Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan

[red states rule]

No wonder the Dems wanted this mega pork bill passed quickly with no debate


Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan

Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- 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.

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.”

Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.

for the complete article

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

[Joe Steel]

No wonder the Dems wanted this mega pork bill passed quickly with no debate


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.



Sounds like a great idea.

In the healthcare free market, doctors are have to be presumed to be self-interested, profit-seekers. That's not good for anyone's health. It's wealthcare not healthcare.

[red states rule]

Sounds like a great idea.

In the healthcare free market, doctors are have to be presumed to be self-interested, profit-seekers. That's not good for anyone's health. It's wealthcare not healthcare.

So if the cost to the government exceeds the government limits the patient will not get care and die

Profit motive is good. It inspires drug companies to make new drugs, and doctors to buy new equipment. In both cases, the patient gets better care

[actsnoblemartin]

:poke:


Sounds like a great idea.

In the healthcare free market, doctors are have to be presumed to be self-interested, profit-seekers. That's not good for anyone's health. It's wealthcare not healthcare.

are you saying making a profit is wrong, or making exorbinent profit is wrong?

[Nukeman]

Sounds like a great idea.

In the healthcare free market, doctors are have to be presumed to be self-interested, profit-seekers. That's not good for anyone's health. It's wealthcare not healthcare.

OMG Do you really believe what your saying. Do you want another government agency to determine what course of treatment you should receive??? Do you really want a non medical person sitting behind a computer with a list of "approved" procedures instead a real time professional.

You do realize that this also calls for RATIONING resources for older and elderly patients. Go give your mother a hug and tell her goodbye cause she may not live to a ripe old age or be around much longer........... IDIOT

[red states rule]

OMG Do you really believe what your saying. Do you want another governemtn agency to determine what course of treatment you should receive??? Do you really want a non medical person sitting behind a computer with a list of "approved" procedures instead a real time professional.

You do realize that this also calls for RATIONING resources for older and elderly patients. Go give your mother a hug and tell her goodbye cause she may not live to a ripe old age or be around much longer........... IDIOT

Or if you smoke will you be denied treatment for cancer?

Or if you are overweight, will you be denied treatment for high BP, or heart issues

[Nukeman]

Or if you smoke will you be denied treatment for cancer?

Or if you are overweight, will you be denied treatment for high BP, or heart issuesThose people are just a drain on our resources so they should just die.... Dontcha think JOE?????????????? does that sum it up for you Joe??????

[red states rule]

Those people are jsut a drain on our resources so they should just die.... Dontcha think JOE?????????????? does that sum it up for you Joe??????

Before Joe would make any decison he would check the party affiliation first

D's would get treatment

R's would be taken to the morgue

[Joe Steel]

So if the cost to the government exceeds the government limits the patient will not get care and die

I don't know about that but I DO know that if the cost of care exceeds the patient's medical insurance benefits, the patient will not get care and die.


Profit motive is good. It inspires drug companies to make new drugs, and doctors to buy new equipment. In both cases, the patient gets better care

Profit inspires drug companies to sell drugs at exorbitant prices regardless of the need for high profits. It inspires doctors to order useless and unnecessary tests. For the most part, profit is its own reward.

[Joe Steel]

are you saying making a profit is wrong, or making exorbinent profit is wrong?

I'm saying healthcare is not a market good. It is a social good which the community should provide to all.

[Joe Steel]

OMG Do you really believe what your saying. Do you want another government agency to determine what course of treatment you should receive??? Do you really want a non medical person sitting behind a computer with a list of "approved" procedures instead a real time professional.

You do realize that this also calls for RATIONING resources for older and elderly patients. Go give your mother a hug and tell her goodbye cause she may not live to a ripe old age or be around much longer........... IDIOT

Do you realize your insurance company is doing that already?

Given a choice, I'd prefer the government.

[Joe Steel]

Or if you smoke will you be denied treatment for cancer?

Or if you are overweight, will you be denied treatment for high BP, or heart issues

I don't know that any of that would happen.

Do you?

[Joe Steel]

Before Joe would make any decison he would check the party affiliation first

D's would get treatment

R's would be taken to the morgue

I hadn't thought of that but....

[April15]

:poke:



are you saying making a profit is wrong, or making exorbinent profit is wrong?In the ferrengy world no. But in my world it is.

[avatar4321]

Sounds like a great idea.

In the healthcare free market, doctors are have to be presumed to be self-interested, profit-seekers. That's not good for anyone's health. It's wealthcare not healthcare.

Yeah, of course. Telling old people they are going to die so we shouldnt spend money to try to heal them is an absolutely great idea.

[April15]

Yeah, of course. Telling old people they are going to die so we shouldnt spend money to try to heal them is an absolutely great idea.I am sorry to tell you that from the moment you exit the womb you are destined to die!

[avatar4321]

I am sorry to tell you that from the moment you exit the womb you are destined to die!

Yeah. We all do die. But that doesnt mean you should tell the elderly they need to die now because saving them isnt important enough.

[April15]

Yeah. We all do die. But that doesnt mean you should tell the elderly they need to die now because saving them isnt important enough.Profit comes before saving!

[red states rule]

Profit comes before saving!

How much is your life worth?

The Democrat government will decide.

[red states rule]

Now we know why Obama wanted Tom the tax cheat to oversee Obamacare


snip

The word is omnipresent in that section of the bill, but not defined. For guidance one can consult tax-impaired former HHS nominee Tom Daschle's 2008 book "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis," which seems to have inspired that section of the legislation.

In it he discusses various approaches to reducing the costs of health care, including restricting the types of expensive treatments available to seniors and people with severe maladies. According to Daschle, Americans consume too much expensive health care. Thus one way to drive down costs is to limit the availability of or access to certain costly services. To many this sounds like denying care. But therein lie the efficiencies, making sure that providing health care is tied to a return on investment for society. If it costs too much to treat you, and you are nearing the end of your life anyway, you may have to do with less, or with nothing. You just aren't worth the cost.

Daschle's book recommends, and the bill appears to institutionalize, a body free of political influence to make the hard choices regarding how these efficiencies will be realized - what care will be limited, and who will be denied what services. Naturally politicians would prefer to stay clear of these critical decisions, but do the American people really want questions this important to be free of oversight?

One would think that the hard questions are the ones most in need of transparency and accountability, and not be buried in bureaucratic secrecy. It brings to mind Hannah Arendt's observation about the banality of evil. What nondescript GS-11 will be cutting care from Aunt Sophie after her sudden relapse before he or she heads to the food court for some stir fry?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/11/health-efficiency-can-be-deadly/

[Joe Steel]

Yeah, of course. Telling old people they are going to die so we shouldnt spend money to try to heal them is an absolutely great idea.

Funny you should mention that...

European doctors are stunned when they learn American doctors test for prostrate cancer in men. That's such a slowly developing cancer anyone who test positively for it will die of something else long before the prostrate cancer kills him. The American test, apparently, is just for revenue generation.

The point is, some treatments are pointless. Maybe letting nature run its course is the better choice.

[red states rule]

Funny you should mention that...

European doctors are stunned when they learn American doctors test for prostrate cancer in men. That's such a slowly developing cancer anyone who test positively for it will die of something else long before the prostrate cancer kills him. The American test, apparently, is just for revenue generation.

The point is, some treatments are pointless. Maybe letting nature run its course is the better choice.

So let the liberal bean counters rule eh Joe?

But but.....they have a formula!

snip

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.

[Joe Steel]

So let the liberal bean counters rule eh Joe?

But but.....they have a formula!

snip

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.

I agree it seems cold and heartless. I suggest we raise taxes to fund all the treatement anyone needs regardless of its anticipated benefit.

[red states rule]

I agree it seems cold and heartless. I suggest we raise taxes to fund all the treatement anyone needs regardless of its anticipated benefit.

Hitler had the same ideas in the 1930's.

Joe, you would want to tax people for breathing. You live to find new ways to steal peoples money from them

[red states rule]

Good government builds good communities and taxes are its life blood.

Tax today and live better tomorrow.

Then the Carter years should have been economic utopia. The top rate was a numbing 70%

[Joe Steel]

Hitler had the same ideas in the 1930's.

Joe, you would want to tax people for breathing. You live to find new ways to steal peoples money from them

Good government builds good communities and taxes are its life blood.

Tax today and live better tomorrow.

[red states rule]

snip

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)

Doctors now face the prospect of penalties for working outside the system.

Obamacare looks like something Castro would be proud of

[avatar4321]

Profit comes before saving!

I gathered that. Its more important to you that somw beuaracrat save money by denying people services than letting them and their doctor determine what they should do.

[avatar4321]

Good government builds good communities and taxes are its life blood.

Tax today and live better tomorrow.

The only good government is self government. Everything else is just corrupt.

[avatar4321]

I agree it seems cold and heartless. I suggest we raise taxes to fund all the treatement anyone needs regardless of its anticipated benefit.

Or of course we can just keep medical care out of government scope of authority. But yeah cant have that. We need politicians running our lives.