I realize the Healthcare Reform Act has been very controversial. Some love it, some hate it, some support the idea but feel it needs revision. It is certainly being brought up a lot in the current campaign year. People have the right to their own opinion, but what really irks me is the constant misrepresentations of what the bill actually says. Political ads constantly bombard the public with half truths and sometimes outright lies to sway the public towards their candidate. Since so many people make their decision on those ads alone, and not on the reality of the candidate's true record or principles, I wanted to throw in my two cents on a few points as an example of how the truth can be distorted.
First thing, is I do want to make comment on the journalistic abilities of Fox News. It is not just because Glenn Beck is on my top ten list of men in the world most deserving of a thorough ass whooping, but I have issues with the station as a whole. Fox News was bought by noted conservative newspaper man, Rupert Murdoch solely for the purpose of pushing a hard core right wing agenda. They have no interest in the truth or providing non-biased information and often broadcast information that is blatant lies. If one is looking for the most objective reporting available, The Christian Science Monitor has long been noted for this, surprisingly enough. Even Oscar the Grouch's grouchy girlfriend on Sesame Street said she was going to watch Fox News because "now that's some really trashy news." I played that over numerous times on the TiVo to make sure what I was hearing was correct, and yes, the writers at Sesame Street went that far out on a limb. They helped to propagate the whole "death committee" rumor which never existed to begin. If done in error this shows the signs of very incompetent journalism. If done on purpose it is apparent this was reported with a great deal of intent of malice. The rumor initially propagated by a republican politician whose name escapes me put forth the statement that Medicare recipients would be required at regular intervals to meet with a committee to discuss their plans on how they intend to shorten their lives and prevent unnecessary medical expenses. There was never anything close to this proposed, but when Fox News and Sara Palin got word of this work she wrote to the story and ran with it. What really was suggested was to offer Medicare recipients "end of life" counselling, but it was never mandated. End of life counselling addresses issues such as designating a power of attorney, writing a living will or advance directive, etc. These are issues that do need to be addressed, and probably long before someone reaches the age where one can qualify for Medicare. Many families and providers have been put in a quandry when an incompetent patient without a power of attorney demands to return to an unsafe situation. Most famillies do not have the thousands of dollars needed to hire an attorney to start the process to declare a family member incompetent. Either way the process takes weeks, forcing providers to send these patients home. Many patients die as a result. Having a designated power of attorney to speak for the patient may result in the patient placed in a safer setting. In the long run, this could end up costing the system more, not less as implied by the "death committee" principal. I am not sure if the end of life counselling was dropped from the final product but do believe people are often too quick to act and make assumptions about something without really reading what the clause actually says. This type of behavior can have dangerous consequences in the long run.
My biggest area of contention is the constant barrage of political ads that distort that truth of a given candidate's opponent by taking certain clauses out context and twisting them to mean something completely different than the truth. I have seen far too many ads recently that stated that supporters of the Health Care Reform Act are giving out millions of dollars in health care to illegal aliens. Much of this stemmed from the initial version that did not have a clause in it that specifically stated that illegal aliens (or undocumented persons, or whatever term is the term du jour) were to be excluded in this plan. It did not state that illegal aliens were to be included in the plan either. It is very easy to take the phrasing of the act out of context and state that supporters of the bill are throwing dollars at illegal aliens for health care. That does not make it true.
I work in a setting where a large percentage of our patients are uninsured and have lived in area of the country that played host to large populations of migrant workers at certain times of the year. Tuberculosis runs rampant in these populations as does diabetes. Dental problems are a huge issue. HIV and syphilis are an increasing problems. With the exception of dental caries, these are communicable diseases that could get passed on to American citizens. But they are not monsters, they are humans, and yes, they too need medical care sometimes. These people do not receive health insurance from their employers. The American people need to stop bickering about who is giving money to illegal aliens for health care and who is not and face the fact-
We always have covered the cost of healthcare for illegal aliens, we continue to cover the cost of their care and as long as they are living in this country we always will. These people simply do not crawl in a hole and die when they get diabetes, they go to the ER. They do the same for TB, pneumonia of any other malady they suffer from. There are some areas where clinics have been set up to address their health problems but for a large percentage of them, they end up as high end utilizers going to the most expensive place possible to receive health care because it is the only place they can go when they do not have the money to pay for their care- the ER. Federal law forbids hospital ER's from turning patients away just because they do not have insurance. If they need inpatient care and there is a bed available the hospital must admit the patient or the hospital faces some hefty penalties. If there are no beds, the hospital pays at its own expense to send the patient to the nearest hospital that does have a bed. That law applies to every patient who walks in the hospital doors, citizen or not. Even without those laws, the Hippocratic oath does not only apply in cases of resident aliens and citizens and any physician who refuses to care for a patient because that patient is an illegal alien should have his license revoked.
Of course, the other issue is that doctors never walk into the exam room with the patient and start out the interview with "So Mrs S, are you an illegal alien?" I have never asked a patient of mine if he/she was an illegal alien and would put down good money nor has the vast majority of the practicing physicians out there. We do not know, we do not care. We do not treat "Green Cards". We treat people.
So who pays all those ER bills? You do. Personally, I would rather pay for a $40 office visit to a family doctor but that would be "throwing millions to pay for medical care for illegal aliens." Those that oppose the Health Care Reform Act may have a lot of good reasons to be opposed to it. There are a lot of stipulations that are not popular and some things that may not be the best option for the nation. Not wanting to pay for medical care of illegal aliens is not a good one. Repealing the Health Care Act would result in the taxpayer covering a $600 ER bill rather than a $40 clinic bill. Why? Is it because one does not want it "on the books" that illegal aliens can access health care. Doctors and hospitals are still going to treat our patients, whether they are illegal aliens or not. We have an ethical duty to do so and a federal statute (EMTALA Act) that requires it. Let the Tea Party say what they will. We would still be paying for health care for illegal aliens, just a WHOLE lot more.
No comments:
Post a Comment