URGENT ACTION NEEDED!
Stop the Senate From Sneaking Socialized Medicine into the Budget Today
Contact your Senators NOW – the vote could come any time
[SCROLL DOWN TO BOTTOM OF PAGE TO POST YOUR COMMENTS]
The Senate is voting on amendments to the Budget Bill even as we send out this message, and there is one extremely important vote later today that could help stop socialized medicine from becoming the law of the land.
Sen. James DeMint (R-SC) has offered the “Healthcare Freedom Amendment, SA 853, that would prohibit the government from forcing you into “government-managed, rationed health care.”
WE CANNOT LET THIS OPPORTUNITY SLIP AWAY
Just yesterday, the Senate voted down an amendment from Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) that would have thrown a big roadblock in the way of any plans for government rationing through “Comparative Effectiveness Research,” or CER. That was defeated along party lines.
CALL YOUR SENATORS RIGHT NOW TELL THEM TO VOTE “YES” ON THE “HEALTH CARE FREEDOM AMENDMENT,
SA 853 ON THE BUDGET.
The lines are extremely busy, so tell the receptionist you would like to leave a message with the staff member responsible for the budget. Tell them you support the Healthcare Freedom Amendment, SA 853, because it would strip out language that would open the door to socialized medicine. Leave your name and a phone number.
CONGRESSIONAL SWITCHBOARD:
(202) 224-3121
SCROLL TO BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE TO COMMENT ON THIS AMENDMENT OR THE BUDGET
TEXT OF SEN. DeMINT’S HEALTHCARE FREEDOM AMENDMENT, SA 853:
SEC. __. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT DECREASES THE NUMBER OF AMERICANS ENROLLED IN PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE WHILE INCREASING THE NUMBER ENROLLED IN GOVERNMENT-MANAGED, RATIONED HEALTH CARE.
(a) In General.–In the Senate, it shall not be in order, to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that decreases the number of Americans enrolled in private health insurance plans, while increasing the number of Americans enrolled in government-managed, rationed health care (as determined by the Congressional Budget Office).
(b) Waiver.–This section may be waived or suspended only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(c) Appeals.–An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under this section.
SENATE VOTES ON HEALTHCARE RATIONING
Efforts to Oppose Defeated Along Party Lines
April 2, 2009 — The Senate had a flurry of voting on amendments to the Budget Bill yesterday, including one extremely important vote that could have helped to stop government rationing of medical care.
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) offered an amendment , SA 793, that would have thrown a big roadblock in the way of any plans for government rationing through “Comparative Effectiveness Research,” or CER.
The stimulus bill passed with $1.1 billion allocated for CER to compare the clinical outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of medical services. That money sets the stage for a health rationing bureaucracy.
Yesterday on the floor of the Senate, Sen. Kyl and his colleague Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) expressed their concern that CER would be used to justify rationing by comparing costs, rather than effectiveness. Sen. Roberts compared it to giving away the “golden ring” to bureaucrats.
The language of Sen. Kyl’s amendment was simple: it would have prohibited the government from denying care to patients just to save money based on CER studies.
The Senate will vote today on more than 200 amendments. They can’t even read all of them.
Kudos to Sen. Coburn as well as DeMint and Kyl. Dr. Coburn has introduced several amendments (so far unsuccessfully) to limit the massive new spending on healthcare, and force transparency of where the stimulus money is going. As expected, everything so far has been defeated down party lines.
What a way to run a country!
For what it is worth, the following was sent to Sens. Kyl and McCain (AZ) via their website contact forms:
I purposely do not have health insurance because no true catastrophic version is available at reasonable cost based on the health and practices of the individual. I do *not* want prepaid health care – which is what masquerades for “insurance”. I have for many years taken excellent care of my health and at age 64 have no chronic problems (BMI 18.0 and WHR 0.77). I take numerous preventative measures and monitor my own parameters via lab tests and at-home means. On those rare occasions when I choose to seek consultation with a physician – including what turned out to be a ureteral stone in January 2003 – I pay the agreed upon charges from my savings – always a reduced level because my payment eliminates insurance/government paperwork. This is the purpose of savings – “rainy day fund”, for the possible occurrence, and when coupled with evidenced based preventative measures is far more effective for my health and finances.
I do not want to be told by government that I *must* become part of some government managed system, which inevitably will become rationed because of the abuse such a system will experience by those who have little self-responsibility. I want to have a voluntary mutually beneficial relationship with whichever health care provider I choose (who decides to interact with me). Such a relationship is not the case under a government managed/controlled system where they exist, and it will not be the case in the US if Congress forces on citizens the current “universal” (government) health care ideas that some think are a boon for individuals.
From my readings, Sen James DeMint (R-SC) has offered the “Healthcare Freedom Amendment”, SA 853 that would prohibit the government from forcing citizens into “government-managed, rationed health care”. At the very least, this amendment is needed – though everyone would be better off in the long run if government would stay out of the relationship between physician (and other health care providers) and client, except for the ensuring of contracts and enforcing laws against fraud.
Senator Kyl’s amendment would have limited the group of who can determine the best plans for care based on science, but the group would have NO control over what a doctor and patient choose. Kyl’s amendment would interfere with the doctor’s ability to select the best treatment. Nowhere in the proposal would this group have any power to ration care, and therefore the amendment was soundly defeated. Read Senator Conrad’s explanation at: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=111-s20090401-10#sMonofilemx003Ammx002Fmmx002Fmmx002Fmhomemx002Fmgovtrackmx002Fmdatamx002Fmusmx002Fm111mx002Fmcrmx002Fms20090401-10.xmlElementm248m0m0m
What Senator Baucus wants is this: “There is immense waste in the American health care system–immense waste. Basically, it is because of practice patterns, it is because of the way we reimburse on volume and quantity, not quality.
“We have to move much more toward reimbursement; that is, paying doctors and hospitals on the basis of quality, not volume, and concepts such as bundling and medical home and health IT, which is in the budget, so we have information technology assistance to help, in several years, get to the point where we reduce health care cost.
“But another is, frankly, comparative effectiveness. We need to know the comparative effectiveness of drugs, procedures, medical equipment, et cetera, so we get the best, highest quality, and we, therefore, will probably know which ones will tend to cost more than others. Doctors can make choices, patients can make choices, and insurance companies can make choices as to which procedure, which drug makes more sense. Basically, it is up to the doctor to decide which way makes the most sense.
“Now, the effect of the Kyl amendment, as I understand, is, frankly, to say that you have to pay for a very costly procedure that somebody deems to be not only ineffective, it may be harmful, and you have to pay for it. That does not make sense. Rather, I think the Senator from Arizona agrees with me, we are trying to figure out a way to use comparative effectiveness to help doctors have more information, and hospitals more information, as to which works better, has higher quality, and works better when compared to something else.
“We are going to have to get into issues such as evidence-based medicine to help determine quality. Lots of concepts here that make a lot of sense. But I wished to say that whereas the intention–I somewhat understand the intention of the amendment, somewhat. I do not entirely understand the intention of the amendment.
“But the effect of the amendment is to say that a procedure–let me get this straight. The language does not curb growth in health care spending by using data obtained by comparative effectiveness. It says there can be a procedure determined to be totally ineffective or may be harmful, but it has to be used. The doctor has to use it. That does not make sense.
“I think it is a doctor’s choice as to whether, by looking at the various procedures, what makes more sense compared to something else, using the data we provide by this process. But that is still a doctor’s choice. That doctor, he or she, that doctor should decide which of these makes the most sense.
“Therefore, I think it makes much more sense, frankly, that this not be approved. It is not necessary. It kind of gets in the way.”
A careful reading on your part would have assured you of that, rather than your misinterpretation of the amendment and the proposals on the floor.
Furthmore, no one is sneaking socialized health care into the proposals in the Senate or the House. Again, you have been misinformed and are misleading the public. All the proposals are about insuring citizens. A public option for insurance is still insurance, not government health care. A public option for insurance would compete with private insurance, but would only have to make a modest profit, not the huge dividends that stock holders want from investments in private insurance plans. No one should make a profit by denying care to sick people as the private plans have done. They should exist for patient care, not share-holder profits. If they are willing to compete and make modest profits, they will do well because employers, employees, and unemployed will select their plans. If they are greedy at the expense of patients, then patients will have a reasonable insurance option. To do otherwise is immoral and shameful.