The Prez Gets His Ration-Man

President Obama, complaining about phantom efforts to stall Dr. Berwick's appointment to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS) simply installed him to the post while the Senate is out of town for two weeks. It isn't just Republicans that are outraged by the president's maneuver.

"I'm troubled that, rather than going through the standard nomination process, Dr. Berwick was recess-appointed," said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Montana Democrat. The Senate confirmation process, he added, is a check on executive power and "ensures that crucial questions are asked of the nominee - and answered."

The truth is that Republicans were pushing for a nomination hearing for Dr. Berwick, it was the Democrats that were stalling. They were stalling to keep the American people in the dark about the policies Dr. Berwick advocates and that their "health care reform" will make inevitable.

Dr. Berwick's views:

In 2009 Dr. Berwick told Biotechnology Healthcare: "NICE is extremely effective and a conscientious and valuable knowledge-building system. ... The decision is not whether or not we will ration care - the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open."

NICE is the rationing board in Britain's National Health Service. He goes on to explain why a rationed system is superior to our market-based model:

“Please don’t put your faith in market forces,” he said (italics in original). “It’s a popular idea: that Adam Smith’s invisible hand would do a better job of designing care than leaders with plans can. I find little evidence that market forces relying on consumers choosing among an array of products, with competitors fighting it out, leads to the healthcare system you want and need. In the US, competition is a major reason for our duplicative, supply driven, fragmented care system.”

Berwick argued that purposely provided an inadequate supply of health-care—as Britain’s health-care system does—is superior to allowing the market to provide an excess.

“In America, the best predictor of cost is supply; the more we make, the more we use—hospi­tal beds, consultancy services, procedures, diagnostic tests,” Dr. Berwick wrote. “… Here, you choose a harder path. You plan the supply; you aim a bit low; you prefer slightly too lit­tle of a technology or a service to too much; then you search for care bottlenecks and try to relieve them.”

What results can we expect from intentionally limiting the supply of health care?

Britain, has one of the lowest cancer survival rates in the Western world. While 60.3% of men and 61.7% of women in Sweden survive a cancer diagnosis, in Britain the figure ranges between 40.2% to 48.1% for men and 48% to 54.1% for women. And NICE's rationing has not just hit cancer patients. Doctors have warned that patients with terminal illnesses are being made to die prematurely under the NHS rationing scheme. And according to the Patients Association, one million NHS patients have been the victims of appalling care in hospitals across Britain.

Considering his championing of NICE's rationing policies, Dr. Berwick is the perfect person to supervise the $500 billion in cuts to Medicare that are mandated by our new health care law. It's a shame that Democrats by avoiding an open debate about the effects of their takeover of our health care system are keeping the American people in the dark.

Seniors should know that in Obama's America you better not get sick, because to paraphrase the Soup Nazi, "No medical care for You!".

Hatch amendment

Senator Hatch from Utah proposed to amend the health legislation making its way through the finance committee to protect Americans access to health care plans they enjoy. Remember, President Obama has repeatedly stated that if you like your current health care you have nothing to worry about. The text of the amendment: "The purpose of this amendment is simple. If the secretary of Health and Human Services certifies that more than 1 million Americans would lose the current coverage of their choice because of this bill, then this bill would not go into effect.
It seems like a very, very simple but perfect amendment for those of us who have integrity. This amendment is simply trying to safeguard President Obama's pledge to the American people, you'll get -- that you will get to keep what you have.".

Democrats defeated the amendment. It seems clear that the democrats know that this legislation is going to cause millions of Americans to lose their private insurance and be forced on the government plan. The Democrats who voted to strip you of your health care coverage and subject you to rationed care are: Rockefeller (WV), Conrad (ND), Bingaman (NM), Kerry (MA), Lincoln (AR), Wyden (OR), Schumer (NY), Stabenow (MI), Cantwell (WA), Nelson (FL), Menendez (NJ), and Carper (DE). The democrats are looking out for their interests of ever bigger government, not yours. If you end up waiting months to see a doctor as they do in Canada and Britain that doesn't trouble them in the least. They have already voted to ensure that they will never be subject to the government plan.

Our future under Obamacare

There has been much hand-ringing and tut-tutting about Sarah Palin's use of the term "death panels". Here is a story from Britain, which is a model that democrats' think worth emulating.

From the Daily Mail:
Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days too early, his devastated mother claimed yesterday.
Sarah Capewell begged them to save her tiny son, who was born just 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy - almost four months early.
They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical treatment.
Miss Capewell, 23, said doctors refused to even see her son Jayden, who lived for almost two hours without any medical support.
She said he was breathing unaided, had a strong heartbeat and was even moving his arms and legs, but medics refused to admit him to a special care baby unit.
Miss Capewell is now fighting for a review of the medical guidelines.
Medics allegedly told her that they would have tried to save the baby if he had been born two days later, at 22 weeks.
In fact, the medical guidelines for Health Service hospitals state that babies should not be given intensive care if they are born at less than 23 weeks.
The guidance, drawn up by the Nuffield Council, is not compulsory but advises doctors that medical intervention for very premature children is not in the best interests of the baby, and is not 'standard practice'.
James Paget Hospital in Norfolk refused to comment on the case but said it was not responsible for setting the guidelines relating to premature births.
A trust spokesman said: 'Like other acute hospitals, we follow national guidance from the British Association of Perinatal Medicine regarding premature births.'
Miss Capewell, who has had five miscarriages, said the guidelines had robbed her son of a chance of life.

Being born two days earlier than the bureaucrats deemed worthy of treatment cost that child a chance at life. It is inevitable that health care rationing will lead to the same results when it is instituted here.