forgottenliberty.com

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

Congressman Spencer Bachus told the Tuscaloosa News that he believes Social Security will be running a deficit within two years.

TUSCALOOSA | Social Security could face a deficit within two years, according to U.S. Rep. Spencer Bachus who met with The Tuscaloosa News editorial board Tuesday.

“The situation is much worse than people realize, especially because of the problems brought on by the recession, near depression,” said Bachus, R-Vestavia Hills, in an interview with the Tuscaloosa News editorial board.

Bachus, the ranking member of the House Committee on Financial Services, said most people seem unaware of the impending crisis. He initially said Social Security could face “default” within two years, but his staff responded later saying the Congressman intended to say “deficit.”

“What this recession has done to Social Security is pretty alarming,” he said. “We’ve known for 15 years that we were going to have to make adjustments to Social Security, but we still thought that was seven or eight years down the road. But if things don’t improve very quickly, we’re going to be dealing with that problem before we know it.”…

…As for the looming Social Security crisis, Bachus said solutions are beginning to be discussed.

“We could raise the retirement age, or in the worst case, cut back on some benefits,” he said. “But that is something we are just now beginning to get a handle on.”

If the government can’t run social security, why should we trust them with our health care?  If Social Security benefits may be rationed (by raising the retirement age or cutting back on benefits), could a similar situation develop if the government ran health care?  When did Americans start thinking the government can solve all of their problems?

The Vancouver Sun is reporting that the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority is planning to cut back on the number of surgeries performed in the Vancouver Metro area.  The health authority is estimating that 6,000 surgeries (including neurosurgery, treatment for vascular diseases and other medically necessary procedures) will need to be scrapped to cover a budget shortfall of over 200 million.

According to the article ,

“…Vancouver Coastal — which oversees the budget for Vancouver General and St. Paul’s hospitals, among other health-care facilities — is looking to close nearly a quarter of its operating rooms starting in September and to cut 6,250 surgeries, including 24 per cent of cases scheduled from September to March and 10 per cent of all medically necessary elective procedures this fiscal year.

The plan proposes cutbacks to neurosurgery, ophthalmology, vascular surgery, and 11 other specialized areas.

As many of 112 full-time jobs — including 13 anesthesiologist positions — would be affected by the reductions, the document says.

“Clearly this will impact the capacity of the health-care system to provide care, not just now but in the future,” Dix said.

Further reductions in surgeries are scheduled during the Olympics, when the health authority plans to close approximately a third of its operating rooms.

Two weeks ago, Dix released a Fraser Health Authority draft communications plan listing proposed clinical care cuts, including a 10-per-cent cut in elective surgeries and longer waits for MRI scans.

The move comes after the province acknowledged all health authorities together will be forced to cut staff, limit some services and increase fees to find $360 million in savings during the current fiscal year.”

Why are many in our country pushing for a system similar to this?  How would you feel if

In my previous post, Sorry, No Health Care for You part 1 , I commented on Sen. Kennedy’s piece in NEWSWEEK.  I’d like to comment on another portion of it.  It is a point that has been getting a fair amount of attention recently.  Kennedy tries to skim over it, spin it heavily, and put it in the best light possible, but it is still there.  That point is the rationing of health care to the elderly.  The idea is that Grandma and Grandpa have had a long life, and since the resources of a government run health care system will be finite, it must, by necessity, limit the amount of money it spends on the elderly.  To state it plainly, health care for the elderly is too expensive for the government to pay for so they have to find ways of lowering the cost… or just get rid of the elderly.