In case one still harbored any doubts as to the end-game that is ObamaCare©, one has only to look at the latest news from the Emerald Isle:
"Millions of patients face losing NHS care as bosses prepare to axe treatments to make £20billion [about $30B US] of savings by 2014"
So who'll be hardest hit?
Regular readers will already know the answer; after all, what demographic is most likely to need:
"hernias, joint replacements, ear and nose procedures, varicose veins and cataract surgery"
And then there's that word again:
"Earlier this year the Government's rationing body said more cuts in medical treatments are planned to save the NHS at least £600million." [ed: emphasis added]
So even though the Much Vaunted (British) National Health Service© is touted as a "model" for the future of care here, they still can't control spiraling health care costs. "But ObamaCare© is different," claim its supporters, "we'll save oodles of money and still deliver high quality care in copious amounts."
Oh really?
"But while the research compiled in the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care has been widely interpreted as showing the country’s best and worst care ... in fact it mainly shows the varying costs of care in the government’s Medicare program. Measures of the quality of care are not part of the formula."
And so?
"As any shopper knows, cheaper does not always mean better ... the real difference in costs between, say, Houston and Bismarck, N.D., may result less from how doctors work than from how patients live."
Which brings us to the bottom line:
"The debate ... is important because a growing number of health policy researchers are finding that overhauling the nation’s health care system will be far harder and more painful ... Cuts, if not made carefully, could cost lives."
See a connection with the dilemna facing our Cousins Across the Pond? In making their case for "action, any action, but right away," Harry, Nancy and Barry have sold us a bill of goods upon which they cannot deliver. No matter how you slice it, we'll be sacrificing quality of care without actually reducing the total net costs of that care. Kind of the "worst of both worlds."
As Bob says, "Smaller cars, fewer health care choices, Poppa Washington."
"Millions of patients face losing NHS care as bosses prepare to axe treatments to make £20billion [about $30B US] of savings by 2014"
So who'll be hardest hit?
Regular readers will already know the answer; after all, what demographic is most likely to need:
"hernias, joint replacements, ear and nose procedures, varicose veins and cataract surgery"
And then there's that word again:
"Earlier this year the Government's rationing body said more cuts in medical treatments are planned to save the NHS at least £600million." [ed: emphasis added]
So even though the Much Vaunted (British) National Health Service© is touted as a "model" for the future of care here, they still can't control spiraling health care costs. "But ObamaCare© is different," claim its supporters, "we'll save oodles of money and still deliver high quality care in copious amounts."
Oh really?
"But while the research compiled in the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care has been widely interpreted as showing the country’s best and worst care ... in fact it mainly shows the varying costs of care in the government’s Medicare program. Measures of the quality of care are not part of the formula."
And so?
"As any shopper knows, cheaper does not always mean better ... the real difference in costs between, say, Houston and Bismarck, N.D., may result less from how doctors work than from how patients live."
Which brings us to the bottom line:
"The debate ... is important because a growing number of health policy researchers are finding that overhauling the nation’s health care system will be far harder and more painful ... Cuts, if not made carefully, could cost lives."
See a connection with the dilemna facing our Cousins Across the Pond? In making their case for "action, any action, but right away," Harry, Nancy and Barry have sold us a bill of goods upon which they cannot deliver. No matter how you slice it, we'll be sacrificing quality of care without actually reducing the total net costs of that care. Kind of the "worst of both worlds."
As Bob says, "Smaller cars, fewer health care choices, Poppa Washington."
Posts
