Rational Health Choices Vs. Rationing Health Care

Every so often we get to read a gem of an article about health care rationing. This one came to me and it explores the political discussions being used by both parties about this very sensitive issue.

...If we must ration our care to hold down costs in the future, how can we do it in a fair, efficient and transparent way?

Why MUST we ration care? Because our leadless leaders tell us we must, that's why. They want to take away personal choice, they want the government to decide who gets treatment and who does not; they want to mandate what insurances will cover.

And what makes the fearless leaders, LEADERS in the first place? YOU AND I. Our votes.
What makes these leaders "experts" in the health care field and experts on all decisions related to health care? People they look to for information- groups and stand along ethics experts who want to push the far left agenda as far left and upward as they can.

Recall the political firestorm in 2009 when the Preventive Services Task Force recommended that women start regular screening for breast cancer at age 50 rather than 40. “This is how rationing begins,” said Representative Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican. “This is when you start getting a bureaucrat between you and your physician.” 

I've personally known over 20 women in my life who developed breast cancer in their 40's- eight of those women died because they waited TOO long to seek treatment. By the time they went to a doctor, the cancers had spread to the terminal stage. I believe our government, led by Obama, wants this to become the norm. After all, we have to ration health care right? Let's start with women who are over their child bearing years...and therefore no longer really useful to a society hell bent on providing quality health care for all. At cheap rates.

Does it make sense that older adults in their last year of life consume more than a quarter of Medicare’s expenditures, costing more than six times as much as other beneficiaries? Are there limits to what Medicare should spend on a therapy prolonging someone’s life by a month or two?

It all depends upon what the definition is for "older adult".  So a 50 year old man who develops pancreas cancer SHOULD have the OPTION, IF he can provide payment, for those extra two months of life...the 50 year old husband, father, uncle and friend might just want to live as many days as possible. The government has other plans for the people who have been given a few months to live.

Should our health care be based upon some balance sheet? Are our lives nothing more than projected sets of income vs. expense? When we leave it to a government to decide, then we become nothing more than a bunch of figures on a spreadsheet. When we keep it between patient and doctor, we remain human.

If we really want to decrease the amount we spend on health care, we need to make choices. Lifestyle choices. Medical care choices. We need to eat better, exercise more, drive safer; we need to stop demanding an MRI every time we bump our head or twist a knee or pull a back out of whack. Actually we should wear helmets more, stop doing stupid gymnastic moves when we're not gymnasts and use better body mechanics when we move.

Americans are LAZY. We have devices that keep us sitting all day: Remote controls for televisions, lighting, door locks, microwaves, fans, air conditioners, car starters...we don't have to get up to answer a ringing phone; we no longer have to walk a letter to the mail box; we don't have to go to the bank anymore to get cash...heck we pay most of our bills while sitting on our asses.

Americans need to take back their health and remain active and take better care of themselves. Use the devices less, get out into the real world more face to face. That alone would save billions in health care bills!

Until we, as a nation, do this, the government will make choices for us. Choices most people will not like when the time comes for a serious discussion over the value of life.