More Evidence of Government Rationing of Health Care
Despite the promises of politicians like Obama, there is no way around rationing when the government pays for everyone’s health care. If there is a limited amount of money available (because no one wants their taxes raised to pay for another person’s health care), and patients still demand the best drugs and procedures, rationing will take place. It is inevitable. I have previously given examples (here, and here) of countries with government run health care rationing medicines and procedures to their citizens. Now we have another example of rationing in the U.K.
As reported by the Daily Mail,
Thousands of women are being denied better osteoporosis drugs because of unnecessarily restrictive Government guidelines, a doctor said last night.
Professor David Reid, an expert on brittle bones, said the rules are so stringent that GPs are often prevented from giving alternative treatments to those suffering side-effects from their pills.
A once-a-year jab that could save thousands from the misery of broken bones is also not going to be assessed for use on the NHS in England and Wales for at least three years, according to Professor Reid, despite being available in Scotland.
It means that sufferers are being denied drugs that could have a major impact on their health and their quality of life. The news will reignite the debate about the evaluation system used by drugs rationing body the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
NICE has previously been criticised for banning or restricting breakthrough medicines for conditions such as breast cancer and Alzheimer’s.
Why do some people believe something similar to this would not happen here if we adopt a single-payer government run health care system? There are thousands of people, in the U.K., being denied medicines that will make them healthier or more comfortable, but their government denies them the treatment. The article gets even worse,
But under guidelines, sufferers may have to wait up to five years for their condition to deteriorate before being put on more expensive treatments with fewer side-effects.
Mr Reid said: ‘The guidelines indicate that a lady can have alendronic acid at a certain level of risk.
‘If that person doesn’t tolerate the drug and goes back to their GP, the GP might have to say, “Your risk isn’t high enough to have the next drug” – and frankly, that is just bad medical practice. It defies logic.’
The science conference in Guildford, Surrey, also heard that thousands of osteoporosis patients in England and Wales are being denied the cuttingedge drug zolendronic acid
It has passed the safety checks for use in Britain and has been prescribed in Scotland for about 18 months. But NICE is not due to evaluate it for NHS use in England and Wales for three years, the conference heard.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1211754/Restrictions-prescription-osteoporosis-drugs-defy-belief-says-leading-doctor.html#ixzz0QXDWvsNp
So, women in England with osteoporosis are being denied the best available medicine because they don’t have a high enough risk. I guess we can assume that if their condition gets worse, then they will be given the medicine they need. The reason why women aren’t being prescribed zolendronic acid (the best medicine for osteoporosis) is because it costs more money and the government can’t afford it. The drug then has to be denied and rationed because it’s too costly to give to all the women who would benefit from it. Why should we adopt a system like this in our country? Why would we want to be dependent on the government and only be given the medicine that they approve for us? Why should we listen to our liberal politicians who tell us a system like this will be good for us? Look at the government’s track record with Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. Why would a single-payer government system be any different?
Related posts:
- Sorry, No Health Care for You part 2
- What Gives Them the Right to Make Me Pay for Their Health Care?
- How Will Obama’s Health Care Plan Lower Costs?
- The Real Reason Democrats Want to Pass Health Care Reform
Click here to subscribe to Forgotten Liberty
Posted by: Liberty
Category: Government Incompetence, Health Care, Socialized Medicine
Tags: Government Rationing, Health Care, Obamacare, Socialized Medicine
Comments (8)
Charles
September 8th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
That may be true, but private health insurance companies are rationing care right now. My state is one of the national centers of insurance companies—a place like Providence, Rhode Island. I have a good friend who is a psychological therapist (Ph.D.). Without using names of course, he tells me that he has had over the years and now has numerous patients who are medical personnel that have worked or still work for private insurance companies. The reason he has them as patients is the fact that they have been emotionally devastated by the “health-care rationing” actions they are forced to take, like denying a medication to a dying child just to save money for the insurance company—and they are the ones who do the denying. They are morally convicted, ridden with guilt, and have been driven to the point that they cannot live with themselves and function as normal human beings. This is not fantasy. This is real.
I cannot say with any certainty that rationing would be any better or any worse under a public option health care plan. However, I do know for certain that rationing that kills people and destroys lives is going on in the private insurance industry right now, and it is real and widespread.
Liberty
September 8th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
I’m not familiar with the health insurance companies where you are in Tennessee, but I know I would much rather deal with a private insurance company than the government. With a private company you can sue… but you can’t sue the government. They make the laws and regulations so how can you fight that?
Matt
September 8th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Charles, you make the error, as does so many others, that we are in the pockets, or aligned with the insurance companies. I deal with them on regular basis. It’s a necessary evil. Reform is needed, there is no doubt. Giving it all to the government would make a bad situation worse. Given that the government uses a “one size fits all” approach, and routinely wasted hundreds of billions of dollars a year on Medicare and Medicaid, a government run system would be a complete disaster.
theLibertyPen
September 8th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
So if we have an accord that rationing is vial, let us fix this problem without re-designing the entire health care structure. No rational person with any real intellectual consistency would state that the government would run a better health care system.
patrioticdissenter
September 8th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
And don’t forget that if you don’t like your insurance plan, you can complain to your company, and if many complain, it can be changed. But if we’re forced under a government option, there is no changing, no appealing, no recourse – some panel beyond our reach will make our life and death decisions in the interest of saving money (or worse, they’re bankrupt). I, for one, do not trust the officials who have exempted themselves from the plan they impose on us.
jwruss
September 9th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Great points. Less government control= better health care.
VH
September 9th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Charles: In regards to health care, whether it is government run or more of a free-market system, they will all ration. The big difference b/w free-market and government run is that government run health care systems ration by decisions made by bureaucrats concerning budgets. A free-market system rations resources and services based on prices. By doing so, downward pressure is enacted on prices due to competition, reducing costs. An good example is laser eye surgery. Now our current HC system is certainly not a free market system as many suggest–it is heavily dominated by government mandates and intervention: So, what you see now as “private health insurance companies…rationing care right now” is an outcome of that fact. This something to keep in mind.
Lastly, I don’t believe that a public option (if it gets signed into law) will begin rationing right away but in 5, 10, 15 years as health care costs continue to rise and more people sign up for it, there will be no choice but to ration to contain rising costs. Then we will have something akin to the British NHS.
Charles
September 9th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Well guys, I have no idea what is going to shake out on this health care stuff. Whatever it may be, I doubt that the long-term prognosis will, in the end, be good for any of us.
Leave a reply