Donna Rook is a Chicago-based political activist and a member of the Heartland Institute. This article was sent to several news outlets.
So - now that Sen. Baucus' draft bill is public, Americans can see that to "save money" on healthcare we must spend $800 billion - $1 trillion. Likely more, given the government's record of 'misunderestimating.' And for that money we get government bureaucrats telling our doctors how to care for us, more likely how to withold care.
A frightening example is what Britons are currently experiencing with the Liverpool care pathway, a program where doctors withdraw nutrition and hydration and administer sedatives on the elderly. Britain's Patients Association, and independent charity, recently issued a report expressing concern about the "consistent pattern of shocking standards of care" at end of life. A few days later a group of senior doctors and health-care experts wrote to a national newspaper noting that in 2007-08, 16.5% of deaths in the U.K. followed "terminal sedation," and noting that experienced doctors recognize that sometimes when medication is stopped, dying patients recover. (1)
Meanwhile, the CBO estimates that if individuals were allowed a free health insurance marketplace, with the option to buy insurance across state lines (to avoid excessive state mandates that drive prices up), the 10-year net decrease in the federal deficit would be $7.8 billion. (2)
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which is the better choice. Americans deserve a free marketplace with numerous choices, just like Congress' plan (which they are retaining, having exempted themselves from the new bill)
Sincerely,
Donna Rook
Chicago
(1) Source: Government Medicine vs the Elderly, courtesy http://online.wsj.com/services/article/SB10001424052970203917304574412680569936844-search.html?KEYWORDS=Darwall&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month
(2) source http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9925/12-18-HealthOptions.pdf and http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/09/graph_of_the_day_for_september.html