Obama's healthcare plan won't solve our needs

President Obama has recently proposed a mammoth overhaul of the healthcare system of the United States. It would be wise for all citizens to consider the history of the United States in the last 30 or 40 years regarding various programs from Washington before making a positive or negative judgment on this healthcare proposal.

In 1966, President Lyndon Johnson and Congress approved what was called the Medicare Program. This program, while criticized in many ways, has allowed coverage of senior citizens and withstood the test of time. The program expanded by accepting dialysis patients several decades ago: the program has contracted in other ways, but in general, this has been a very satisfactory program. In 1993, there was an attempt by President Clinton, led by his wife Hillary, to modify Medicare; this failed. In 2003, President Bush, with congressional approval, generated an act called the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. In my opinion, this was a definite step backward. Healthcare companies were allowed into the healthcare sector for elderly patients and could promote private policies. These policies are greatly advertised on television and through the mail. The healthcare companies have modified greatly what was originally intended with Medicare.

As of this moment, there are several patients in Tuomey Healthcare System who, unknowingly, signed out of original Medicare into one of these plans and signed out of any coverage for nursing home care. These elderly patients were misled or high-pressured by various salesmen and unknowingly signed out of nursing home benefits. Some of these patients have stayed at Tuomey for more than 30 days because of the absence of nursing home care. In several cases, the patient's children do not understand how the parent could sign out of these plans. So I suggest asking the salesmen who sold the elderly patients these plans.

Several years ago, under George Bush, there was a suggestion that retirement program under Social Security be made more flexible to allow senior citizens to invest in the stock market and 401K programs. If this had happened and been passed by Congress approximately five or six years ago, and had been accepted by many seniors as it probably would have been, just imagine what the Social Security check would look like. If you were originally receiving $1,200, at this time you would probably be receiving $600 or $700. How is that for an adjustment in income? So, if you take risks, you can lose; 401Ks in general are way down.

Now at the present state, healthcare in the United States is certainly high-priced. There is no question about it. Let's take an example from our neighboring country, Canada, which has a nationalized program. Patients from Canada frequently come to the United States for care. They come to the University of Rochester and even one recently to Providence Hospital. The patients usually have heart disease and suffer with chest pain. The usual care in Canada is a visit or two to the physician, and they receive various medications for heart disease which are appropriate. Some of these patients actually, however, are sicker than just needing just medication. So, they eventually end up in the USA, receive a heart cath, get a bypass or angioplasty. These patients in general have delayed cardiac treatment because of the Canadian system of rationing. Locally, heart patients comes to the Tuomey emergency room who have no health insurance. Two recent patients suffered with chest pain and received appropriate medicines and also were referred immediately to Providence or Palmetto Richland. Within 24 hours, they received either angioplasty or bypass; there was no delay. These two centers in Columbia have received our patients over many years, and the physicians know that we send them patients who are fully insured, and we also send some who have no insurance. These patients receive immediate care; this is very much unlike the care given a Canadian patient.

So let's compare the two systems as we in the United States embark on what we call total coverage. The Canadian patient was fully insured; his care was inadequate in Canada; in fact, he was neglected. He finally had to spend more money and come to the USA for proper care. The patient who came to the Tuomey emergency room was uninsured and had no insurance at all, but he was properly cared for; he was not neglected. He received immediate attention in Columbia. He continues to live; all of his care was appropriate and prompt.

There are even other variations in national healthcare available in our world. If you will ask Dr. Win Myat, infectious disease specialist at Tuomey, what goes in Burma, he will tell you this. They have a national healthcare system, and everyone gets appropriate baseline care. However, if you want to receive specialist treatment or bypass treatment for heart disease, you must bribe someone to receive this care. If you are not wealthy, then the care is not given.

In the USA, we have our problems. I personally am not convinced that national healthcare as proposed from the White House at this time is going to answer our needs appropriately. It may answer some needs, but I just have disbelief that it is the final answer.

PHIL BRANDT, M.D.
Sumter