How Does This Stimulate The Economy?
Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama’s stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.
The author brings example after example...
Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).
The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.
But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”
Emphasis mine......think about that. Your doctor is no longer has the autonomy to treat you as an individual and as he sees fit. He has to turn first to a federal bureaucrat to see what treatments the government will allow!
Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)
What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment?
So if your doctor does not abide by their ill-defined rules he can be fined...and guess who pays those fines in the long run?
Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.
Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).
The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.
HOLD THE PHONE!!!!! As long time readers of this blog know, senior care is a hot button issue for me because I am in dealing with aging parents and the problems that come with old age. You have also read more than a few posts about how the UK system has denied seniors the health care that they need. I have been "assured" time and time again by liberal commenters that we are not going toward a British style system and yet here is the President's ONLY CHOICE for HHS secretary saying that his system is modeled after the Brit's system! So much for those "assurances".....
Contrary to the President's threats, we have to slow this bill down. More permanent damage to the US economy will be done by passing this so-called "stimulus" then there will be by taking the time to pull out the non-stimulative portions of the bill. Send it through committee...let the "cooling saucer" of the Senate take the time to do what the "worlds greatest deliberative body" does best....debate and deliberate. Nothing that we do in a hurry will fix the economy - but (as we have seen from Wall Street of late) something done fact can certainly hurt the economy. Wall Street does not like this bill and neither does Main Street. It's time for the President and the Legislature to listen to the people that put them into office.
12 Comments:
Rush Limbaugh is right. This nation doesn't need an efficient health care system. If you want better health care, then you should move to Costa Rica or one of the other 36 countries that the WHO ranks higher than the USA.
By rmwarnick, at 11:01 AM
Richard - please tell me what is so caring about a system that leaves patients to DIE because he/she is deemed to have used "too many resources" or to be "uncurable"? Please try to stay on topic. The topic here is not Rush Limbaugh - it is a health care philosophy that has no regard for human life if it is deemed that life is too costly!
I thought your side was the "caring" side.....
LL
By The Lady Logician, at 11:18 AM
Lady, we've been through this before. It's a well-established fact that far more people die because they're uninsured in this country than you and your free-market folks care to admit:
http://tinyurl.com/atc87z
Moreover, the "private insurance" you claim is there for those who are willing to pay for it is a bogus argument:
http://tinyurl.com/ap2u98
And we do hope you keep us posted on your hot button issue of senior care as you forgo the benefits of Medicare for your folks because it's socialized medicine and you would never subject them to such a fate.
By Anonymous, at 12:36 PM
Oh, and your claim that the stimulus bill will require oversight of everyone's health care?
Complete horse hockey, perpetuated by - you'll never guess who - Limbaugh!
By Anonymous, at 1:50 PM
Anon - not true. Follow the links in the post and read the bill FOR YOURSELF. I don't listen to Limbaugh. He is on the radio when I am AT WORK and I do not have the ability to stream or bring in a radio. So to say that these are "Limbaugh" talking points is - in a nutshell - asinine!
Get your head out of the dem talking points and read some real reporting on the subject. Here is a place you can start.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8345
The Canadians who live under a similar system will readily admit what you are too blind to see.....
LL
By The Lady Logician, at 2:15 PM
"Your doctor is no longer has the autonomy to treat you as an individual and as he sees fit. He has to turn first to a federal bureaucrat to see what treatments the government will allow!"
This is already the case for everyone using Medicare. Because Medicare holds the purse strings, they dictate what treatments are allowed, and which ones are not.
In fact, that goes for anyone with insurance as well. For instance, if you have cancer, there is quite literally a list of approved treatment options available. Anything outside of that list will not be paid - even if it works.
With most insurance companies, there is an appeal process where your doctor can talk to their doctor and advocate a different treatment plan. With Medicare, there is no such advocacy option.
Oh, and while saying LL's parents should not be using Medicare is a nice gotcha statement, it really just shows a lack of understanding of the system. Because of Medicare there is not an insurance company on the planet that will insure the elderly. You can buy supplement plans that pay for the portion that Medicare does not, but there simply is no other option out there for seniors.
By Cameron, at 3:02 PM
CNN debunked this today.
Senior medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen:
Now, we asked Betsy McCaughey, because she’s been through this bill page by page, “point us to the language that says that this bill will dictate what your doctor does,” and she showed us language that didn’t actually, specifically say that. It didn’t say that the government will have the right to dictate what your doctor does. But she says it’s vague enough that the government would be able to do that. And, of course, we ran this by the folks who wrote the bill. They said that any accusations that this bill will allow the government to dictate anything to your doctor, they say those accusations are “wildly inaccurate and preposterous.”
By rmwarnick, at 3:49 PM
rmwarnick,
It may not have "actually, specifically " said that, but you and I both know full well what it means.
The difference is that I refuse to deny the sun shining at noon day.
This is as far from "debunked" as Socialism is from Compassion.
By Trenton, at 5:55 PM
Richard, you are also avoiding the likelyhood of incrementalism as evidenced in British, Canadian and other systems. Baby steps, as they say.
Under a National Health Care, would my 82 year old dad get his insulin? He's happy and healthy in every other way. Would his access to insulin preclude some other procedure or medication should the need arise?
Do you understand how bureaucrats think?
By Kermit, at 6:50 PM
So if the government isn't going to tell doctors what to do, why reduce their independence as stated in Daschle's book? And why does the bill have the power the punish hospitals that don't cooperate? You can do a Clintonian word game and say that they bill doesn't specifically say it will order doctors to do what it wants, but the mechanism for punishing the hospitals is in there. Punish the hosptial, punish the doctor.
And yes, our current system isn't perfect, but why replace it with one that is failing in Britain and Canada?
If you want cheaper healthcare, push for Tort reform. If the FDA approves a device and a Doctor uses it correctly, there should ne no lawsuits.
By Unknown, at 6:58 PM
I have news for you anon - my poor mother will probably be one of the first kicked out as she has so many chronic problems starting with rheumatoid arthritis.....that is one reason why it is a hot button issue for me.
LL
By The Lady Logician, at 9:12 PM
I seem to recall during the Plame 'affair' that the writers of the law that covered covert operatives was interviewed. They said that the law they wrote didn't apply to Valerie Plame.
And yet the left cried 'it did' over and over. Somehow a man was convicted.
I don't trust what the writers say they 'intend'. I trust what I read.
---Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)
This will force doctors over time to conform or else.
---The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system.
And what happened to Joe the plumber when he dared ask a question? government went through his records and gave personal information to the press. You want your medical records in the same position?
---The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit.
The British system is already declining treatment on the eldery (currently about $22,000 of treatment for six months of life according to the NYT 12/2/2008, article "British Balance Gain Against the Cost of the Latest
Drugs")
Do you want some faceless GS-9 government employee deciding your life isn't worth $22,000 of treatment?
And bottom line it. Who's going to pay for all this 'free' care? Will the illegals stop going to our emergency rooms? Will the 40%+ of Americans who don't even pay taxes cough up one thin dime to fund this? It's not free. It will come out of the same paychecks it does now. Only this time I will have my health care reduced while I pay more for the everybody else.
By Anonymous, at 9:57 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home