Comments on: Obama Is A Vulcan, Only He’s Tuvok not Spock http://www.frcblog.com/2009/12/obama-is-a-vulcan-only-he%e2%80%99s-tuvok-not-spock/ The Blog of Family Research Council Fri, 03 Feb 2012 06:28:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Rev Newt http://www.frcblog.com/2009/12/obama-is-a-vulcan-only-he%e2%80%99s-tuvok-not-spock/comment-page-1/#comment-2208 Rev Newt Mon, 07 Dec 2009 09:26:50 +0000 http://www.frcblog.com/?p=2277#comment-2208 Let's look at the facts and what the president actually said. Fact: the 100 year old's arrhythmia specialist initially thought a pacemaker was pointless, given the age of the patient. this is generally a reasonable supposition), and also reasonably when the specialist saw the robustness of this woman, he changed his mind. This is a good example of how good health care works -- specialists, GPs, and patients consulting and deciding on a sensible course. This is, by the way the approach used in Canada and Australia where doctors are free to focus on patients because they don't have to worry about a for-profit insurance bureaucrat denying care. Here is what our President said: "... end-of-life care is one of the most difficult, sensitive decisions we're going to have to make. <strong>I don't want bureaucracies making those decisions. </strong>" " We often make those decisions [to treat or not treat] by just letting people run out of money or making the deductibles too high or the out-of-pocket expenses so onerous that they just can't afford the care. "And those kinds of decisions between doctors and patients, and making sure that our incentives are not preventing those good decisions and that the doctors and hospitals all are aligned for patient care -- that's something we can achieve. We're not going to solve every single one of these very difficult decisions at end of life, <strong>and ultimately that's going to be between physicians and patients</strong>. " "Well, and that's a good example [the 100 year old getting the pacemaker] of where if we've got experts who are looking at this and they are advising doctors across the board that the pacemaker may ultimately save money, then we potentially could have done that faster. I mean, this can cut both ways. <strong>The point is we want to use science, we want doctors and medical experts to be making decisions that all too often right now are driven by skewed policies, by outdated means of reimbursement, or by insurance companies</strong>. And everybody's families I think have experienced this in one way or another. That's the reason we need reform right now. You have a problem with this reasoned, compassionate and supportive response? Let’s look at the facts and what the president actually said.

Fact: the 100 year old’s arrhythmia specialist initially thought a pacemaker was pointless, given the age of the patient. this is generally a reasonable supposition), and also reasonably when the specialist saw the robustness of this woman, he changed his mind. This is a good example of how good health care works — specialists, GPs, and patients consulting and deciding on a sensible course. This is, by the way the approach used in Canada and Australia where doctors are free to focus on patients because they don’t have to worry about a for-profit insurance bureaucrat denying care.

Here is what our President said:

“… end-of-life care is one of the most difficult, sensitive decisions we’re going to have to make. I don’t want bureaucracies making those decisions. ”

” We often make those decisions [to treat or not treat] by just letting people run out of money or making the deductibles too high or the out-of-pocket expenses so onerous that they just can’t afford the care.

“And those kinds of decisions between doctors and patients, and making sure that our incentives are not preventing those good decisions and that the doctors and hospitals all are aligned for patient care — that’s something we can achieve. We’re not going to solve every single one of these very difficult decisions at end of life, and ultimately that’s going to be between physicians and patients. ”

“Well, and that’s a good example [the 100 year old getting the pacemaker] of where if we’ve got experts who are looking at this and they are advising doctors across the board that the pacemaker may ultimately save money, then we potentially could have done that faster. I mean, this can cut both ways.
The point is we want to use science, we want doctors and medical experts to be making decisions that all too often right now are driven by skewed policies, by outdated means of reimbursement, or by insurance companies. And everybody’s families I think have experienced this in one way or another. That’s the reason we need reform right now.

You have a problem with this reasoned, compassionate and supportive response?

]]>