Childrens Health INsecurity Act

Craig Westover also blogs. He has a post this afternoon that is just stellar!

"This is one of those pieces that is so good, I wish I'd have written it.
February 8, 2007
Dear Mr. Chair and Members of the Health and Human Services Committee,
RE: HF 1 - Author Rep. Thissen (Children's Health Security Act)
Thank you for this opportunity to share our thoughts about HF 1. As you know, I had planned to testify in person, however, I have a previous commitment today that cannot be changed.
Citizens' Council on Health Care is a free-market health care policy organization supportive of patient and doctor freedom, medical innovation and entrepreneurship, and the confidential patient-doctor relationship.
CCHC supports policies that advance individual freedom for citizens; policies that limit the size of government; and policies that limit government intrusion in the lives of individuals and the relationship individuals have with their doctors."

The author of the letter, Twila Brase RN and President of CCHC, goes on at length about why HF1 and any form of government run health care is a bad thing! The biggest fallacy of "universal" health care is that it will provide care for people would otherwise would not get treatment. However, Ms. Brase, debunks that.

"Coverage is not Care - DHS Authorized to Deny
Finally, having "coverage" does not guarantee access to care. Ask anyone facing a government or managed care denial. DHS has statutory authority to ration care. The federal 1115 Medicaid/MNCare waiver allows placement of public recipients into HMOs, and the 2005 HHS omnibus bill gave DHS authority to define "evidence-based" treatment. The DHS medical director can deny a recipient's access to the HMO appeals process if the prescribed treatment does not meet the director's definition of an "evidence-based" treatment. Children "covered" by HF 1 could find their care limited.As Bernadine Healy MD, former director of the NIH and now columnist for U.S. World and News Report, warned last year in her column, "evidence-based medicine" can be used to deny access to care."(emphasis mine)

I have repeatedly posted evidence of this. Too many people in Canada and Great Britian have been denied care in a system that the Democrats want to emulate.

This last point goes to another issue I have previously posted about....privacy.

"Intrusive Government
Section 12 enables government to intrude on the confidential patient-doctor relationship. The legislation requires doctors, hospitals and health plans to send private medical data to the commissioner "in the form and manner specified by the commissioner." No details. The commissioner will decide outside the purview of the legislature. This is private data on the recipients and on "private sector enrollees." (line 6.17)
We don't know, the legislation doesn't say, but most likely this reported data will be detailed information on physician treatment decisions and so-called "patient outcomes," as well as data on physician compliance with whatever treatment and initiatives the commissioner determines to be "quality of care." The bill will empower government in the practice of medicine, monitor patients, and police human behavior.
This is a serious infringement on the rights of patients and doctors to be free."

Here again we have legislation propsed that will intrude into the "doctor/patient relationship" something that is sacrosanct apparently only when it comes to abortion. Otherwise, it's ok for the government to intrude in your health care decisions.

I am not harping on this privacy issue to undo Roe. Au contraire - Roe is established law. The reason I am harping on this is to highlight the utter hypocricy of a political party that uses doctor/patient privacy only when it suits their agenda to grab power away from you!