Search This Blog

Tuesday, December 8, 2009


A cost-containment amendment drafted by freshman Democratic Senators Mark Udall, Tom Udall, Jeanne Shaheen, Mark Warner, Kay Hagan , Jeff Merkley, Mark Begich, Roland Burris, Ted Kaufman, Michael Bennet, Al Franken, and Paul Kirk (see prior blog posting) would expand the authority the health care restructuring bill would give to require doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers to abide by "quality measures" so that the Secretary could also impose "efficiency" measures.

This seemingly small provision, in section 10007 on page 13 of the amendment, would have dramatic consequences. It would give authority to the federal government to regulate the "efficiency" of health care providers throughout the country. It takes little imagination to recognize that denial of treatment whose cost is deemed – by federal bureaucrats – to exceed its benefit could thus be imposed by administrative ruling on all patients– in short, government-imposed rationing.


  1. Thank you for posting this news. It is amazing that the majority of Congress is ignoring public desire relative to this health care hoax

  2. Yes, much better to let the private insurance corporations continue to ration coverage/deny treatment just as they've been doing for decades.

    I myself have been the victim of just such corporation denial of treatment, and the reason cited by the insurance provider to my personal doctor was: $$$. My doctor was very unhappy about it but there was nothing she could do about it. The insurance corporation didn't give a flying fig leaf what my doctor's medical diagnosis was. They only cared about how much they'd have to pay out and denied coverage on that basis.

    The issue here isn't really about rationing because that's what we already have via private insurance corporations. No, the issue is over WHY coverage will continue to be rationed. THAT will determine WHO does the rationing.

    Insurance corporation motive: profit

    Cost containment measure referenced above: reduce premium costs

    Given the choice between the two I'm going to take the second option every time because if I'm paying less out of my pocket for insurance premiums then I will therefore be in a much stronger financial position to pay more for certain things.

    And let's be honest here... the argument that we can all live in a fantasy world where there is no denial of any treatment is ludicrous. Take Sonny & Cher's daughter, the one who just had the sex change operation. If there truly were no denial of any genuine medical treatment/procedure then we'd be paying (with our insurance premiums) for breast enhancements, sex change operations and many, many other arguably unnecessary (from a strictly medical point of view) treatments and/or procedures. Because the insurance corporations sure as heck aren't going to pay for those things out of their own pockets!