As time passes, more regulations contained within the health care reform bill, prejoratively known as Obamacare go into effect. For this reason, Virginia is pushing for a prompt review of the law by the United States Supreme Court rather than follow the normal appeals process, which could take a decade or more to complete. The U.S. Supreme Court justices seem to be content to let the normal process unfold and appear to be in no hurry to intervene and expedite a review.
Of course, we have every right to send our opinions on to the SCOTUS justices and if I highly encourage everyone to do so. In addition, every member of our Massachusetts congressional delegation should be contacted and encouraged to support a timely review for the benefit of all, whether you agree or disagree with the program. My position is, of course, in opposition to Obamacare and in support of free market solutions. This is what we have now: [From the article, "Health Care is not a Right" by Leonard Peikoff (1993), Updated with Permission by Lin Zinser (2007)
"In medicine, above all, the mind must be left free. Medical treatment involves countless variables and options that must be taken into account, weighed, and summed up by the doctor's mind and subconscious. Your life depends on the private, inner essence of the doctor's function: it depends on the input that enters his brain, and on the processing such input receives from him. What is being thrust now into the equation? It is not only objective medical facts any longer. Today, in one form or another, the following also has to enter that brain: 'The DRG [Diagnostic Related Groups] administrator [in effect, the hospital or HMO man trying to control costs] will raise hell if I operate, but the malpractice attorney will have a field day if I don’t–and my rival down the street, who heads the local PRO [Peer Review Organization], favors a CAT [Computerized Axial Tomography] scan in these cases, I can’t afford to antagonize him, but the CON [Certificate Of Need] boys disagree and they won’t authorize a CAT scanner for our hospital–and besides the FDA prohibits the drug I should be prescribing, even though it is widely used in Europe, and the IRS might not allow the patient a tax deduction for it, anyhow, and I can’t get a specialist’s advice because the latest Medicare rules prohibit a consultation with this diagnosis, and maybe I shouldn’t even take this patient, he’s so sick–after all, some doctors are manipulating their slate of patients, they accept only the healthiest ones, so their average costs are coming in lower than mine, and it looks bad for my staff privileges.’ Would you like your case to be treated this way–by a doctor who takes into account your objective medical needs and the contradictory, unintelligible demands of some ninety different state and Federal government agencies? If you were a doctor could you comply with all of it? Could you plan or work around or deal with the unknowable? But how could you not? Those agencies are real and they are rapidly gaining total power over you and your mind and your patients.
In this kind of nightmare world, if and when it takes hold fully, thought is helpless; no one can decide by rational means what to do. A doctor either obeys the loudest authority–or he tries to sneak by unnoticed, bootlegging some good health care occasionally or, as so many are doing now, he simply gives up and quits the field. (The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought, Ayn Rand, NAL Books, 1988, pp. 306-307)”
Click on the link above for the full article posted on the Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM) website, an excellent source of information regarding the harm and immorality of socialized medicine.
Imagine the dilemmas and choices your physician will face under new and expanded rules that restrict choice.
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
