It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: Betsy McCaughey

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: Betsy McCaughey


www.bloomberg.com

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.
(visit the link for the full news article)

Mod Edit: review This Link: Instructions for the Breaking News Forums


* Copy the exact headline of the story into the headline field, don't make one up or sensationalize it. Submissions with inaccurate, biased or otherwise deceptive headlines may be moved, closed or deleted.


[edit on 2/10/2009 by semperfortis]

(I edited the article title because I thought it WAS a bit biased. My bad.)

[edit on 2/10/2009 by saturnine_sweet]




posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 12:36 AM
link   
While everyone has been waiting for the battle over universal healthcare to arrive, the Democrats are slipping the Trojan Horse in the backdoor by means of taking control of healthcare at its root. Of note, this also includes serious confidentiality issues. Do you think the government needs to be telling your Dr how and when you can be treated?

www.bloomberg.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 2/10/2009 by saturnine_sweet]

[edit on 2/10/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by saturnine_sweet
 


This reminds me of Hillary's HMO debacle.
I think it was hers, it's been so long.
Yeah, she was a main player! TIME Playing the HMO Game

That somebody turned out to be America's employers, working hand-in-glove with the insurance companies. Today 85% of all insured employees--up from 53% five years ago--have moved out of traditional fee-for-service plans, in which doctors call the shots and insurance companies pay the bills, and into managed-care plans, including health-maintenance organizations, or HMOs. Almost every aspect of medical care provided by HMOs is second guessed--not by the government, not by Hillary, not even by doctors, but by the bean counters.


Getting really sick is what worries most Americans. They know how hard it can be to cut through the managed-care red tape for a pair of eyeglasses or a simple ear infection. What would happen, they wonder, if they or one of their loved ones became desperately ill and needed serious--and expensive--medical attention? Who would prevail if their medical needs ran smack into gate-keepers of an HMO focused primarily on reducing costs? The horror stories coming back from the front lines are not encouraging.


[edit on 10-2-2009 by Clearskies]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by saturnine_sweet
 



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.


Before anyone loses sleep over this provision, you need to understand a basic fact concerning universal implementation of electronic medical records. Let me put this in simple terms that everyone can understand:



OK?
Now, to add a little text to the summary above....
Your grandchildren will be old and rocking their grandchildren before you ever see a complete implementation of such a system. Why do you think this has not been done already? Next time you're in a doctor's office, take a look at their medical records. If they are like most doctors, and have been in practice for many years, they have rooms filled with fat folders, probably color coded, with all of your medical records. Do you know how long it would take to put those records into an electronically readable form,(not just scanned, but with identifiable individual data items.)? Hmmm, does the term "til hell freezes over" ring a bell?
Anyone that has spent any time in IT understands the task involved. In addition, when you then add the phrase "government system", then you add this to the equation:




Rest easy, and sleep tight. This is just another government pipe dream . My problem now, is that I'm laughing so hard, I may have a hard time sleeping, but it won't be because of fear!



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 

Well, that makes me feel a little better.
But, couldn't they just start from scratch and begin putting EVERYTHING on computer files?



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Ideally, a nice electronic tracking system should make health care more efficient with faster service for those with emergency related issues. I also like the idea of being able to just 'pop into' any health care facility, hospital, or whatever to get at least some basic health services.

HOWEVER, I just don't like the idea of what government 'deems' as necessary. I don't like people snooping into my files nationwide. People are going to have complications anyway with age. So why embarrass them with federally mandated services?



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 





But, couldn't they just start from scratch and begin putting EVERYTHING on computer files?

Yes, and in fact, that is how they will start it. However, the only people that they could make valid decisions on, are people who are seeing a doctor for the first time, probably newborn babies.
Let's assume that someone, Patient X, is say 60 years old. You start the new system tomorrow. Tomorrow, X goes to the doctor, and the visit gets recorded. Of course, you have the task of teaching whomever will enter the data how to use the system, enter the data, code it, etc. Fine, you do that. Now, let's assume X has a paper medical record, of 600 pages, not unusual, if X has been going to his/her annual checkups, visits for illness, lab tests, the occasional operation or procedure, allergies to meds, past treatments, ....etc. Now, the doctor prescribes a certain treatment, and the government wants to see if it is justified. There are those 600 pages of paper, most of it scribbled by a doctor whose handwriting resembles that of a drunken right-handed monkey writing with his left hand. It's not in the system. Now, assume, we start with a newborn, and let's fast forward 60 years, and that newborn is now 60, and all of X's records are NOW in the system. Now there is a concern. That is why I made my comment about your grandchildren's grandchildren. By then, the technology will be such that the way medical treatment is handled, you won't need the records.
Believe me, I've been through the entire medical records scenario with clients I had when I ran my corporation. It's a bear to handle.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 01:39 AM
link   
I understand why this is actually a good thing...

Doctors (usually sponsored by drug companies) are ripping off people and insurance companies.

What doctors do (believe it or not), is sometimes they exaggerate your problems and make you do unnecessary tests (adds to cost), and make you do way to many "visits" (adds more to cost), and sometimes give you unnecessary prescription drugs (more cost)(drug sponsored doctors get commission).

This is why health care is so expensive. Doctors are milking the insurance companies for every penny they can get, making everything ridiculously over priced.

Having someone "watch" over my doctor and make sure he isn't making me do anything that isn't necessary just so he could make some more money would seem like a good idea. This would bring down the cost of doctors, and insurance.

I can see many doctors and drug companies being against this.

[edit on 10-2-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


If it is federally mandated, it will happen. What it will do is increase basic medical expenses tenfold. Keep in mind, a very large portion of what you pay already is due to the amount of paperwork required by government mandates. It is not a laughing matter. The people behind this dont care about reality, and never have. They will spend, and force us to spend, until it happens.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 

What the....Jesus, man. PLEASE go research. It is regulation that has been driving up costs. It's pretty black and white. But no...we need bureaucrats, who know nothing at all about medicine, making these decision. Sure thing, pal. God forbid you think for yourself, and make decisions with your Dr. concerning your treatment. The Nanny State must nurse you at her rank tit, instead.

Seriously...Im not trying to be unkind....but that whole post is so wrong that I don't even know where I can say anything very nice about it. Doctors only take advantage of you if you are ignorant; educate yourself, rather than expecting the government to nurse you through life, free of your own personal responsibilities.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


I understand your point, but with all due respect to my doctor of 20 years who I trust very much, it's not a completely valid evaluation of the situation. There are plenty of good and honest doctors out there



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 02:06 AM
link   
This was taken out of the bill I heard



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by saturnine_sweet
 



You are telling ME to research????

I don't post anything until I research it...... maybe YOU need to research.

Give me some real examples of how regulation made it more expensive, then maybe I will consider your opinion.

Until then, I know for a fact that many doctors would rather fill their pockets with cash then help you. There has been many articles about it in Readers Digest, LA Times, all over the place....

I'm not saying all doctors, or the doctors that you keep through life, I'm talking about the scum bag doctors that don't have the same patients.

There have been stories about doctors making patients take unnecessary amounts of x-rays, claiming "the other x-rays were inconclusive" which is a valid reason to get more x-rays, but some doctors were lying about it. They would get payed for every x-ray evaluation, and they would charge the insurance companies an arm and a leg to run the x-ray machine, and pay the technicians that run it, and just make everything super expensive.

Some doctors actually do get paid more money the longer you are with them. So they would make you wait for long amounts of time. Or make you come back for unnecessary visits. This just adds to cost.... which usually comes from health insurance companies, which is why they are expensive.

I don't see how regulating the above from happening would raise the price of medical care, and health insurance... if anything it would lower the cost.

All I know is medical care is too expensive, and a lot of doctors are not making it any cheaper.

---

I just watched the movie/documentary called "Sicko" it was really good you should see it.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


Not sure what to tell you. I don't get how you fail to grasp the cost of bureaucracy in any industry. Regulations require regulators, which require forms, which requires all the workers to enter the data, to file the forms, etcetcetc. Those people do get paid, you realize, and their pay is more expensive than anything else, in almost every industry.

And again, as I said, knowledge and self-reliance are what are necessary. Know your doctor before you go. Learn about any treatments you may require, and if it seems questionable, that is what second opinions are for. You would give up freedom of choice for the sake of protecting irresponsiblity?



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


oh, and if you consider Sicko research, that explains most everything you have said. You do understand the Michael Moore does not make documentaries? He makes op/ed pieces, at best.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by saturnine_sweet
 


So I ask you for examples of how regulation would raise cost, and all you do is give me more of your opinion.

Of course it will cost to pay the "regulators" and "data submitters", but how much money will the regulation save? You don't mention anything about that... It seems that even though the regulation would cost money, it would save more money than it costs.

Someone like myself, who is young, does not have a "full time" doctor, nor do I need one. I usually always see a new doctor, and most of the time is it for emergencies, and I don't have time to be picky about a doctor, because of a broken bone or something...

I should be able to trust EVERY doctor, but that is NOT the case these days....

Having someone look over my medical files is not a privacy risk to me, there is nothing personal in them (to me). If anything it would be like "getting a second opinion" from a government doctor, without having to actually go see one.


reply to post by saturnine_sweet
 


I don't recall EVER saying that the movie "Sicko" is research. Thank you for lying though..


The movie "Sicko" is a great eye opener.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 03:10 AM
link   
This isn't in the bill that hit the senate.... stop freaking out.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


I just pointed out how it costs more. That's pretty much like..a law of nature to anyone who deals in business. It's like asking for proof that there's a sun, because it's dark out at the moment...

If the other poster is right, and this got dropped, thats good....but if it was tried once, it will be tried again....



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by saturnine_sweet
 


I am actually a business owner.

Obviously you don't understand my last post.

Yes, I noted all the possible "costs" that you mention, but you FAIL to mention how much money the regulation would save.

You see, when I pay for advertising for my business, it "costs" money. However, that advertisement helps "earn" money. The earnings should be greater than the cost for it to be any benefit.

What you are doing is only looking at the "cost" and totally ignoring the "earnings" for the regulations.

Do you know how much money that the regulation would save/earn? That was my question, but I am pretty sure you have no clue how to answer it.



[edit on 10-2-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   
I love how this got buried even though it was posted before another on the same article in this forum. In any case...

ALLisONE...Ive run several businesses, too. I don't see your point. What savings is going to happen here? The savings of making old people suffer and die instead of providing healthcare? The savings of telling people with rare diseases "too bad, nice knowing you, you're not worth saving?" That is the only place money will be saved, and even then, I HIGHLY doubt it will even come close to offsetting administrative costs. Even if full digitization is implemented, eventually, you're only shifting those administrators from the hospital to government facilities. Will the HOSPITALS profit more? Sure. Because they will get huge windfalls from the government for all of this.

HERE, LINK: ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS

So, again, how do you figure MASSIVELY growing something that alreadt accounts for 25% of hospital costs is going to REDUCE the outrageous cost of healthcare? I know a lot of people want their heads in the sand and just keeping hoping its not what it seems...but this is so wrong in so many ways that it's either insanity or corruption to support it. But then, I'd say about 80% of the US is very seriously insane, so....I guess it only figures.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join