On July 12, 2006, an ambulance rushed a colleague’s 87-year-old father to the hospital emergency room for—what she knew instinctively—would be the final time. He had been in failing health for the previous 2-years.

 

Upon arrival at the hospital, he was in the throes of congestive heart failure as his lungs were filling with fluid. One of his kidneys was failing; and the whites of his eyes were turning yellow, a sign of liver failure. He was semi-conscious.

 

With instinctive precision, the doctors cut a hole in his chest and inserted a drainage tube. He suffered excruciating pain as a result. He began to bleed internally with a resultant critical drop in his blood pressure.

 

They eventually stabilized him and sent him off to the intensive care unit (ICU), where, within a matter of a few hours, he developed a blood infection and went into a coma.

 

For five more days, he languished there with IV drips inserted into every available vein as an endless series of monitor beeps and wailing alarms serenaded his last blood relative: a loving and dedicated daughter.

 

The constant clacking and compression sounds of a ventilator were a steady reminder that his breathing was not his own idea.

 

Finally, at my colleague’s insistence and in spite of opposition from two very stubborn doctors, they turned everything off. He died within 3-minutes. No gasping for breath. The up and down heaves of his chest simply stopped. It was over. Such a seemingly peaceful end.

 

Medicare paid $41,000 for his treatment including both emergency room and intensive care unit expenses. His supplemental insurance paid the rest of the bill: $10,250.

 

Given this man’s age, health history, and the nature of his final condition, not only was the bulk of this expense unnecessary, his initial suffering bordered—in my opinion—on unnecessary torture.

 

And, scenarios similar to this one take place in thousands of hospitals across this country. Patients of all ages, with virtually no chance of recovery, suffer horribly and expensively for nothing. We wouldn’t subject our pets to such suffering.

 

Last week’s piece concerned health-care reform. Many people responded to it (2,000 and counting). This is a follow-up. While practically no one denied a need FOR reform, almost 95% of them expressed the same worry over the WAY we accomplish it.

 

Not a single respondent said THE word, the “R” word; so, I’ll just blurt it right out: RATIONING. It is the ever-scary boogeyman of health-care reform.

 

Rationing of health care conjures up adjectives like “heartless,” “cold,” and “calculating” for most of us. After all, which politicians are going to be stupid enough to place a price tag on human lives?

 

Rationing is the threat du jour among opponents of meaningful health-care reform. Their stated fear is that if this country begins rationing, we could die from being denied all sorts of stuff: drugs, needed surgery, expensive treatments.

 

In addition, three prominent concerns that those replies pointed out relative to health-care reform were 1) it will radically diminish the quality of their health care, 2) we’ll end up with socialized medicine, and 3) in the end, it will bankrupt the country regardless.

 

First of all, having access to many doctors prescribing tons of treatments has nothing to do with quality health care. Current research from places like Dartmouth College shows the opposite.

 

In most instances involving heart attacks, strokes, and other critical organ failures, patients receiving more care endured much longer hospital stays, at far greater expense, with much less favorable outcomes than those receiving good care but less of it.

 

The latter group spent much less time in the hospital, at far less expense. And, they lived longer to boot.

 

Socialized medicine across this nation is unlikely. Every proposal on today’s table seeks to build on our current system with private insurers providing the bulk of the services.

 

Government will have a role, but only as a last resort and a means to keep the private sector honest. Either way, though, ultimately our system will be comprised of both private and public solutions.

 

As far as reform bankrupting us is concerned, if it happens, it will not occur because of an aging population. Even as the baby boomers have begun filling the ranks of the elderly, they’ll only account for less than 0.5% (that’s one-half of one percent) of our future health care costs.

 

Myriad studies back this up, the most notable of which is a recent one by the Center for Studying Health System Change.

 

On the other hand, there are two other culprits, much more sinister, that have contributed to the seemingly Mach-II speed in the rise of health care costs.

 

The first is the fact that doctors all over this nation have become obsessed with the fear of lawyers suing them. It’s resulted in an exponential growth in the use of MRI's and CT scans.

 

I’m not an advocate of putting caps on medical malpractice awards because sometimes there are legitimate reasons for suing. Many of the cases, however, are pure low-grade fertilizer.

 

While they’re ultimately tossed out on appeal, their initial impact on health care costs is significant. But, instead of Congress worrying its collective self over gay marriage and boys kissing boys, perhaps they should devote more time to solving THIS problem.

 

The other culprit is the fact that our current system pays doctors by how many patients they see and how many treatments they prescribe (pay-for-fee) instead of basing it on the quality of care they provide.

 

Either way, though, whether as a means of legal defense born out of a fear of lawyers or as a financial offense born out of a desire to survive by improving the bottom line, sends our health care costs right through the stratosphere.

 

We, as a nation, have to come to grips with two simple facts. We can’t save everyone who becomes injured or sick and sometimes it’s far more humane and cost effective not to try.

 

When the late George Burns was a mere lad, 96-years old, someone asked him about the quality of his sex life. “It’s like shooting pool with a piece of rope,” he replied.

 

“Well, how about Viagra?” asked his friend. “My doctor won’t give me a prescription; he says it would be like putting a new flagpole on a condemned building,” he replied.

 

Get it? Some actions are simply a waste of resources regardless of how much sincerity there is behind them. Relative to health-care reform, it is no longer a question of rationing or not. It’s either ration or find a way to render unlimited health care.

 

The latter is a financial impossibility. Indirectly, we’ve been trying to do so for years and look what it’s costs us to date.

 

So, either WE admit to ourselves that 1) we don’t know everything, and 2) even we AMERICANS are limited in what we can do, or, we cast aside our humanitarian delusions and continue hocking ourselves right into financial and cultural oblivion.

 

I’m about two miles south of seventy years old. I feel great, have ALL my original parts, and ALL of them work fine. Even so, I’ve already taken steps to find a route out of here if things change irreversibly for the worse.

 

In fact, I’m a firm believer that dying is NOT the worst thing that can happen to a person, at least not to ME. Besides, I hear that Viagra gives you a nasty headache.

 

Joe Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. You may comment on his column by clicking here.