Deadly Doctors? What It Means for Health Care & If It Will Happen

by alia_d | August 10, 2009 at 02:14 pm

945 views | 24 Recommendations | 8 comments

Will Obama's healthcare reforms create deadly doctors? New York Post writer Betsy Mccaughey, who coined the phrase "deadly doctors" certainly thinks so, as does Sarah Palin. Both argue that Obama's healthcare reforms will create "deadly doctors" by transferring the decision with regards to what treatment is best for patients from the hands of doctors into the hands of bureaucrats who want to save money.

In one of her most recent facebook statements, Palin even went so far as to liken Obama's healthcare plans to a death panel:

"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil," Palin wrote.

But will this really happen? Sometimes it hard to make sense of the issues surrounding the healthcare debate, as the Republican and Democratic parties bicker back and forth about "deadly doctors" and the like.

So, how exactly would Obama's healthcare reforms create "deadly doctors"? Under the current private system, the doctor can select any treatment for a patient, as long as the patient can afford it or has insurance that can cover it. However, under a national healthcare system or insurance program in which the government foots the bill, certain treatments might be restricted or not funded by the government so that the government can save money. New York Post writer Betsy Mccaughey argues that this may result in "deadly doctors" who have to choose who gets what type of care based on factors like their age.

Critics of the "deadly doctors" theorum say that the debate casts a shadow over a similar problem we already face: the private healthcare system already acts as a jury of sort by making it difficult for those with lower income levels to access the health care they need.

The problem "Deadly Doctors," and with both of these rants is that they imply that the health care reform currently moving through comments would ration health care, to the point of euthanasia. What's wrong with that view is there's already such a bureaucracy in place: it's called the health care industry.

The health insurance industry already doles out and denies care every day. Instead of hyperbolic headlines like "Deadly Doctors," how about "Deadly Health Insurance Coordinators?"

However, others have pointed out "deadly doctor" situations in other national healthcare systems.In the UK's national healthcare system, cost-saving on the part of bureaucracy leads the public system to refuse patients drugs that are deemed too expensive relative to their potential effectiveness. If the treatments offered by the public system do not work for the patient and they want a drug that the public system cannot pay for, they have to turn to the private system. If this is too expensive for them, then they have no other options.

What it comes down to? The "deadly doctor" debate presents a trade-off between the number of people who can access decent care for most healthcare problems and allowing a few rare cases to access expensive treatements for free.

Attaining an efficient, equitable, and effective healthcare system will not be easy and will involve trade-offs. No system can be perfect and America's current system is definitely far from where it needs to be. However, rather than ruling out a whole health care idea by focusing on "deadly doctors", perhaps it would be possible to learn from the flaws of public systems like that in the UK. The USA might be able to implement a better health care system by taking a look at specific situations in which doctors have been become "deadly" as a result of cost-saving decisions by the bureaucracy.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Sign In or Join to post comments

Barry ORegan

at 15:48 on August 10th, 2009

If Obama does that, will be charged with accessory to murder if a patient dies from an uncaring system implemented by his administration?

Rob Walker

at 03:18 on August 11th, 2009

That's ridiculous...in Canada we don't have 'doctors of death' and this entire idea is based on a fallacy: If your insurance doesn't cover it and you can't pay, you don't get that treatment anyway. So under the new plan, at least *most* people would get coverage.

"Deadly Doctors" is just a sound byte designed to scare people.

Albert Milliron

at 05:39 on August 11th, 2009

Rob,

No one is denied life saving health care in America. That is a fallacy as well. The problem comes when trying to pay back. Hospitals must stabilize a patient. If you have a heat attack you will get treatment. There are some limitations, in my case, i have excellent health coverage (same as congress) Still one medicine that could do me much better than what I am taking now is 800 bucks a month. My Insurance coverage pays half. 400 bucks is out of the question so I am using a lessor med. I don't think we have death doctors we have a system that is very expensive because of laws that compel doctors to pay 250,000 a year in Malpractice insurance. We have a lot of frivolous law suits that end up settling because trial, lawyers, cost tons of money.

My answer is Tort Reform, Change the frivolous lawsuit laws, Have Legal reform (that means everyone would get an OJ dream team defending them free (that is from the equal protection clause of the constitution) But since Democrats are mostly lawyers, get most of their finacial support from Big Pharma, and the health care industry, and insurance.... I doubt you will see health care reform that will actually save money.

What ius happening is both sides are fighting against each other rather then as a team. Dead lock in congress has been a problem for at least 10 years.

Folks like Pelosi and Palin are using scare tactics. Americans are tired of the fear tactics

Karen Hatter

at 19:11 on August 12th, 2009

Al, life saving health care is indeed denied, and often, to those without insurance.

A dear friend of mine, a self employed craftsman, after arriving at a local hospital emergency room, after several nights of being unable to breathe and in general distress, he was finally diagnosed with a congenital heart condition. Instead of the three valves usually present in the human heart, his heart had two valves.

He was informed of his condition, told he would die he did not have a replacement valve surgically implanted to replace the damaged one.

Then, he was told since he had no insurance, he would have to leave, with hospital security called to escort him out when he protested being ejected from the hospital.

Myself, other friends and family made calls for two days, without any leads or assistance from the hospital where he had gone, trying to get care for him.

Finally, Deborah Hospital agreed to do the surgery.

So, Al, if you mean, once you've been turned down for medical care, if you can have family and friends to lobby on your behalf and maybe get a teaching/investigational hospital to take the case, then no one is turned down for life saving health care.

Albert Milliron

at 05:28 on August 11th, 2009

We already have transfer of power in medical issues going on now. The insurance industry uses a Mean Length of stay criteria based on a diagnostic code. Soon as you hit the magic number the insurance company wants the patient out of the hospital. MLOS were never to be used definitively, they were to be a guide line for doctors. The same thing will happen with a government run program (and is now) At VA hospitals and other govt run programs. The question is, who do you trust more?

I am a big tort reform advocate, as health care reform should start at where the problems are. Malpractice insurance in America has caused our health care to sky rocket.. start there. Both Republicans and Democrats want Health reform it is just the angle we think is the best approach differs.

Angela Squires (not verified)

at 16:19 on August 12th, 2009

The Canadian system works pretty well. I have received excellent and timely care for cancer and heart disease. I am now healthy and my medication costs are covered because of my low income. If I had lived in the US I would not have been insured, in Canada I am covered by my Provincial Medical Plan. My ill health was not due to a bad lifestyle, just luck of the draw and heredity like most people. Doctors decide the treatment we get. Yes, there are coverage restrictions on experimental and unproven treatments but I would not even get standard treatment in the US! Also you pay way more for the same medical procedures and hospital stay than we do in Canada because of HMO's and the clinical profit factor as well as the cost of malpractice insurance. We may wait longer for non-critical surgery like hip replacement but if one desperately needs it one will get it pronto. The Republican fueled hysteria over Obama's health reform plan appears ridiculous to us! But then you think we are a socialist country - no way! I love the people of the Excited States but your governments are hard to take at times; how did they get so far away from the Constitution of Jefferson et al?

Rory Cripps

at 23:35 on August 16th, 2009

Jefferson had more to do with the Declaration of Independence than the U.S. Constitution. Federally funded health care is something new and wasn't even a consideration back in the days of Jefferson. You're right: America certainly did get far away from the constitution.

Thomas Jefferson did not sign the Constitution, nor was he present at
the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Neither was he present when the
First Amendment and religious freedoms were debated in the first session of
Congress in 1789, as he was out of the country in France as a U.S. Minister.
Due to his not being present to hear all the comments of the Founding
Fathers regarding the First Amendment, Thomas Jefferson had to rely on
second-hand information to learn what had transpired in that first session
of Congress. This rendered his letter to the Danbury Baptists (which was
written 13 years after the First Amendment) ineligible to be
a "first-hand" reflection of the intent of the constitutional delegates.

Graywalker

at 09:39 on August 19th, 2009

One of my problems with the whole "Debate" (and I use that word loosely) is that people are often talking apples and oranges. There are two major bills under consideration.

"ObamaCare" is H.R. 3200, "America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009", which does not create a Single Payer system, does not make everything 'government run' health care, doesn't make private health insurance illegal nor want to kill granny. It has 8 co-sponsors.

"Social Medicine" is H.R. 676, "United States National Health Care Act", which does create a single payer system and makes it illegal for private companies to offer the same coverage. This one has 86 co-sponsors.

I'm all for H.R. 3200. Its a great bill that does a LOT for the Nation as a whole. I just wish people would all get Informed and on the same page. Stop confusing the issue by thinking Obama wants One Plan for All (except congress). That is just silly.

Here is the way it works : Private Insurance Companies go to the Federal Government to sell their insurance policies - they put together plans, the Fed negotiates prices, the Employees (from Congress to Janitors) Pick what they want. With 1.8 Million employees (Not counting postal, http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htm) the Fed has a LOT of negotiating power.

So, If they force private insurance out of business, Congress won't have a Health Coverage Plan any more. So, yeah, they won't take the Public Option - but you won't have to either!!!! PERIOD.