The latest version of the Grinches’ health care reform is a carbon copy of the rationing of health care that passed the House in November. The core and the heart is three sizes too small in both versions, and cuts costs by denying and rationing care, the most inhumane and unethical means of cutting costs. However, Washington’s Grinches have added a couple of “presents” to further harm all of us Whos.

The Grinches’ first “present” is to “allow” everyone in Medicare, or who will soon be in Medicare, to pay for a larger percentage of the costs of this beast. How special is that? The Grinches Obama, Pelosi and Reid have decided to cut Medicare by $500 Billion over ten years to pay for their reform package, even though millions more seniors will be on Medicare in ten years. Let’s look at the data that the Grinches refuse to acknowledge.

According to the United States Census Bureau:

1. 40 Million Americans currently are ages 55-64
2. 50% of those aged 55-64 have at least 4 or more health care visits per year
3. 42 Million Americans currently are age 65 or over
4. 35% of those over 65 have 3 or more chronic conditions
5. 29% of those over 65 are in fair or poor health
6. In 10 years 62 Million Americans will be 65 or over

So, in ten years an additional 22 Million Americans will fall under Medicare, at the same time the Grinches will cut $500 Billion out of Medicare. Worse, they expect us Whos to believe that there will be no rationing of care by the already established rationing board from the stimulus bill ( Federal Coordinating Council For Comparative Effectiveness Research) and Medicare Commission from the Senate bill.

The Grinches further claim Medicare is the epitome of success and cost effectiveness and a program we should all look forward to joining. In fact, one of their “potential” presents, still on the drawing board, is to “allow” everyone 55-64 years of age the “opportunity” to join Medicare.  This is the same Medicare that:

Was established in 1965
Cost $ 3 Billion in 1966
Cost $325 Billion in 2005
Cost $408 Billion in 2009 (12 % increase every year for 43 years)
From 2000-2007 paid DEAD physicians 478,500 claims totaling $92 Million  (U.S. Senate Permanent Committee on Investigation)

From us Whos, thanks for nothing. Maybe the Grinches’ second “present” will be better. Um, no.

The second “present” is the ability to participate in the ‘Government Insurance Exchange” modeled after the federal employee health benefit program. The same program that:

• Currently oversees 4 ½ Million Federal Employees
• Is Administered by The Office of Personnel Management
• The Government Accounting Office ( GAO) found the cost benefit ratio was 51% higher than non-Federal programs.
• The GAO found the cost benefit ratio was 89% higher than large self-insured businesses
• The GAO concluded, “This program is highly vulnerable to fraud and abuse”
• The GAO revealed, “The misappropriation of carrier funds included embezzlement, using plan funds to finance UNION or employee organization activities and improperly charging the plan for expenses not incurred.”

Wow, on behalf of us Whos …..thanks for nothing Mr., Ms. and Mr. Grinch.  It becomes evident, “it is déjà vue all over again” when it comes to the Grinches and their health care reform plan for all of us Whos. Their plan is not about creating available, affordable or quality health care.  Their plan is about control of every Who’s health-care life. Once the Grinches control every Who’s health, The Grinches have the ability to control every aspect of every Who’s life.

In the real story of the Grinch, the villain had a change of heart.  In fact, when his heart grew three sizes, the Grinch learned the real meaning of Christmas….   Whatever the three Grinches believe in, Obama, Pelosi and Reid need to listen to us Who’s, and give back control of our lives.  Unfortunately, with our Grinches, their plan remains at least three sizes too small.

As I explain in a new Competitive Enterprise Institute paper, “A Cure Worse than the Disease: Obama Care Won’t Cut Costs, But May Cut Quality,” most of the alleged cost-cutting measures in the Baucus bill merely shift costs from the federal government onto the states or private payers, without affecting long-term health care inflation.  The only measures that could reduce the annual rate of growth in health care costs would erect government barriers between patients and their doctors, while jeopardizing long-term medical innovation.

Skeptics have made hay arguing that the so-called Sustainable Growth Rate can’t be counted on to cut $245-billion in Medicare spending. But Senate Finance Committee negotiators have designed a Medicare Commission—what the White House previously called an Independent Medicare Advisory Commission—to make similar cuts in physician and hospital payment rates in a more opaque way.

In an April New York Times interview, President Obama suggested that such a group, working outside of “normal political channels,” should guide decisions regarding that “huge driver of cost…the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives.”  That’s not exactly a death panel roving the country to pull the plug on innocent grandmas who’ve survived past their sell-by dates, but the effects could be equally pernicious.

What the Medicare Commission is likely to do is work with the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute also established by the Baucus bill to incorporate comparative clinical effectiveness recommendations into Medicare and Medicaid payment policies.

In theory, there’s nothing wrong with comparative effectiveness research, or what used to be called evidence-based medicine.  Good research comparing the clinical effectiveness, risks, and benefits of two or more medical treatments can help doctors better understand the likely benefits of the treatments they prescribe and improve the quality of care they deliver.  But patients vary substantially in their individual physiology, their response rates to drugs and surgical procedures, and their willingness to tolerate side effects.  Doctors know this, and they realize that one size definitely does not fit all. That’s why, in practice, evidence-based medicine in the U.S. and abroad has produced incrementally useful information, but has failed to systematically change the practice of medicine.

Generally, we should encourage efforts to eliminate waste and reduce the use of ineffective treatments, especially when we’re talking about public programs and taxpayer money.  But the CBO estimates that voluntary adoption by physicians of comparative effectiveness recommendations would reduce federal spending by just 1/100th of 1 percent, and that the Medicare Commission’s payment policies would save $22 billion over the ten year budget window.  The only way these programs would result in significant savings–that is, “bend” the cost curve downward–is if legislation or subsequent implementation tries to force the square peg of comparative effectiveness research results into the round hole of clinical practice by requiring physicians to always pick the treatment deemed best for the average patient.

That’s not just bad for patients in the near term, it would also wreak havoc on long term medical innovation.  If every new medicine were required, immediately upon gaining regulatory approval, to be effective and cheap enough to get the support of bureaucratic bean counters, research on the next generation of treatments for cancer, heart disease, and countless other serious conditions would slow to a snail’s pace.

Get used to the innovative medical treatments that we already have today.  If these programs become part of our health care system, we’ll be seeing a lot fewer treatment innovations tomorrow.