health care system some choices remain.  Ever greater government control ultimately means no exit for anyone—except the wealthy, who can afford to go anywhere for any treatment.

I’ll take the latter.  We’re gonna get the former.

(I actually disagree with some of the premise even in the article.  It is not the role of the federal government to help people afford health care.  At all.  But I’m crazy like that.  I’m willing to take small steps in that direction.)

(Oh, and as I’ve suggested since ObamaCare was even a suggestion – if you want the best health care, you better start saving now.  If you rely on the government to take care of you, expect to be disappointed.)

You already know the answer, of course.  But this story of a Canadian mother of two with a rare bone cancer highlights a number of fun little things, both mentioned and not by ABC news.

First, there’s the misdiagnosis by the Canadian Department of Awesome Medical Care (or whatever it’s called).

The first warning sign for Ollson was severe back pain that came on during her first pregnancy that made it impossible for her to work by the end of her pregnancy. The pain lessened after her daughter was born but started up again years later when she became pregnant with her son.

Doctors found nothing wrong with her and although she was desperate for relief, there was nothing more that could be done, or so she was told.

“I went back home feeling very alone and misunderstood,” she told the Winnipeg Free Press. “I didn’t think people believed me. I knew it was a whole lot worse than anyone thought.”

In February 2007, after months of suffering with no relief, Ollson had had enough. She had her husband, Daryl, take her to the hospital where she was diagnosed with pregnancy sciatica, a form of back pain caused by pressure on the sciatic nerve.

Now, the ABC story doesn’t go in to detail about how many years she went without a diagnosis, but it looks like it took months to get the MRI.  Maybe had the cancer been diagnosed earlier, she wouldn’t have needed to come to the United States for treatment.

The article does go on to insinuate this cancer is very hard to diagnose, but then the Doc they interview lays this out there:

Rapp did not treat Ollson, but notes that of the patients he has seen with chondrosarcoma, none has had such a large area affected by the cancer.

Again, making me wonder if Canadian free health care is all that great.  So of course, she had experimental surgery in the hotbed of medical innovation… wait.  Did the Mayo Clinic move?

From the “I told you so” files… big health insurers are no longer writing child only policies because of the new health care regulations.

Why?  Well, because they have no idea how much it will cost them to remain in that market, and they have contractual obligations to their existing customers.  Health insurers can’t meet those obligations if they don’t make a profit.

A little tidbit our Congress and President don’t understand.

I think, though, this is actually an intended consequence of the legislation.  It was intentionally written to destroy the private health insurance market so it appears the only solution is single payer government run healthcare.  And, since no one who voted on it read it, these things are now making sure less people who need to be able to buy insurance can.

This is just the beginning, unless it’s struck down as unconstitutional (which is is, but that doesn’t always matter) or it’s repealed (likely in the House, possible in the Senate, but no way He signs a repeal, and there won’t be enough support to override his veto.

I have yet to see or hear an argument for any health care bill that couldn’t be refuted by an approach that used less government intervention. The only thing that’s come close is how to cover people who can not afford care, which everyone pretty much admits Congress isn’t doing.

Here’s another good argument against the Senate bill, though.