Saturday, September 25, 2021
HomePatriot DispatchesFirst, Don't Do Too Much

First, Don’t Do Too Much

Is that the way the Hippocratic Oath goes?  Well, apparently the medical profession is becoming all-too-eager to hop on board with the Obama-Sebelius plan to give you a pain pill and send you out on the porch to contemplate your fate.

In a move that threatens to further inflame concerns about the rationing of medical care, the nation’s leading association of cancer physicians issued a list on Wednesday of five common tests and treatments that doctors should stop offering to cancer patients.

Joining the list of other professions – journalism, teaching, sociology, clergy – who are abandoning morals, ethics, discipline and common sense to get on board with the Obama Express, many medical professional associations nowadays are apparently doing their best to make up for the budgetary shortfalls that will accrue to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in the wake of the CLASS provision of the Act being abandoned by the administration, all of the waivers granted and the now likelihood that the individual mandate, at least, will be ruled unconstitutional.
But here is the question, the two or three trillion dollar question, of those who foisted this universal health care scheme on the nation and are moving mountains to keep it in place: If health care is a “right”, as everyone on the left side and far too many on the right side of the equation propose, then why is cost even an issue?
In reality, it’s not an issue for the left. That’s just a charade to appear to be responsible and conscientious about the expenditure of public funds in order to win over the “independents’, the “moderates”. If they could somehow push confiscatory tax rates nearer to the 100% level, no one would even be talking frugality.
When it’s all over, though, when the socialists prevail, it won’t be just a matter of frugality. Because universal health care, not “coverage”, for a nation of 310 million people is a pipe dream to the extent that it is expected everyone will be treated and cured of everything and live to the ripe old age of Methusaleh.

Somebody’s going to have to die, and now it seems, sooner rather than later.

bobmontgomery
Poor. No advanced degrees. Unorganized. Feeble. Disjointed. Random. Past it. .... Intrigued, Interested, Patriotic and Lucky.

4 COMMENTS

Leave a Reply

4 COMMENTS

  1. What the government does with the data is one issue, in particular the growing threat of politically motivated bureaucrats making blanket medical decisions for economic reasons.

    But what I read here is that clinicians have been conducting studies to determine efficacy of treatment. Futile treatments harm patients (primum non nocere), both with regards to quality of life and iatrogenic illness. Plus in a world of finite resources, wasteful medical expenditures diverts scarce resources – people and equipment and money – from more productive uses.

    So don’t shoot the messengers; rather, reform the royal court.

  2. If it were purely scientific, and not coming right in the middle of the Obamacare push for the last three years, and they didn’t go to the WH and dutifully put on the white coats, and if it didn’t conveniently coincide with Kathleen Sebelius’ directives and with other re-evaluations going on, I would bow to your analysis, civil.
    Also, the larger question is – who decides? Not only is it does the government get to decide, but it is also does the AMA or some other .org or Society or association,as a proxy for the government, get to decide? Always before, new methods, procedures, drugs, treatments were presented as trials and if they didn’t work , they were abandoned. For the last fifty years we have been told that medical science was making progress and lives were being saved. Has that been a lie?
    And finally, on the issue of cost. The meme today is “We can’t afford all this. It’s too costly.” Who is “we”?
    Your points have merit standing alone, but in the current context and with the media cabal rushing to put this stuff out there seemingly supporting everything Obama and his health and socialism czars have been pushing, I have to take it with a huge pile of salt.

  3. …along with a lemon and tequilla, I suspect.

    I certainly agree that we are in a toxic political climate (as I noted), and we certainly at a minimum need to be alert as to whether the ASCO leaders have put political spin in the executive summary, just as the ICCC politicos did in their executive reports. So I’m not advocating blind acceptance of “research” – these reports need critical examination.

    However, just because the left has embraced the doctrine that scientific truth must bend to political exigency, we mustn’t follow suit and deep-six research findings when they doesn’t advance our political objectives. If we abandon objective truth, then our politics devolve back to barbarism and ultimately who’s got superior firepower.

  1. What the government does with the data is one issue, in particular the growing threat of politically motivated bureaucrats making blanket medical decisions for economic reasons.

    But what I read here is that clinicians have been conducting studies to determine efficacy of treatment. Futile treatments harm patients (primum non nocere), both with regards to quality of life and iatrogenic illness. Plus in a world of finite resources, wasteful medical expenditures diverts scarce resources – people and equipment and money – from more productive uses.

    So don’t shoot the messengers; rather, reform the royal court.

  2. If it were purely scientific, and not coming right in the middle of the Obamacare push for the last three years, and they didn’t go to the WH and dutifully put on the white coats, and if it didn’t conveniently coincide with Kathleen Sebelius’ directives and with other re-evaluations going on, I would bow to your analysis, civil.
    Also, the larger question is – who decides? Not only is it does the government get to decide, but it is also does the AMA or some other .org or Society or association,as a proxy for the government, get to decide? Always before, new methods, procedures, drugs, treatments were presented as trials and if they didn’t work , they were abandoned. For the last fifty years we have been told that medical science was making progress and lives were being saved. Has that been a lie?
    And finally, on the issue of cost. The meme today is “We can’t afford all this. It’s too costly.” Who is “we”?
    Your points have merit standing alone, but in the current context and with the media cabal rushing to put this stuff out there seemingly supporting everything Obama and his health and socialism czars have been pushing, I have to take it with a huge pile of salt.

  3. …along with a lemon and tequilla, I suspect.

    I certainly agree that we are in a toxic political climate (as I noted), and we certainly at a minimum need to be alert as to whether the ASCO leaders have put political spin in the executive summary, just as the ICCC politicos did in their executive reports. So I’m not advocating blind acceptance of “research” – these reports need critical examination.

    However, just because the left has embraced the doctrine that scientific truth must bend to political exigency, we mustn’t follow suit and deep-six research findings when they doesn’t advance our political objectives. If we abandon objective truth, then our politics devolve back to barbarism and ultimately who’s got superior firepower.

Must Read