T Nation

Health Provisions Slipped in Stimulus Bill

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

This reads scary. They are going to guide doctors decisions on standard treament for diseases. I’m glad diseases affect each person exaclty the same, otherwise it might be scary allowing an appointed official to determine what kind of medical care we receive.

If you don’t think this administration has a socialist agenda how do you explain this little hidden gem?

[quote]snipeout wrote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

This reads scary. They are going to guide doctors decisions on standard treament for diseases. I’m glad diseases affect each person exaclty the same, otherwise it might be scary allowing an appointed official to determine what kind of medical care we receive.

If you don’t think this administration has a socialist agenda how do you explain this little hidden gem?[/quote]

Heard this on Limbaugh. Yeah, we’re now on a path sliding toward Socialism. The story kind of reminds me of Orwell’s Animal Farm, where one of the animals (Boxer the horse) busts his ass for the community all his life, breaks his leg and can’t get up. Rather than spending money for his treatment, they sell him for dog food.

Seems like not alot of people want to respond to this…

Shhhh, if this doesn’t get passed it will be because of Republican partisanship, despite the valiant totally-non-partisan efforts of our lord and savior.

Stop ruining the mood!

What can you possibly say about this that isn’t obvious?

[quote]snipeout wrote:
Seems like not alot of people want to respond to this…[/quote]

I think there are interesting concepts to debate in the issues with the medical community and the coordination of treatment. However, the link that you posted is an opinion by someone being paid by a conservative think tank (ie public relations firm in disguise) that is funded by drug, chemical and agricultural monoliths. Were you looking for people to respond to the actual bill or to this clearly biased opinion?

…The actual bill. The government shouldn’t be dictating anything about health.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
…The actual bill. The government shouldn’t be dictating anything about health.[/quote]

Neither should insurance companies, but they do anyway. I’m going through that struggle with my wife right now. There are treatments that could help her but since insurance doesn’t like them they won’t pay. Or medications that will assist her pain control or clear her infection…

But nope some guy behind a desk that doesn’t see patients states the treatment isn’t necessary.

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
…The actual bill. The government shouldn’t be dictating anything about health.

Neither should insurance companies, but they do anyway. [/quote]

Choose to not deal with those insurance companies. Pay for your own medical care. In the private sector, you have that option. They only decide what they’ll pay for, not what procedure/treatment to give in which situation.

[quote]
I’m going through that struggle with my wife right now. There are treatments that could help her but since insurance doesn’t like them they won’t pay. Or medications that will assist her pain control or clear her infection…

But nope some guy behind a desk that doesn’t see patients states the treatment isn’t necessary.[/quote]

Very sorry for you. Get new insurance, or save up the money.

Does it suck? Yes. Would the government make it better? Fuck. No.

[quote]snipeout wrote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

This reads scary. They are going to guide doctors decisions on standard treament for diseases. I’m glad diseases affect each person exaclty the same, otherwise it might be scary allowing an appointed official to determine what kind of medical care we receive.

If you don’t think this administration has a socialist agenda how do you explain this little hidden gem?[/quote]

Yes, it reads scary, by design! Of course…it isn’t true, McCaughey just makes it up out of thin air. You could of course just read the Bill!

SEC. 3001. OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL COORDINATOR FOR HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.

"(a) Establishment-- There is established within the Department of Health and Human Services an Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (referred to in this section as the 'Office'). The Office shall be headed by a National Coordinator who shall be appointed by the Secretary and shall report directly to the Secretary.

"(b) Purpose-- The National Coordinator shall perform the duties under subsection (c) in a manner consistent with the development of a nationwide health information technology infrastructure that allows for the electronic use and exchange of information and that--

    "(1) ensures that each patient's health information is secure and protected, in accordance with applicable law;

    "(2) improves health care quality, reduces medical errors, reduces health disparities, and advances the delivery of patient-centered medical care;

    "(3) reduces health care costs resulting from inefficiency, medical errors, inappropriate care, duplicative care, and incomplete information;

    "(4) provides appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care;

    "(5) ensures the inclusion of meaningful public input in such development of such infrastructure;

    "(6) improves the coordination of care and information among hospitals, laboratories, physician offices, and other entities through an effective infrastructure for the secure and authorized exchange of health care information;

    "(7) improves public health activities and facilitates the early identification and rapid response to public health threats and emergencies, including bioterror events and infectious disease outbreaks;

    "(8) facilitates health and clinical research and health care quality;

    "(9) promotes prevention of chronic diseases;

    "(10) promotes a more effective marketplace, greater competition, greater systems analysis, increased consumer choice, and improved outcomes in health care services; and

    "(11) improves efforts to reduce health disparities.

See, it isn’t the govt. that will help guide medical decisions, no… it’s “development of a nationwide health information technology infrastructure that allows for the electronic use and exchange of information”.

Get it? having access to accurate patient information will allow doctors to make the appropriate medical decisions. Sound like a good idea? Of course!
But if you’re trying to dupe sheep like headhunter into not supporting good ideas, you have to lie to them!

Next phony outrage…

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
snipeout wrote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

This reads scary. They are going to guide doctors decisions on standard treament for diseases. I’m glad diseases affect each person exaclty the same, otherwise it might be scary allowing an appointed official to determine what kind of medical care we receive.

If you don’t think this administration has a socialist agenda how do you explain this little hidden gem?

Heard this on Limbaugh. Yeah, we’re now on a path sliding toward Socialism. The story kind of reminds me of Orwell’s Animal Farm, where one of the animals (Boxer the horse) busts his ass for the community all his life, breaks his leg and can’t get up. Rather than spending money for his treatment, they sell him for dog food.

[/quote]

Wow. Another sucker.

“Heard this on Limbaugh”—that’s the clue that this would be uh, totally false. But in light of this whole thing being totally false, the rest of your post is just stupidly silly.

Oddly, he’ll continue to listen to the person who misled him.

[quote]snipeout wrote:
Seems like not alot of people want to respond to this…[/quote]

I think that’s because it isn’t true. You were duped. Oh well.

[quote]dhickey wrote:
What can you possibly say about this that isn’t obvious?[/quote]

That you’re a fool and easily misled, given this isn’t true, but I suppose that’s obvious. Moving on…

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
…The actual bill. The government shouldn’t be dictating anything about health.

Neither should insurance companies, but they do anyway.

Choose to not deal with those insurance companies. Pay for your own medical care. In the private sector, you have that option. They only decide what they’ll pay for, not what procedure/treatment to give in which situation.

I’m going through that struggle with my wife right now. There are treatments that could help her but since insurance doesn’t like them they won’t pay. Or medications that will assist her pain control or clear her infection…

But nope some guy behind a desk that doesn’t see patients states the treatment isn’t necessary.

Very sorry for you. Get new insurance, or save up the money.

Does it suck? Yes. Would the government make it better? Fuck. No.[/quote]

What a callous response. Spoken like someone who has never had the misfortune of having to deal with the actual financial and emotional burden of the health issues of a loved one. I can’t say I’m for government being the answer here, but that doesn’t excuse your response.

As a matter of fact your response clearly shows a lack of knowledge of the health insurance system in the US. You tell him to “Get new insurance”…what good is that going to do him as any individually underwritten policy is going to preclude the current issue as a preexisiting condition. Sorry, kid, it’s not that simple as “Get new insurance” in the real world.

Or how about “Get new insurance” by way of getting a new job, but make sure that it’s with a large enough company that the cost of the clearly serious issue can be spread out over a large enough risk pool. How is that not a form of endentured servitude to the insurance companies themselves?

lanchefan1,
Sorry to hear about the issue with your wife. I have seen people have better success in dealing with the insurance company by tracing back through their employer to the relationship manager in charge of the master account. Depending on the size of the company you have your plan through, you might have success. I have always found success in dealing as directly with the folks who have actual dollars or income invested in the relationship continuing.

[quote]100meters wrote:
snipeout wrote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

This reads scary. They are going to guide doctors decisions on standard treament for diseases. I’m glad diseases affect each person exaclty the same, otherwise it might be scary allowing an appointed official to determine what kind of medical care we receive.

If you don’t think this administration has a socialist agenda how do you explain this little hidden gem?

Yes, it reads scary, by design! Of course…it isn’t true, McCaughey just makes it up out of thin air. You could of course just read the Bill!

SEC. 3001. OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL COORDINATOR FOR HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.

"(a) Establishment-- There is established within the Department of Health and Human Services an Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (referred to in this section as the 'Office'). The Office shall be headed by a National Coordinator who shall be appointed by the Secretary and shall report directly to the Secretary.

"(b) Purpose-- The National Coordinator shall perform the duties under subsection (c) in a manner consistent with the development of a nationwide health information technology infrastructure that allows for the electronic use and exchange of information and that--

    "(1) ensures that each patient's health information is secure and protected, in accordance with applicable law;

    "(2) improves health care quality, reduces medical errors, reduces health disparities, and advances the delivery of patient-centered medical care;

    "(3) reduces health care costs resulting from inefficiency, medical errors, inappropriate care, duplicative care, and incomplete information;

    "(4) provides appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care;

    "(5) ensures the inclusion of meaningful public input in such development of such infrastructure;

    "(6) improves the coordination of care and information among hospitals, laboratories, physician offices, and other entities through an effective infrastructure for the secure and authorized exchange of health care information;

    "(7) improves public health activities and facilitates the early identification and rapid response to public health threats and emergencies, including bioterror events and infectious disease outbreaks;

    "(8) facilitates health and clinical research and health care quality;

    "(9) promotes prevention of chronic diseases;

    "(10) promotes a more effective marketplace, greater competition, greater systems analysis, increased consumer choice, and improved outcomes in health care services; and

    "(11) improves efforts to reduce health disparities.

See, it isn’t the govt. that will help guide medical decisions, no… it’s “development of a nationwide health information technology infrastructure that allows for the electronic use and exchange of information”.

Get it? having access to accurate patient information will allow doctors to make the appropriate medical decisions. Sound like a good idea? Of course!
But if you’re trying to dupe sheep like headhunter into not supporting good ideas, you have to lie to them!

Next phony outrage…
[/quote]

You are that inept at treading between the lines huh?

The same government that guided mortgage lending is now going to guide medical decisions? The Barney Franks of tihs government are going to regulate health care? Now, on top of insurance companies regulating medical decisions now you have a government agency regulating decisions.

You are a joke, no one can be so blind as to support everything that their party of choice produces. Every time you post you are blindly supportng something just because it is dem sponsored. Read between the lines. The last thing healthcare needs is more limits and boundaries.

well…im glad that I can honestly say I haven’t needed the doctors very much at all…

Last time i saw them was for some vicodin, I just wanted some and they gave it to me…

Then 2 years before that, had them look at my Mrsa, to tell me that it was in fact, Mrsa. They didn’t do anything other than that.

then back when i was a kid to get a cast for my fractured wrist.

I’ve been to the doctor 3 times in 7 years…good thing I have this health insurance.

[quote]snipeout wrote:
100meters wrote:
snipeout wrote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

This reads scary. They are going to guide doctors decisions on standard treament for diseases. I’m glad diseases affect each person exaclty the same, otherwise it might be scary allowing an appointed official to determine what kind of medical care we receive.

If you don’t think this administration has a socialist agenda how do you explain this little hidden gem?

Yes, it reads scary, by design! Of course…it isn’t true, McCaughey just makes it up out of thin air. You could of course just read the Bill!

SEC. 3001. OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL COORDINATOR FOR HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.

"(a) Establishment-- There is established within the Department of Health and Human Services an Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (referred to in this section as the 'Office'). The Office shall be headed by a National Coordinator who shall be appointed by the Secretary and shall report directly to the Secretary.

"(b) Purpose-- The National Coordinator shall perform the duties under subsection (c) in a manner consistent with the development of a nationwide health information technology infrastructure that allows for the electronic use and exchange of information and that--

    "(1) ensures that each patient's health information is secure and protected, in accordance with applicable law;

    "(2) improves health care quality, reduces medical errors, reduces health disparities, and advances the delivery of patient-centered medical care;

    "(3) reduces health care costs resulting from inefficiency, medical errors, inappropriate care, duplicative care, and incomplete information;

    "(4) provides appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care;

    "(5) ensures the inclusion of meaningful public input in such development of such infrastructure;

    "(6) improves the coordination of care and information among hospitals, laboratories, physician offices, and other entities through an effective infrastructure for the secure and authorized exchange of health care information;

    "(7) improves public health activities and facilitates the early identification and rapid response to public health threats and emergencies, including bioterror events and infectious disease outbreaks;

    "(8) facilitates health and clinical research and health care quality;

    "(9) promotes prevention of chronic diseases;

    "(10) promotes a more effective marketplace, greater competition, greater systems analysis, increased consumer choice, and improved outcomes in health care services; and

    "(11) improves efforts to reduce health disparities.

See, it isn’t the govt. that will help guide medical decisions, no… it’s “development of a nationwide health information technology infrastructure that allows for the electronic use and exchange of information”.

Get it? having access to accurate patient information will allow doctors to make the appropriate medical decisions. Sound like a good idea? Of course!
But if you’re trying to dupe sheep like headhunter into not supporting good ideas, you have to lie to them!

Next phony outrage…

You are that inept at treading between the lines huh?

The same government that guided mortgage lending is now going to guide medical decisions? The Barney Franks of tihs government are going to regulate health care? Now, on top of insurance companies regulating medical decisions now you have a government agency regulating decisions.

You are a joke, no one can be so blind as to support everything that their party of choice produces. Every time you post you are blindly supportng something just because it is dem sponsored. Read between the lines. The last thing healthcare needs is more limits and boundaries.[/quote]
You’re not getting it…This is a made up controversy, started by Mccaughey, then Rush and Drudge and of course then Fox. Just read the bill.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
…The actual bill. The government shouldn’t be dictating anything about health.

Neither should insurance companies, but they do anyway.

Choose to not deal with those insurance companies. Pay for your own medical care. In the private sector, you have that option. They only decide what they’ll pay for, not what procedure/treatment to give in which situation.

I’m going through that struggle with my wife right now. There are treatments that could help her but since insurance doesn’t like them they won’t pay. Or medications that will assist her pain control or clear her infection…

But nope some guy behind a desk that doesn’t see patients states the treatment isn’t necessary.

Very sorry for you. Get new insurance, or save up the money.

Does it suck? Yes. Would the government make it better? Fuck. No.[/quote]

Unfortunately going private is not an option for us like many (due to all hospitals and doctors charging so much).

You have to work within the system and appeal everything you can and hope you finally convince somebody. I’m not saying that the government getting involved is totally the solution. But right now insurance is more concerned with their bottom line than yours.

[quote]ajcook99 wrote:
snipeout wrote:
Seems like not alot of people want to respond to this…

I think there are interesting concepts to debate in the issues with the medical community and the coordination of treatment. However, the link that you posted is an opinion by someone being paid by a conservative think tank (ie public relations firm in disguise) that is funded by drug, chemical and agricultural monoliths. Were you looking for people to respond to the actual bill or to this clearly biased opinion? [/quote]

Two questions

  1. have YOU read the bill? Have YOU read the specific parts quoted in the piece yet? If not, can YOU really authoritatively say that the article is wrongheaded?

  2. Do you really, REALLLLLY think that of all the things we could do to fix the healthcare system, that slipping in and UNDEBATED, unrefined plan for an additional gov’t bureaucratic organization to oversee something it has NO expertise in is the answer? I certainly hope not.

I think debate over the health system is good. Change could be good for it too. The problem is there IS NO debate over these “health Provisions”. No planning, no revising, no editing, no “wait, should we even do this??” thought process. Hell, most laypeople don’t even KNOW about this. I’d even wager a good portion of our LAWMAKERS don’t know about this. After all the fucking bills damn near a million pages long.

Whether it’s a conservative thinktank that exposes this or not makes no difference. The fact of the matter is that this is a HUMONGOUS change in the way the healthcare system is run that should never be passed into law without serious protracted debate on the subject. And the citizens’ input. Anything less is an affront to our chosen system of government in spirit, if not in letter.

[quote]100meters wrote:
snipeout wrote:
100meters wrote:
snipeout wrote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

This reads scary. They are going to guide doctors decisions on standard treament for diseases. I’m glad diseases affect each person exaclty the same, otherwise it might be scary allowing an appointed official to determine what kind of medical care we receive.

If you don’t think this administration has a socialist agenda how do you explain this little hidden gem?

Yes, it reads scary, by design! Of course…it isn’t true, McCaughey just makes it up out of thin air. You could of course just read the Bill!

SEC. 3001. OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL COORDINATOR FOR HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.

"(a) Establishment-- There is established within the Department of Health and Human Services an Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (referred to in this section as the 'Office'). The Office shall be headed by a National Coordinator who shall be appointed by the Secretary and shall report directly to the Secretary.

"(b) Purpose-- The National Coordinator shall perform the duties under subsection (c) in a manner consistent with the development of a nationwide health information technology infrastructure that allows for the electronic use and exchange of information and that--

    "(1) ensures that each patient's health information is secure and protected, in accordance with applicable law;

    "(2) improves health care quality, reduces medical errors, reduces health disparities, and advances the delivery of patient-centered medical care;

    "(3) reduces health care costs resulting from inefficiency, medical errors, inappropriate care, duplicative care, and incomplete information;

    "(4) provides appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care;

    "(5) ensures the inclusion of meaningful public input in such development of such infrastructure;

    "(6) improves the coordination of care and information among hospitals, laboratories, physician offices, and other entities through an effective infrastructure for the secure and authorized exchange of health care information;

    "(7) improves public health activities and facilitates the early identification and rapid response to public health threats and emergencies, including bioterror events and infectious disease outbreaks;

    "(8) facilitates health and clinical research and health care quality;

    "(9) promotes prevention of chronic diseases;

    "(10) promotes a more effective marketplace, greater competition, greater systems analysis, increased consumer choice, and improved outcomes in health care services; and

    "(11) improves efforts to reduce health disparities.

See, it isn’t the govt. that will help guide medical decisions, no… it’s “development of a nationwide health information technology infrastructure that allows for the electronic use and exchange of information”.

Get it? having access to accurate patient information will allow doctors to make the appropriate medical decisions. Sound like a good idea? Of course!
But if you’re trying to dupe sheep like headhunter into not supporting good ideas, you have to lie to them!

Next phony outrage…

You are that inept at treading between the lines huh?

The same government that guided mortgage lending is now going to guide medical decisions? The Barney Franks of tihs government are going to regulate health care? Now, on top of insurance companies regulating medical decisions now you have a government agency regulating decisions.

You are a joke, no one can be so blind as to support everything that their party of choice produces. Every time you post you are blindly supportng something just because it is dem sponsored. Read between the lines. The last thing healthcare needs is more limits and boundaries.
You’re not getting it…This is a made up controversy, started by Mccaughey, then Rush and Drudge and of course then Fox. Just read the bill.
[/quote]

Take a look at #4. That doesn’t scare you at all? Another group of people(very much like those in insurance companies)deciding what kind of medical care is necessary.

If this is drummed up controversy why is it being piggy backed on an economic stimulus bill? Bah, Bah little Obama/losi/eid sheep. Don’t believe everything you are fed.