Is This Really the Kind of Health Care You Want?
Wednesday, September 2nd, 2009 By Marc KilmerA New York Times article on the liberal push to support President Obama’s health care “reform” mentioned this:
Other people were stoked by personal causes that seemed in some cases only peripheral to a broader societal debate.
“I’m out here if it will help one more kid get medication,” said Johari Ade-Green, 58, of Denver, who was holding a sign with a picture of her grandson, Zumante Lucero, who died in July at age 9 from complications of asthma. Her grandson had insurance under Medicaid and Social Security, she said, but through a mix-up was denied medication.
It’s undeniably tragic that this child died, especially when it sounds like his death could have been prevented. But didn’t anyone there notice that this child died while on Medicaid? That it was a mix-up on the part of government health care that killed the child? Maybe I’m biased (OK, I’m certainly biased), but it seems this child’s story is a good reason why we should oppose an expansion of government health care, especially the government option that is so near-and-dear to the hearts of the people at this rally.
Tags: Health care, Medicaid
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:13 am
I am Zumante’s grandmother. The writer left out a crucial point while trying to use my grandson’s story as an argument for not expanding government healthcare. Let me be perfectly clear! My grandson did not die because he was on Medicaid. He died after being TERMINATED FROM IT!! People who are denied healthcare are in danger of dying. The current system is made up of nonsensical qualifications that one has to meet before being allowed preventative care. Had those barriers not been in place, my grandson, and others like him would be alive today. I support Universal Health Care. Please remember that when you tell Zumante’s story.
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:10 am
Thanks for your reply. It’s pretty common for reporters to leave out information when writing their stories so I appreciate you providing more information. Was your grandson terminated from Medicaid by a mistake? If so, it seems to me that speaks against the efficacy of government-run health care. Medicaid has a lot of flaws and we should not be trying to expand or replicate it through a so-called “public option.”
I agree that lack of access to health care coverage can result in tragedy. I want to expand access. I think we just disagree on the best way to go about that.
September 8th, 2009 at 1:41 am
Being originally from Sweden I can give you a laundry list of children who have died or been permanently damaged by a government-run health care system. I have chronicled some of this and other fatalities and injuries under single-payer in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, as well as my 2007 book “A prescription for 2008″ on health reform in the U.S..
Rationing of health care is usually not an explicit intention behind socialization of health care, although the current attempt by Obama and his Democrat friends in Congress does contain such an effort. Obama is on record stating that elderly should consider taking a painkiller instead of expecting treatment.
Rationing comes from the clash between the government’s sugarcoated promise of universal access and its pledge to contain costs. Since health care costs have risen twice as fast as household income over the past half-century, it is basically an arithmetic certainty that UNLESS THE GOVERNMENT PRIORITIZES COST CONTAINMENT your federal taxes will rise twice as fast as your income – for the rest of your working life.
Swedes today pay 12-14 percent income tax JUST for health care. And their rationing problems are appalling. I will be happy to chronicle this for an English-speaking audience anywhere, any time. If you want less egregeous, yet still shocking examples, then visit Fraser Institute’s website for the Canadian experience.
Under a government monopoly, which is a certainty with the “public option” currently discussed, you will eventually be denied state-of-the-art treatment. You will also be denied access to the best pharmaceuticals, as they cost money. (As Obama apparently knows, painkillers are less expensive.)
In Denmark they have closed a number of hospitals due to cost containment in the single-payer system. This has led to disturbingly long travel times for patients, even women in child birth. It has caused significant rationing problems and an increase in severity of medical conditions that doctors see; there is no longer any room for treatment of moderate conditions.
America’s edge in cancer survival over the single-payer countries will vanish (but consumption of painkillers will of course increase).
Finally – those who still believe that the government is a preferred provider of health care should immediately stand up and state, loud and clear, that they have never had any problems dealing with the DMV or any other government agency, local, state or federal. They should also consider the fact that a federal single-payer health care system (which is what the “public option” will lead to) would create not just America’s largest, but the world’s largest government bureaucracy.
Its budget would be six percent of the world’s economy.
Yes, six percent of the WORLD’S economy. In the hands of one, single federal government agency.
If you still want the “public option”, I can only assume that you love everything from Patriot Act II to the response to Katrina to the IRS with all your heart…