Change The Definition of Cancer To Reduce ObamaCare Costs?

Posted on October 1, 2013


So, rather than defund or even delay the worse than useless Uaffordable Affordable Health Care Act, Obama and the Democrats have decided to allow a partial shut down of the government. Big deal! It’s one way to reduce deficit spending. Not everybody is happy about the shut down. Most notably are some government employees who take exception to being called UNESSENTIAL. By way of Flopping Aces, quoting from the Washington Post, we learn:

Furlough 1So, here we are. Because  President Obama and the Democrats do not want to admit that ObamaCare is an unmitigated disaster, they prefer to shut down the government and withe the help of their media lap-dogs, try to convince the American public that it’s all the fault of those nasty tea bagger Republicans. But, here is the thing, folks. Everybody with a brain cell functioning knows that ObamaCare will result in higher health care cost for less health care service. And, that includes Mr. Obama and his administration. But not to worry. They are working diligently to find ways to reduce ObamaCare costs. As reported by Poor Richard’s News (H/T to BadBlue Uncensored News), one of the ways they plan to reduce ObamaCare cost is __  Are you ready for this? __ is to change the definition of cancer. They have decided that those types of cancer that aren’t immediately life threatening should be called something else and patients that want treatment for those types of not really cancer cancer will have to wait and/or pay more out-of-pocket to get this now unessential health care service. Poor Richard’s News quotes from this Forbes article:

The federal government wants to reduce the number of Americans diagnosed each year with cancer. But not by better preventive care or healthier living. Instead, the government wants to redefine the term “cancer” so that fewer conditions qualify as a true cancer. What does this mean for ordinary Americans — and should we be concerned?

On July 29, 2013, a working group for the National Cancer Institute (the main government agency for cancer research) published a paper proposing that the term “cancer” be reserved for lesions with a reasonable likelihood of killing the patient if left untreated. Slower growing tumors would be called a different name such as “indolent lesions of epithelial origin” (IDLE). Their justification was that modern medical technology now allows doctors to detect small, slow-growing tumors that likely wouldn’t be fatal. Yet once patients are told they have a cancer, many become frightened and seek unnecessary further tests, chemotherapy, radiation, and/or surgery. By redefining the term “cancer,” the National Cancer Institute hopes to reduce patient anxiety and reduce the risks and expenses associated with supposedly unnecessary medical procedures. In technical terms, the government hopes to reduce “overdiagnosis” and “overtreatment” of cancer.

How clever is that? By changing a definition, the administrators of ObamaCare are making a decision that should be made between the patient, the doctor, and the insurance company. And, if they can change the definition of cancer, how many more ailments can they  redefine? I agree with the author of the article:

And why would the Obama administration want to re-define cancer?  Because starting tomorrow, Obamacare will begin subsidizing millions of Americans’ health insurance, and cancer tests and treatments are expensive.

This is nothing more than a back-door, roundabout form of rationing.  It has nothing to do with improving health care or saving lives and everything to do with bureaucrats picking and choosing who gets what tests and treatments.

It is plain and simply rationing of health care. And, at some point, rationing becomes a death sentence. So, in the opinion of your humble observer of the asylum we all have to live in, the House Republicans should go back to their original proposal to defund ObamaCare and each time the Senate sends the bill back to the House, they should just change the date and return it to the Senate. Keeping the government in partial shut-down may be a godsend.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

About these ads
Posted in: ObamaCare