0 comment Friday, August 29, 2014 | admin
Nothing, that is, except one Dr. Donald Berwick, Obama's unchecked recess appointment, who now rapturously fondles the joy-stick of God while he strolls the halls of our nation's hospitals.
If you don't think Berwick and the federal government can and will come between you and your your doctor, return to Earth, educate yourself, and cast your vote.
All those in favor of covering "safe and effective" cancer treatments, say "aye."
All those in favor of covering "reasonable and medically necessary" cancer treatments, open wide and say "aaahhhhh."
And for all those who thought these two definitions were one in the same? Draw a Venn diagram where nothing overlaps.
The gap between "safe and effective" and "reasonable and medically necessary" is vast and ever-widening.
You think it's bad now. I know. I get that. But is it better to leap from the frying pan into an uncontrollable fire?
"Provenge" is a drug the FDA has ruled "safe and effective" for prostate cancer. Yet under Obamacare, it may not be covered. Why? Because the government says it may not be "reasonable and necessary."
When will the government decide if Medicaid will cover it? Oh, in about a year.
Next up is Avastin. The FDA long ago approved Avastin for breast cancer, namely because it was deemed "safe and effective." Yet, under Obamacare, it may not be covered, because it may not be "reasonable and medically necessary."
So who, you might intelligently ask, gets to decide whether a treatment is "reasonable and medically necessary" or "safe and effective"? Why, unelected, unaccountable, overpaid, power-hungry bureaucrats, that's who!
We've all met these friendly government folk before. They never tell us their names. It's always, "I'm Ms. Sue." or "I'm Mr. Smith." Ask them directly for their name and you'll get a helpful, "Why, I'm Mr. M. Smith," or "I'm Ms. Sue P." Whichever name is most common is the one they'll admit to.
And what, precisely, is "reasonable"? Well, it all depends . . . on the cost.
Make no mistake: under Obamacare, you and your doctor's decisions will be screened and subject to bureaucratic veto (and God only knows how long that process will take). There will be no accountability for these" bureaucratic decisions" (you've heard of sovereign immunity, right? It means you can't sue the government). What's more, you will have no right of appeal.
Whine all you want to about how broken is our system. I won't disagree. But if you think Obamacare is the fix and that things are about to get better, I've got a big "I told you so" bridge waiting for you.
And if you're harboring any hope that some future medical advance might save your life, abandon all optimism. Because medical research won't be happening under this anti-profit scheme regime.
P.S. If you think none of this will affect you because you have private health insurance, you're hopelessly naive. Private insurers will soon be out of business.
(h/t Doug Ross)