Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan

speechlesstx · #1 Feb 9, 2009, 01:50 PM

This is one way to force socialized medicine on us, hide it in the "stimulus" package.

Quote:

Commentary by Betsy McCaughey

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.

New Penalties

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? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.

The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Elderly Hardest Hit

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.

In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.

Hidden Provisions

If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.

The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).

Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,” he said. “The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.”

More Scrutiny Needed

On Friday, President Obama called it “inexcusable and irresponsible” for senators to delay passing the stimulus bill. In truth, this bill needs more scrutiny.

The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn. This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy.

(Betsy McCaughey is former lieutenant governor of New York and is an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The opinions expressed are her own.)

As I noted before when tom touched on this, a lot of Americans (myself included) complain of insurance companies determining what treatments they’ll pay for. How do YOU feel about the feds making those decisions?

As always I think congress should have to live under the rules they make so who’s going to be the first to lead by example and “be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them?” Byrd, Kennedy, Akaka? Who’s ready to sacrifice their mom or grandpa to stimulate the economy, anyone?

excon · Feb 9, 2009, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

a lot of Americans (myself included) complain of insurance companies determining what treatments they’ll pay for. How do YOU feel about the feds making those decisions?

Hello speech:

Me? I'd just as soon throw 'em BOTH out of the examination room... Then maybe we could afford health care.

But, the right wing loves to have their buddies in the insurance industry checking out the diagnosis. I dunno why.

excon

Synnen · Feb 9, 2009, 03:08 PM

I don't QUITE get why the government has to give stimulus checks, anyway.

there HAS to be a better way to help our economy---maybe making more jobs somehow instead of just handing out money?

The ENTIRE bill is irresponsible, in my opinion, and this health care reform tucked into it just makes it more so.

And politicians wonder why we dont' trust them.

galveston · Feb 9, 2009, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synnen

I don't QUITE get why the government has to give stimulus checks, anyway.

there HAS to be a better way to help our economy---maybe making more jobs somehow instead of just handing out money?

The ENTIRE bill is irresponsible, in my opinion, and this health care reform tucked into it just makes it more so.

And politicians wonder why we dont' trust them.

Excellent, Synnen!! And just when you thought I was unreasonable! Just kidding!

N0help4u · Feb 9, 2009, 04:35 PM

It scares me because I can't even afford the health insurance that my work has which I would have to pay $100. per month toward.
I do not want health coverage. I do not need health coverage. I do not need the government mandating that I have health insurance that I am positive they will not make any cheaper for me than the plans that already exist.

inthebox · Feb 9, 2009, 06:31 PM

Steve:

Its rationing, whether by government or insurance companies.

And it will be rationing and inefficient until the third party is eliminated.

Quote:

Lowering the Cost of Health Care by Ron Paul

The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone – doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies – to keep costs down. As long as “somebody else” is paying the bill, the bill will be too high

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd suggest a two tier approach:

Gov paid, preventative, evidenced based, primary health care
with an electronic medical record [ like the VA has ].

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Acute and hospital care via HSA.

G&P

N0help4u · Feb 9, 2009, 06:40 PM

Most of the stimulus is benefiting government jobs and other countries,
They said that most of the 20 million dollars going to electronic technology will provide jobs for other countries, Much of the sex education money will provide abortions and STD teaching for other countries,

George_1950 · Feb 9, 2009, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by N0help4u

...I do not want health coverage. I do not need health coverage....

I hope you do not own your home, and that you are renting.

tomder55 · Feb 10, 2009, 07:13 AM

#18
http://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current...-312404-2.html