You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
Moratorium on radiation facilities seems not to have patients in mind.
I bet if we follow the money, it will be in the pockets of the republican majority.
I'm all for cancer patients getting the bast care, but some ind of cost control on healthcare is critical. I don't now if this moratorium will really save money, but it is critical that we reduce costs or the country will be bankrupted and there won't be any care for anybody. I would hope millionaire doctors and administrators could figure this out, but I guess not.
Why do we accept that our legislators have the power to tell us we can or can't build a new treatment center or hospital?
This is merely a precursor to the HHS Panels implemented by Health Care Reform at the Federal Level that makes economic decisions based on what's best for the entire population vs. small and loud groups of people intent on getting healthcare delivered the way they want it.
Men should no longer have prostate exams..so says the panel. Women should no longer have mammograms until they're 50; so says the panel. Nearly 75 procedures previously required to be done by physicians can now be done by physician assistants; so says the panel.
Under the current provisions of healthcare reform, people are just going to have to get used to having to travel further to get access to the most modern medical equipment and care. While some will suggest it means people who live in rural communities will need to cluster in major cities, others will suggest that this is a behind the scenes effort to shorten the lives of those people putting the largest cost burden on the health care system.
Folks wanted healthcare reform, this is ACT I, as practiced by our own state.
There is probably more to this issue than the author is explaining. Do the doctors he represents with his organization and consulting group stand to gain $$$ if this ban were uplifted as he is proposing? This is a one-sided opinion piece about an obscure regulation that likely none of us fully understand. Yet, rather than making a rational arguement for his case, the author appeals to readers' basic fears and anger ("Oh no! The gov't is allowing cancer patients to die!"). Before any of us gets too worked up about this, we should probably hear from the other side. Doctors who want specfic regulations in the business of healthcare changed probably have a financial incentive to do so, whether they consciously admit it or not.
I totally agree with egraymond. This is a perfect example of the kinds of tough decisions we need to make to STOP the healthcare industrial complex. The country is bankrupt if you haven't noticed - we spend twice as much on healthcare as a % of GDP as any other country and have worse outcomes. We have to go a lot farther than this, but measures like these are a start. Unlike these millionaire doctors and healthcare administrators, I for one am ready to potentially die sooner for the good of our country.
Why on earth is there a moratorium on these facilities in the first place? This makes no sense to me whatsoever. It has a bad smell to it.
I will be looking in to the details of this moratorium. Like, who sponsored it in the first place, who voted for it and against it... Looking over my last year's insurance records I see that each of the treatments I got ( I have battled cancer and won, thanks to God and modern technology ) cost between $3000 and $6000 daily for twenty treatments in a month. That is pretty good money for a ten minute treatment that ties up the room for about twenty minutes total. The machine I was treated by is different from others in a way that allows more detailed concentration of the beam in some way, so I had to drive further that I would otherwise. ------------------------------------------ My doctor wanted that machine for the job and it was a good call as far as I can tell. It is an old machine though, and from what I gather there should be more like it available. That is not going to happen with this moratorium. If there is a market the providers will sink or swim as the market moves. Allowing the government to ban the construction of these sites, or to be involved your health care at all for that matter, is folly. Anybody in the Capitol who supports this should be ridden out of town on a rail. If they are supporting this moratorium it is because they are accepting bribes from certain organizations primarily interested in maintaining a no - compete zone for established hospitals. That makes them, because they are harming citizens, racketeers running a protection racket... crooks, extortionists, mealy mouthed conspirators meddling in the lives of our citizens. Yes, find out who these primates are and fire them.
Dr Lerner has opened my eyes to something I knew little about and as such, I have no idea where the truth lies. I do hope, however, that this article leads to more investigation, as it seems that Minneapolis Radiation Oncology may have bought and paid for their status as a powerful medical cartel. That MRO would enrich themselves, to the determent of people in pain and great need, I hope is improbable - but seems possible. That legislators can be bought and paid for by powerful lobbyists is nothing new and also, unfortunately, very possible.
The first commenter is wrong. The GOP majority has nothing to do with it. For years, DFLers Linda Berglin and Paul Thissen carried the moratorium bills.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks