| Politics

What about the pending health care reform is causing so much consternation among America’s senior citizens?

PHOENIX, Az. (Catholic Online) - Washington D.C. is poised to enact comprehensive legislation that will radically change America’s health care system, moving it closer to a system of health care rationing such as what is already prevalent in Europe. In fact, the Senate began debate on the reform package at 3:00 p.m. on Monday, November 30, 2009. The final language of the new health care reform legislation is subject to legislative conference committee changes and amendments. However, it does appear that ex-Senator Tom Daschle, thought by many to be the “architect” of these health care reforms, was correct when he said that seniors will bear the brunt of these changes. Let’s consider some of the issues.

What about the pending health care changes is causing so much consternation among America’s senior citizens?

Let’s begin with the bill passed out of the House of Representatives, H.R. 3962. At the top of the list of provisions objectionable to seniors are the proposed cuts to Medicare funding. The house bill eviscerates Medicare, cutting $500 billion from this important senior health care program. Similarly, H.R. 3962 slashes $150 billion from the popular Medicare Advantage Plan which one out of every five senior citizens relies on to supplement Medicare benefits. In addition, the House health bill creates a Medicare reimbursement framework that many, this writer included, believe will promote euthanasia. These new rules will effectively coerce physicians to subject the elderly to end-of-life consultations and encourage elderly patients to use “living wills”, a catch all term which refers to many different kinds of legal instruments. “Living Wills” are absolutely objectionable to many people when they counsel withdrawing nutrition and hydration, as they often do, by calling such ordinary care and compassion “extraordinary" medical procedures.

These provisions will also enable government bureaucrats to dictate to physicians what they are required to tell their elderly or ill patients about important - and deeply personal - life and death matters. The health care bill also mandates that physicians follow what are called “competitive effectiveness standards” in making health care treatment decisions. Since some have stated their acceptance of an approach to what is often called “end of life care” which, in effect, promotes rationing by placing efficiency over the dignity of human life, these competitive effectiveness guidelines will likely be used as one of the primary instruments to deny real end-of-life care to seniors. They will actually end up promoting euthanasia.

While the House bill does the heavy lifting on euthanasia, the Senate bill pushes goes one step further, containing provisions which actually promote assisted suicide consideration. Section 1323 of the Senate bill prevents community health insurance plans from limiting access to what is called “end-of-life care”. What does the term mean? Interestingly enough, Sec. 1553 of the Senate bill contains a de facto conscience clause which protects physicians from charges stemming from a failure to provide services which facilitate assisted suicide or euthanasia. With the overall statutory scheme of the House bill and Senate bill being so one-sided in favor of an approach to “cost effectiveness” which could promote euthanasia and assisted suicide, I guess the authors of the Senate bill decided that a token concession should be given to physicians who would adhere to the Hippocratic Oath and shirk from offering these “end-of-life services”.

Given the health care bills comprehensive framework supporting this kind of morally questionable approach to what are called “end-of-life” procedures, is it any wonder that increasing numbers of Americans, especially seniors, have grave doubts about claims that health care reform will improve their access to medical care? Only 38% of Americans favor the current health care reform proposals with 56% opposing, according to a recent Rasmussen poll. As the prospect of health care reform looms ever closer, seniors are feeling more and more uncomfortable with both Medicare cut induced restrictions in basic health care services and the prospect of having to endure a kind of compelled persuasion of the end-of-life health care variety.

What about claims that health care costs will be reduced by these proposed health care reforms?

Is the cutting of $500 billion in Medicare a true cost reduction or is it, as many claim, a denial of service to seniors? Nomenclature is important here. After all, reducing the cost of something, either a product or a service, tends to be done to improve the efficiency of getting that product or service to the consumer. This type of authentic, person centered cost cutting is generally a good thing. As a result of this increased efficiency the consumer ultimately benefits because ...