The Wall Street Journal reports, “Declining popularity of the health-care overhaul reflects rising anxiety over the federal budget deficit and congressional debate over the most contentious aspects of the legislation, including how to pay for it. The poll also shows concern over the role of government in determining personal medical decisions.”
The New York Times reports, “President Obama’s ability to shape the debate on health care appears to be eroding as opponents aggressively portray his overhaul plan as a government takeover that could limit Americans’ ability to choose their doctors and course of treatment.”
Translation: Americans are really concerned that healthcare reform has moved from the “first principle” of providing insurance to the uninsured to a big power grab that would turn Uncle Sam into Uncle Sam, MD.
And concern is most definitely warranted.
Nowhere is this more important then when it comes to the issue of comparative effectiveness. Current legislative drafts generally refer to “clinical effectiveness” – a more appropriate term. But, when you peel back to onion what most pro-big government advocates mean is “cost effectiveness.” These terms are not (nor should they be) interchangeable.
For more on this issue, have a look at the Reuters “Great Debate page. The relevant article is, “In determining healthcare cost, one size doesn’t fit all.”
