Something Very, Very Scary is Buried in The "Stimulus" Bill Regarding Your Health Care

[Goose 188]

Found this link from Drudgereport.com (great news aggregate). This is VERY, VERY scary and disturbing stuff. It's garbage like this that only furthers my distrust of government - they can't even manage an economic bailout...what the hell makes them think they can manage EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN'S INDIVIDUAL HEALTHCARE!!!!?????

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.

Full Article:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aLzfDxfbwhzs

Edited February 10, 2009 by Goose

[ohbdow1 6]

It is a shame that for people (some not all) who are involved in this type buisness (police, fire and ems) that are so easily fooled by smoke and mirrors. It is what some who wanted hope and change and the stopping of politics of fear to vote for who we have in charge now. Well, wether intentional or not, they and we have to live with consequences of what we were being told through out the campaign season that the people who they asociated with and the people who inspired them and the people who molded their ideologies should not be suprised that socialism is now out our door step. We can now only pray that the ignorant masses wake up and realize that this is the greatest Country that God has created and that Government run programs that make choices for you are not what the founding fathers framed for you and your decendents. "Government is not the answer, in most cases government is the problem" Ronald Reagan.

[helicopper 1,050]

It is a shame that for people (some not all) who are involved in this type buisness (police, fire and ems) that are so easily fooled by smoke and mirrors. It is what some who wanted hope and change and the stopping of politics of fear to vote for who we have in charge now. Well, wether intentional or not, they and we have to live with consequences of what we were being told through out the campaign season that the people who they asociated with and the people who inspired them and the people who molded their ideologies should not be suprised that socialism is now out our door step. We can now only pray that the ignorant masses wake up and realize that this is the greatest Country that God has created and that Government run programs that make choices for you are not what the founding fathers framed for you and your decendents. "Government is not the answer, in most cases government is the problem" Ronald Reagan.

Forgive me but I have no idea what or whom you're talking about.

As for the stimulus bill, I'm skeptical in general but especially dubious about things such as the new bureacracy in Goose's post. How we're going to recover the economy by increasing taxes and spending is beyond me. Who's paying for this "stimulus"? We all are, are we not?

Perhaps this is a good time for government belt tightening and down-sizing - fluff not essential services. Reduce our taxes so we all have more money to spend and that will help the economy.

[ohbdow1 6]

10-4. I just wish that there were more people who thought like that in November. As for now, it is the era of big government that we are all going to have to pay for many years to come. On the upside, think of all the people we will meet in line for the doctor that Uncle Sam says when and where we can go. Maybe it will be in New Jersey when I am getting Gas , soda and something that tastes like food with sodium, trans fat and sugar.

[abaduck 123]

"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) "

Excuse me, perhaps I'm missing something here, but when did the Federal government acquire the right to regulate and penalize doctors?

[INIT915 1,119]

It is a shame that for people (some not all) who are involved in this type buisness (police, fire and ems) that are so easily fooled by smoke and mirrors. It is what some who wanted hope and change and the stopping of politics of fear to vote for who we have in charge now. Well, wether intentional or not, they and we have to live with consequences of what we were being told through out the campaign season that the people who they asociated with and the people who inspired them and the people who molded their ideologies should not be suprised that socialism is now out our door step. We can now only pray that the ignorant masses wake up and realize that this is the greatest Country that God has created and that Government run programs that make choices for you are not what the founding fathers framed for you and your decendents. "Government is not the answer, in most cases government is the problem" Ronald Reagan.

Anyone who doesn't agree with your point of view is 'ignorant'?

And don't forget, Ronald Reagan increased the size of the federal government, while Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, all reduced the size of the federal government. (See http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy200...s/hist17z5.xls)

[ohbdow1 6]

Ignorant in my view, yes. Governments role is public safety. If "uninformed" masses is a better word and it is easier to swallow than use that one. History shows that economic recovery happens as a matter of fact with tax cuts. Let me spend my money where I want and need. Let me choose the Doctor that I want and what it is that I want to eat. I do not need the government to wrap their arms around me and have them whisper in my ear that they will make the decisions for me and make the choices for me. God granted us the rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness and that the Constitution of these United States protects the people who live here from the government from infringing on those. It may sound corney to some, but the door has been opened by those that we have elected to support and defend that document to allow for nationalized heath care, nationalized banks, nationalized industry. As a matter of fact nationalized is not the word that I would chose, it is, socialism. This is not a personal attack on anyone, just that sometimes when you pull the pin on a hand grenade it is hard to tell when it will go off. Populism and the media picked what we have today and the polls are showing that what they are creating is loosing popularity because they were not aware (did not what to take the time to find out) what these people are really about. Remember the chants of Cops and Firefighters after 9/11? The governments role of public safety? And today the threats of cut backs and lay offs from those same professions. Charity is not the governments role. Who knows, I may be wrong and the magic wand will be waved and it will all be better. If history proves, and it usually does, I am afraid that the magic wand will not work.

[Goose 188]

ohbdow1, i hear you and i think many Americans do. You make some very valid philosophical points.

The thing that drives me nuts about this whole exercise is as follows:

1) President Obama comes in and tells all of us that he is going not going to engage in the politics of fear and install a new era of responsibility to government

A) He has chosen tax cheats to run some of the most mucked up and most important institutions

Secretary Geitner is in charge of the damn tax code and he made a "honest" mistake and never paid ~30,000 grand. Does putting someone in charge of the tax code and how we do our fincnaicl business that cheated on his taxes make any sense to you?

C) Tom Dashel for HHS - 140,000 in back taxes and you still say you support him? You want us to overlook all of this because of the "enormity" of the situation at hand? If that was any one of us we would have been jailed and our worldly possessions absorbed and auctioned off.

Thats just some of it...

Now, about this stimulus bill - the brain child of big government, big pork and big spending advocates like Nancy Pelosi (even some of my most left wing friends are disgusted by her). The President is on TV day in and day out telling us the world will implode if this does not get passed. That, my friends, is fear mongering and the politics of fear. Pressuring senators and the country at large to support/vote for this bill and we don't even know what the hell is in it!!

This is some of the most outrageous legislation i have ever set my eyes on! This has nothing to do with stimulating the economy and, well, i don't even know what the intention or reason for such policy is! Now we are talking direct government control over your well being - who the hell is the government to tell your doctor what he or she should or should not do? They have no idea who you are and what you need!

I don't think there is any debate that a package needs to be passed - i don't even think anyone in congress would argue about that. The contention is the scope and breadth of the bill. Should we be pouring money into green cars for the government or STD prevention? Maybe those are noble causes but explain to me how that puts people back to work or fixes the system? It doesn't. And, you know, we arent talking pocket change here we are talking nearly a TRILLION dollars - this is going to be paid off by my grand kids. Before we do that don't we owe it to ourselves and the future to make sure this is as responsible as possible and that non-essential spending (aka stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with stimulating the economy and addressing the flaws within the system) be cut out?

Edited February 10, 2009 by Goose

[INIT915 1,119]

Ignorant in my view, yes. Governments role is public safety. If "uninformed" masses is a better word and it is easier to swallow than use that one. History shows that economic recovery happens as a matter of fact with tax cuts. Let me spend my money where I want and need. Let me choose the Doctor that I want and what it is that I want to eat. I do not need the government to wrap their arms around me and have them whisper in my ear that they will make the decisions for me and make the choices for me. God granted us the rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness and that the Constitution of these United States protects the people who live here from the government from infringing on those. It may sound corney to some, but the door has been opened by those that we have elected to support and defend that document to allow for nationalized heath care, nationalized banks, nationalized industry. As a matter of fact nationalized is not the word that I would chose, it is, socialism. This is not a personal attack on anyone, just that sometimes when you pull the pin on a hand grenade it is hard to tell when it will go off. Populism and the media picked what we have today and the polls are showing that what they are creating is loosing popularity because they were not aware (did not what to take the time to find out) what these people are really about. Remember the chants of Cops and Firefighters after 9/11? The governments role of public safety? And today the threats of cut backs and lay offs from those same professions. Charity is not the governments role. Who knows, I may be wrong and the magic wand will be waved and it will all be better. If history proves, and it usually does, I am afraid that the magic wand will not work.

Well, I can appreciate all your views, and not believe your 'ignorant' just because I may disagree. And don't forget, it's not as clear cut as you may want to believe. The 'socialism' of the banking system started last year.

Can you be more specific when you refer to "History shows that economic recovery happens as a matter of fact with tax cuts", just so we can all research the points you bring up.

[Goose 188]

Well, I can appreciate all your views, and not believe your 'ignorant' just because I may disagree. And don't forget, it's not as clear cut as you may want to believe. The 'socialism' of the banking system started last year.

Can you be more specific when you refer to "History shows that economic recovery happens as a matter of fact with tax cuts", just so we can all research the points you bring up.

The issue with tax cuts is that if the proper rates are cut citizens can start seeing a return immediately in their next pay check. So, in essence, there is no lead time and the money goes directly to the people - who need it.

The problem with infrastructure spending is that those projects have mutli-year lead times. Before you get hundreds of men and women with shovels in their hands your looking at - i would say 2 - 4 years between surveying, planning, engineering, environmental impact studies, etc. You don't revamp the power grid or interstates overnight. Not saying they are not noble or they don't need to be done, but lets not pull the wool over anyone's eyes.

[helicopper 1,050]

hr1_text.pdf

Above is the actual bill that was passed on 1/28 by the House.

A Senate "compromise" bill is in the works.

[INIT915 1,119]

The issue with tax cuts is that if the proper rates are cut citizens can start seeing a return immediately in their next pay check. So, in essence, there is no lead time and the money goes directly to the people - who need it.

The problem with infrastructure spending is that those projects have mutli-year lead times. Before you get hundreds of men and women with shovels in their hands your looking at - i would say 2 - 4 years between surveying, planning, engineering, environmental impact studies, etc. You don't revamp the power grid or interstates overnight. Not saying they are not noble or they don't need to be done, but lets not pull the wool over anyone's eyes.

Those are good points, but I just don't believe it's that simple...

There have been two huge tax cut programs, one in 2003 and 2008.

Let’s review 2008. The Democrats agreed to a stimulus in early 2008 that was all tax cuts, with about $50 billion of wasteful, unproductive business tax cuts added as the ‘price’ of approval by President Bush. Unfortunately, similar business tax cuts are included in the current bill. In addition, the 2008 package called for $100 billion in personal tax ‘rebates’. Only about one-third of the rebate checks, which ranged from several hundred to two thousand dollars per family, were spent. It was not an effective way to get the economy back on track.

(See Shapiro and Slemrod: http://www.aeaweb.org/annual_mtg_papers/20...php?pdfid=294.)

Even worse were the Bush tax cuts of 2003, which the administration claimed would generate 1.4 million jobs on top of the 4.1 million jobs that were expected to be generated over the eighteen months following June 2003. (See: http://www.jobwatch.org/creating/bkg/cea_o...ro_effects.pdf)

The initiative’s effectiveness was tracked through a website, www.jobwatch.org, and found that it fell far short of its goals. Not only did the promised 1.4 million additional jobs not appear, but the 4.1 million jobs expected with no action also failed to materialize. In all, only 2.4 million jobs were created—1.7 million short of the administration’s projection without their new policy. Thus, by the Bush administration’s own metrics the tax cut program fell short by a total of 3.1 million jobs (149,000 pr month). For an analysis of how the Bush 2003 tax plan (The “Jobs and Growth"plan) fell short of its job claims, (see: http://www.jobwatch.org/email/jobwatch_20050107.html)

Again the current proposal may have flaws, but do you honestly believe there is any 'perfect solution.'

[Goose 188]

None of those job watch links work. I don't think there is a perfect solution, but that doesn't mean that i support hundreds and hundreds of billions in nonsense spending along with controversial programs (like the one i found today) under the guise of stimulating the economy. It's hard to believe either side right now, in all honesty. But, right now i've got to invest some time in studying!

Edited February 10, 2009 by Goose

[Goose 188]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEfICUoWKBw

Way to go Chuck!

[jloftus 28]

And to all that voted for the Chossen one, Thank You, enjoy your new socialist country.

[INIT915 1,119]

And to all that voted for the Chossen one, Thank You, enjoy your new socialist country.

Wasn't it McCain who also supported and voted for the 2008 Bank bailout bill? Do you really think we'd be in great shape right now, no matter who won the election?

Some of us have shoooooort memories. Or, at least short when it's convienient.

[mstrang1 213]

Again, for all all of those people throwing that feared word, socialism, around, let me remind you that police, fire, ems are all based on socialist theory.

"Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation."

Going by this definition of socialism, found on wikipedia, we are the goods, and the public is the "all individuals with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation." So, basically, socialism employs most everyone on this website.

[ajsbear 11]

Let us not forget that honest organization ACORN that did such a fine job reading the phone books into the voter registry of several states as well as most of the Disney cartoon characters. They are getting $3.5 Billion in the house version. Hiring the unemployable. Can I get a job with them?

[JimmyPFD 11]

I am not joining the political discussion on this subject. I am only speaking on practical benefits of Electronic Medical Records

As an RN, I am a proponent of Electronic Medical Records as a tool.

I currently work with one. I worked for the state looking at different Electronic Medical Record, (EMR) packages a couple of years ago.

I must say that the financial benefits from billing and reduction in duplication of services is significant. This is not the most important benefit of an EMR. It saves lives.

An extreme example: The destruction of paper records during Hurricane Katrina was a HUGE problem and further hampered the timely provision of adequate care and cost people their lives.

Think of the benefits of having peoples' known allergies, medication regimen and history immediately available.

Data can also be merged with MD orders and Pharmacy systems. Patient ID bands and medications can be bar-coded to prevent medication errors in ordering, dispensing and administration. This saves lives....think adverse drug reactions, over doses on haparin, etc. etc.

I am only scratching the surface here.

Is big brother watching? It is a cost/benefit judgement. The most important benefit is for my family's records being available during an emergency.

Edited February 10, 2009 by JimmyPFD

[ajsbear 11]

Jimmy, it's one thing for BIG BROTHER to watch. It's another for them to have a say in treatment. Remember this is the same government who when the IRS took over the Mustang Ranch ran it into the ground. Voted themselves raises when the deficit was building, voted themselves a retirement program which pays them for life after 1 term in office, their own health care as well for life. You want them telling you how to treat your patient?

[Raz 14]

I am not joining the political discussion on this subject. I am only speaking on practical benefits of Electronic Medical Records....Is big brother watching? It is a cost/benefit judgement. The most important benefit is for my family's records being available during an emergency.

^^^

About time somebody jumped in with that. Crucify Obama all you want (there's enough legitimate problems with his social and economic plans and politics), but this is an area where the rewards outweigh the potential risks.

Edited February 10, 2009 by Raz

[JimmyPFD 11]

Jimmy, it's one thing for BIG BROTHER to watch. It's another for them to have a say in treatment. Remember this is the same government who when the IRS took over the Mustang Ranch ran it into the ground. Voted themselves raises when the deficit was building, voted themselves a retirement program which pays them for life after 1 term in office, their own health care as well for life. You want them telling you how to treat your patient?

They do, on a few levels.

Anyone with a license has to work within what the State Dept. of Education sees as being the provision of care that would be reasonably expected under the circumstances. (I am sure it is their definition of, 'reasonably expected')

My medical benefits have participating providers. My prescription drug plan has a formulary.

It is the same with Medicaid, Medicare, and VA benefits.

I am not for Government Control. I am only pointing to the patient care benefits of having such a data base available.

(Only because of my background; I caught and corrected my big dental provider trying to double bill recently.)

Edited February 10, 2009 by JimmyPFD

[Goose 188]

^^^

About time somebody jumped in with that. Crucify Obama all you want (there's enough legitimate problems with his social and economic plans and politics), but this is an area where the rewards outweigh the potential risks.

No question digitizing medical records and MAYBE a central database is something that could be worked toward (if the proper security measures are taken). I'm not sure that is the contention, at least not for me. The issue i have is the government dictating what treatment(s) my doctor prescribes for me and if he/she does not fall in lock step with the the federal prescription he/she will be penalized. Thats what the problem is, and honestly, i would rather have all of this left out - even if it included a digitizing postulate, and leave it up to either state law or a fresh bill that does not include these disturbing strings.

Edited February 10, 2009 by Goose

[helicopper 1,050]

Hey all, I'm enjoying reading this exchange and would like to see it continue MINUS the jabs back and forth about who voted for whom or who supported whom. Let's just concede that we've got four years of this administration and we're not going to change that.

And, as has been pointed out on this forum in the past, the President doesn't write the laws! He just signs them so we have Congress to blame for the utterly absurd and wasteful projects, programs and spending that is tacked onto this stimulus package. We may disagree with the President for signing it but I for one will be thinking of all this during the mid-term elections when our Congresspeople are seeking reelection.

We now return to our regularly scheduled debate.

[Monty 35]

Interesting posts.

Appreciate hearing the side from JimmyPFD.

Maybe it's just me, but the health care system seems to have been at least somewhat out of control for my 15 years of experience with it. who doesn't complain about increasing premiums? Sure, when it's your loved one that's involved you want the best, no expense spared - but you don't want to pay for that (or even worse some unknown person) in your increased premiums.

In the UK, the government has decided prolonging your life by 6 months is £15,000 according to this article from the New York Times

Here's another (bit more dated) article on the value of life - http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17494

I think it's reasonable to have some kind of watch dog and limits set (especially if government money is involved) - just has to be implemented very carefully.

Lastly - like the CDL discussion - just because it's law, doesn't meant that anything is going to change overnight - or maybe ever.

[gamewell45 258]

No question digitizing medical records and MAYBE a central database is something that could be worked toward (if the proper security measures are taken). I'm not sure that is the contention, at least not for me. The issue i have is the government dictating what treatment(s) my doctor prescribes for me and if he/she does not fall in lock step with the the federal prescription he/she will be penalized. Thats what the problem is, and honestly, i would rather have all of this left out - even if it included a digitizing postulate, and leave it up to either state law or a fresh bill that does not include these disturbing strings.

I don't believe you can be forced to utilized the government system; if you want you can stay with your private physician and not use government doctors or facilities. But if you use the government plan and they are paying for it, i'm sure they would want to have a say in the treatment you received.

[INIT915 1,119]

Naturally, this debate made me curious, so I did a little reading into it. Regarding the accuracy of the original story/post, it appears that this is not a really a "new" position. It was actually created in 2004, by President George W. Bush.

President’s Vision for Health IT

In April 2004, President George W. Bush revealed his vision for the future of healthcare in the United States. The President's plan involves a health care system that puts the needs of the patient first, is more efficient, and is cost-effective. The President's plan is based on the following tenets:

-Medical information will follow consumers so that they are at the center of their own care

-Consumers will be able to choose physicians and hospitals based on clinical performance results made available to them

-Clinicians will have a patient's complete medical history, computerized ordering systems, and electronic reminders

-Quality initiatives will measure performance and drive quality-based competition in the industry

-Public health and bioterrorism surveillance will be seamlessly integrated into care

-Clinical research will be accelerated and post-marketing surveillance will be expanded.

-Together, these tenets will revolutionize healthcare, making it more consumer-centric, and will improve both the quality and the efficiency of healthcare in the United States.

It seems some of the hype that jumped from the current (already existing position) to a proposition that some government worker is deciding what healthcare your entitiled to is based soley in ideology. Most, if not all the criticism, seems to trace back to the single op-ed piece, which was then nationalized by Rush Limbaugh.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-e...ml?hpid=topnews

I also spent a little time to actually read the part of the bill that is drawing all the attention, and the only time the word 'guide' appears is when it states that ..."allows for the electronic use and exchange of information and that provides appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care..."

As I interpet that, the provider will have access to your past records which will facilitate (or guide) medical decisions (to be made by the provider). It doesn't suggest anything about government intervention in lieu of your provider.

Unless I am reading an outdated version, and someone can point me towards a newer version?

Since the author puts guide in quotation marks, it appears to me, she is intentionally distorting the context. It seems many have taken this op-ed piece as gospel, and, well, everyone can read the comments made by some posters and, well, draw your own conclusions.

But, as has been alleged, maybe I'm just ignorant.

Just food for thought...

[INIT915 1,119]

None of those job watch links work. I don't think there is a perfect solution, but that doesn't mean that i support hundreds and hundreds of billions in nonsense spending along with controversial programs (like the one i found today) under the guise of stimulating the economy. It's hard to believe either side right now, in all honesty. But, right now i've got to invest some time in studying!

Just make sure the 'close parenthesis' isn't attached, and they will work properly.

Edited February 12, 2009 by INIT915