On July 14, 2009, the US House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee voted to support the greatest government expansion of health care since the passage of the Medicare bill in 1964 for those older than 62 years, providing all mature adults with health care insurance.
The committee, dominated by Democrast, refused any amendments offered by the Republicans. The bill represents a $1 trillion dollar plus expansion of health care that the Congressional Budget Office says will not reduce the costs of health care nor cover all those without insurance (AP. David Espo. CBO: senate bill $1 trillion over 10 years. June 15, 2009:).
The bill contains a provision for the elimination of all private insurance as first pointed out by Investor's Business Daily (IBD): (It's not an option. July 16, 2009:): “Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of the year the legislation becomes law.” The Lewin Group, a nonpartisan health care analysis group, predicted that 88 million Americans could lose their employer-based health insurance, yearly premiums would rise up to $460/person to cover cost shifting stimulated by this plan, and physician's net income would fall by 6.3% or $18900 per doctor under this public option (IBD. Specifics please. July 24, 2009:).
Three hundred pages were added to the bill at midnight before any congressperson had a chance to read the bill for the next day's committee meeting. The exact same scenario occurred before passage of an economic stimulus bill that no one had a chance to read before its final passage. This behavior on the part of our elected legislators is inexcusable and irresponsible. These congressional bills will cost the American taxpayer trillions of dollars.
There were also parts of the bill that suggested that payment for services of the aged may be withheld. All of this information is being suppressed by the press and withheld from discussion as the plan is rapidly rushed through Congress to be passed.
Immediately after the announcement of the bill, the American College of Surgeons, representing the surgical specialists in the United States, endorsed the legislation. The American Medical Association (AMA), the largest medical organization in the United States, representing almost 30% of all doctors in the United States, endorsed the bill. The AMA had opposed the establishment of a government-sponsored public insurance policy for weeks. Why did the AMA reverse course?
The 2 major neurosurgical societies in the United States, The American Association of Neurosurgical Surgeons (AANS) and Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS), were the only major specialty organizations to oppose the legislation. The leadership of both societies opposed the bill on principle.
I applaud the stance taken by the AANS and CNS in defending the interests of American neurosurgeons by opposing the socialization of medicine by the government. When faced with the important choice of principle or politics, the AANS and CNS chose principle. I am proud to be a member of these societies that have taken such a stance. My guess is that most if not all neurosurgeons in the United States agree.
FULL TEXT