FACT CHECK NO. 4: ‘Comparative Effectiveness’

The above example shows a preview of how healthcare would change. At all major university hospitals, VA, etc. evidence based medicine is used to determine the course of treatment. Patients are assessed by risk factors such as age, weight, etc in determining if a certain course of therapy is beneficial. There is no way a "scientific" panel of government experts would every recommend a pacemaker for a 100 year old. Therefore I guess under social healthcare we would have to tell that family sorry there is nothing else we can do. The doctor/surgeon would have to spend numerous hours appealing to the panel for this type of treatment

"...Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, a practicing doctor. He sees a government hand in determining the best practices for health care leading to the rationing of care to what the government thinks is best and not what doctors want for their patients."

Gee, Tom, why haven't I heard any complain from you about high school graduates working for insurance companies being the ones who decide whether or not to deny procedures now?

I taught a high school student who had to drop out of sports and spent her entire senior year in pain when she had to carry books because dad's cheap insurance company wouldn't approve a second shoulder operation.

She's a gifted and talented student but the pain was so much that she skipped college and went right to a government job at NSA after graduation so she could get good insurance that would pay for her problem even though it was "pre-existing".

Speak out about that FIRST: it's happening NOW. Then we can talk about possible government "rationing".

I find it ironic that Obama would use this tactic. Insurance companies are known for NOT giving treatment to a patient because of costs. The same thing would be happening here with the Government - just instead of the guise of "insurance company not paying" it would be "the Government doesn't deem it necessary" - leaving the patient and doctor out of the decision. It's simply a cost saving measure and Obama is using words like "experts" - funny, insurance companies use the same terms on there Medical Advisory Boards.

By they way, some of these posts are totally unrelated to the subject. One post about the girl skipping college to get good insurance working for the NSA - what exactly does that have to do with Congressmen Coburn's concern about doctors and patients not having the ability to do what they think is best.

The different between a PRIVATE insurance company denying coverage and the GOVERNMENT denying coverage under HR-3200, you have recourse with the Private Insurance. Under the Private insurance you can go out and pay for the second operation on your own, under HR-3200 you can not,it would put you outside the law, second you can drop that company and buy a from someone else under HR-3200 you will be forced under the Government program. So those who believe that HR-3200 or any other bill coming out of the liberal congress and senate is better are bigger fools then those voting for Obama for President.

Actually the post about the girl with the shoulder is on point. She was denied a necessary procedureby whoever worked for the insurance company based on God only knows what reason. In other words, rationed care is here now. The difference is that you could- and she did- get the surgery, either through changing insurance companies or self paying. Under single payer there would be no other option. She would still be in pain.