Will Obama’s Proposed Medicare Changes Lead to Health Care Rationing?

Will Obama’s Proposed Medicare Changes Lead to Health Care Rationing? January 27, 2015
Photo Source: Flickr Creative Commons by David Shankbone https://www.flickr.com/photos/shankbone/
Photo Source: Flickr Creative Commons by David Shankbone https://www.flickr.com/photos/shankbone/

President Obama has an ambitious new plan to overhaul Medicare. Specifically, he wants to start paying doctors based on the health of their patients, rather than the number of patients they see and the treatments they give.

One rather obvious problem with this plan is that it would pay doctors to avoid treating really sick people. Since Medicare provides care for the elderly, this is questionable, at best.

Another question that comes to mind is the simple fact that this sounds like it is moving Medicare toward a managed care model. Will that lead to refusal of expensive care for elderly people? I see this as a real pro life concern.

It is important to note that the President is doing this by agency regulations and without even consulting Congress. Congress has abdicated its Constitutional authority in order to constantly jockey for position in the next election cycle. Meanwhile, the President reigns as an unelected dictator.

To read more, go here:

How Obama’s $3 Trillion Health-Care Overhaul Would Work

HHS goal: 30% of Medicare payments to be tied to quality of care provided by 2016

The Obama administration wants to dramatically change how doctors are paid. 


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

20 responses to “Will Obama’s Proposed Medicare Changes Lead to Health Care Rationing?”

  1. Gee whilikers…not something to look forward to but to prepare for. ^^

    Your comment about Obama being “an unelected dictator” is spot on but sadly, as much as I am proud to be an American, we do get what we vote for. I still do not understand why but folks shooed him in…

    • One thing we need to remember Gordis is that Congress has abdicated their responsibility. I meant it when I said that all they do is position themselves for the next election. Congress does not seem interested in doing the job they were elected to do at all.. That has allowed this situation of the imperial presidency to develop.

      • Yes, I agree with you on Congress dropping the ball on us, the ones who pay their salaries. And yet, it seems we have allowed it to happen as well. I wonder and I ask because I want to know what you think Rebecca, have we just become too comfortable in our own homes? Have we just decided that as long as “I’m not affected” I can just get by?
        I have fallen for such an attitude especially since I do not care for the current commander-in-chief.

        • I think that the American people have tried, over and again, to change this dynamic. They’ve repeatedly gotten enough and voted the Ds out and put the Rs in, or voted the Rs out and put the Ds in. However, nothing changes.

          The reason is that both the Ds and the Rs we elect are just puppets of special interests. We don’t need to change the puppets, we need to cut the strings of the puppet masters.

          • Yep…thanks for sharing your opinion.

            I am going to enjoy a nice cup of coffee, say my prayers, and let the world go by…just for today at least. ^^

          • The only way our system of government works is when people voluntarily obey the law, take care of themselves, their families, community, state, then national obligations. We don’t have that any more. Benjamin Franklin said something about the difficulty maintaining our freedoms and John Adams said we’d be in trouble when the legislators figured out they could give away other people’s money. That’s what we’ve got.

  2. I worked for several years as an RN for the largest HMONG in the country. They practiced a kind of rationing equaled only in the UK, NHS. It took up to 11 months to get a specialist appointment. Patients never got the newest medication even when the older ones did not work and their condition was deteriorating. Surgery was of the last decade’s techniques an never the best, up to date equipment. The doctors and surgeons were good, it was the cost control measures that were draconian. That’s coming and that is what you are describing, Rebecca. So, get your cataracts operated now because they will eventually ration them so you can only have one eye done after you are blind.

  3. Most drugs have more bad side effects than they are worth. After a certain age if you agree to any invasive procedures you are just asking for nightmarish complications. Doctors are mostly in it for the money, drive by a few of their houses sometime. The people that live longest and most healthy never go to doctors.

    I have never been to a doctor unless forced to and regret those times.

  4. Health care is already rationed by the private insurance industry, based on the content of the patient’s bank account.

    America needs a universal public health insurance plan where health care is distributed based on the medical needs of the patient.

      • I mean like the universal health insurance in place in Canada or France or every other progressive, modern country on the planet. Medicare for everyone.

        having said that, looking at the proposed changes they look like exactly the kind of changes the system here in Canada could use; moving away from “fee for service” to “quality of care” basis for compensation would be more responsive to patient needs.

        • The U.S. is organized into independent states where each has a lot of authority to do a lot inside the state. That is what Vermont did. It is a small state, with a traditionalist, small, homogeneous population. Your idea did not work. It doesn’t work in European countries you so laud, either. Do you know that most Germans and Austrians and UK have private insurance so they can buy immediate insurance when the state program does not work, takes too long, etc? Canadians come to the U.S. routinely for care that would take them years to get done in Canada. They do lots of stents, heart surgeries, etc in Florida when Canadian snowbirds come down, have a little angina and are treated in 48 hours. The Canadians use us as a pressure valve and overflow.
          So, you have something against somebody who has about 12 years of post high school training making a good living. Did you know most doctors don’t get their student loans paid off till they are almost 50?
          The solution to this problem is to have the consumer be the customer, everybody buys their own insurance, low income people and those with pre-existing conditions could have some basic protections. This includes doing away with the Medicare boondoggle. Then, we could afford to help those who need it.
          Government insurance only leads to rationing with the rich being able to get whatever they want and the rest waiting in line.

      • That’s because it won’t work on a state by state piecemeal basis.

        From your own link:

        the Shumlin framework, which had gotten approval of the state legislature minus that key financing element, wasn’t really a true single-payer plan. Notably, large businesses that operate in multiple states would have been exempt. And it was unclear whether or how enrollees in federal plans like Medicare and TRICARE could be integrated into the state’s plan.

        • Hahahahaha! If it won’t work on a state level it can’t possibly work nationwide. You lefties never give up on your socialist dreams. Like I said, that was the most generous article on the topic. Google some others.

          • You’re missing the point; it can’t work on a state only level because of conflicts with other state systems; it’s not truly a single payer plan if businesses that operate in multiple states are exempted from participation. A patchwork system like the one you’re looking at in Vermont is not a universal single payer public insurance plan.

            Single payer systems work quite well in other countries.If you want to lower administrative costs, provide care on a timely basis to those who need it and prevent rationing it’s the most efficient option.

  5. Doctors were already being squeezed before Obamacare. They added people to the system, reduced doctor payouts, and increased documentation and other requirements. Something has to give. Of course it will lead to rationing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.