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.

 

Article w/Source - Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan

page: 4
27
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 02:26 AM
link   

monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective.


Perhaps my reading comprehension fails me, but I do not see where in the cited sections of the bill the author gets her conclusions.

The whole thing seems to be about streamlining information. An addition to a doctor's current arsenal, not a replacement.

If anyone can cite and explain how the author draws her quoted conclusions, it would be appreciated.

Otherwise, it seems to be much ado about nothing.




posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 02:44 AM
link   
I say it will be a case of "be in the system or be without medical care"



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 06:48 AM
link   



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 06:50 AM
link   
If you want to know what the future of medical care holds under Obama - read the book of the one that he wanted to appoint to his administration.

Tom Daschle - Critical: What we can do about the health care crisis.

The Wall Street Journal discusses this book and what Daschle sees as the solution. (or final solution?)

Daschles vision for health care reform includes a board that will evaluate effectiveness and costs of various treatments for the society as a whole. That's sticky. And that's where senior citizens get nervous. Example - if we have a tax paid national health care system, and a board gets to decide if I can have glaucoma surgery or not, they will look to see if they think it's cost effective and if it's beneficial to society. See the slippery slope?

This is the direction that health care is going.
Some of what is proposed is good. Some of it is spooky.

The spooky parts are just a few short steps from - Des Lebens nicht würdiges Leben - life not worthy of life (remember where that came from?)



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 07:13 AM
link   

I am outraged that our elected officials would even think of sneaking this into a stimulus package


Oh please..How is it sneaking? It's on paper and publically available?

And what is it with the fear of socialized medicine?

How about the millions of people who don't have insurance? The ones who have no choice but to go to the ER for what others go to the family physician for?

You think your insurance companies and HMOS don't deny treatements on a regular basis that they don't find cost effective?

I go to the doctor when I am sick despite my income.

When I first moved to the UK I was worried as I had a pre exisiting condition, I didn't know if it would be "covered", the doctor didn't even blink when I mentioned it, he treated me, no questions asked.

I have nothing but good things to say about socialized medicine, it isn't perfect but I get to see a doctor despite my income.

Something has to be done about centralizing records and moving away from a paper based system as others have mentioned, I don't understand the hoopla.



[edit on 11-2-2009 by Merigold]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Kaploink
 


True, but I have yet to be denied anything due to cost. Actually, I haven't been denied any treatment for anything and I've been going to the doctor quite a bit lately.

I don't agree with insurance companies or the government deciding what people should be able to have done and what they can't. At least the way it is now if your insurance company won't pay for something you have the option of finding insurance somewhere else that will pay for it. There may be a lot of paperwork involved, but it's still an option.

reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Actually, that wasn't the gist of my post. The gist of my post was that adding any of that into a stimulus bill is pure idiocy, passing it is pure idiocy, and some idiot with no medical knowledge has no business telling my doctor if I should get treatment A or treatment B based on cost. If A is more effective I don't give a rats behind that it costs an extra couple hundred dollars. The gist of my post was that the elderly shouldn't have to suffer just because they are old. If they are in pain or need treatment for something, they should get the care they need to at least be comfortable. The gist of my post was every word I typed, not the one sentence you seem to disagree with.

As I said above to Kaploink, at least the way it is now you can switch insurance companies. Once the government runs it all you lose that. You're out of luck if they don't think you need treatment for something since you can't just find another insurance company.

I'm not particularly worried about hospitals and doctors sharing my medical records when needed. They do it now anyway, except they do it through this nifty thing called a fax machine instead of some digital database that will be hacked as soon as they start putting data into. I can't even count the number of notices my husband and I have received over the last few years that a database somewhere has been compromised or some idiot took a laptop home that had our personal information on it and it got "stolen". You really think I trust this particular database to be any more secure than the rest of them?

I have seen my medical records. That happens when you have to go see a specialist and ask for a copy. I can read every single thing in mine, no secret wording, no encrypted messages, nothing but a description of the problem and the treatment with my vitals from each time I go in. The handwriting may not always be the neatest but it's still legible.

I am one of the least paranoid people on this website. And despite your sly little stab there, I don't have anything in my medical records to hide either so you can keep your insinuations to yourself. There is a difference between hiding something in your medical records and not wanting your medical history on some server that can and will be hacked into.



Edit: Only typed half of a word.. Don't know how that happened..


[edit on 11-2-2009 by Jenna]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cutwolf
Perhaps my reading comprehension fails me, but I do not see where in the cited sections of the bill the author gets her conclusions.

The whole thing seems to be about streamlining information. An addition to a doctor's current arsenal, not a replacement.

If anyone can cite and explain how the author draws her quoted conclusions, it would be appreciated.


I said the same thing several pages ago but no one wants to talk about the truth. They just want to bash Obama.

I don't want this plan. I don't think it's the right thing for the country. But this thread is just fantasy.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   
This whole thing is scary.

If it is to be taken as good for the citizens of this country, then why sneak it into the middle of an economic stimulus package? Could it be they knew it didn't have a chance in hell of passing if it was part of a health care bill?
Reminds me far too much of the failed Hillary health care ideas.

Health care needs reform.
But as long as we have lobbyists and the government pretending to have my best interests at heart, I'd rather leave things as they are.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merigold
And what is it with the fear of socialized medicine?

Did you read my post?

Health care reform includes a board that will evaluate effectiveness and costs of various treatments and they basically decide if it's good for the society as a whole.

Some of what is proposed is good. Some of it is spooky.

Des Lebens nicht würdiges Leben - life not worthy of life
(Nazi slogan used to decide who got medicine and who didn't)

A board gets to decide if your surgery is worth the tax payers money.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


That is NOT in this package.

Tom Daschle is NOT in Obama's cabinet. He wouldn't be making his own policy if he was.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 



A board gets to decide if your surgery is worth the tax payers money.


Who decides now? If you have insurance then the insurance company does. If you don't then you're out of luck. If you pay your own way with cash then it's a mute point as then YOU decide.



[edit on 11-2-2009 by Merigold]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Lets face it this thread is all about Obama and because he's black and not white, because he's intelligent and not a dimwit. So yeah, I agree with electronic medical records. It reduces the amount of unnecessary money spend on plastics, paper, and or other unnecessary materials that make our medical records.

So wake up people! Stop living in the past because it's time to CHANGE!



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


Whoa!, Jenna....I did NOT insinuate anything....sorry if you felt that, perhaps it is the odd aspect of such an anonymous discussion board....words without connotation can be interpreted in the wrong way.

What I will try to clarify, is this: Other Nations can and do operate great health care systems. OURS is seemingly under hte death grip of the INSURANCE Companies!! THEY are the ones denying coverages, yet some on this thread claim that the Government will take over that role.

I disagree.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
You know people, this is the start to making everyone get the mark of the beast! If you don't know what that means, read REVELATIONS in the bible. This stimulus package is the perfect set up to making people receive implants to monitor their every move in life as well as control their health, money, bills, buying & selling, well everything! LOOK OUT IT"S COMMING, THE MARK OF THE BEAST!!!!!



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
What's in the stimulus package is a provision for the electronic transfer of medical records and the funds to facilitate and oversee that. Period.

Most of the opinion piece cited in the OP is conflating the actual bill with conclusions surmised from Tom Daschle's book. It seems to me deliberately aimed at arousing people's fears of socialized medicine and of the Obama administration in general. It is misleading and not real journalism.

There will be plenty of debate about socialized health care to come in the future.
I'm sure it will be a vigorous one.

But, Chicken Littles, the sky is not falling in this instance.

I personally would like more control over my medical records and who gets them and/or revises or adds to them. I am not sure I like the idea of making electronic transfer more efficient. But that is a distrust of the medical field and not of the government per se.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 



That IS an intersting point, Sestias!

Even today, a Doctor in Private Practice relies on the people he hires to take care of the 'records'....

So, let's say, under a Universal Health Care concept, ou go to your PCP thd he/she diagnoses a Pancreatic Cancer.

Well, a normal indivdual would ask for a second opinion....maybe NOT from a GP, but from an oncologist?

See how it gets complicated?

NOW, let's put the Insurance Company into the mix, who IMMEDIATELY denies the CLAIM! Because THAT is what they are tasked to do, in order to keep their jobs!!!! I'm talking, now, about the people who WORK for the Insurance Company, just trying to do what they're told, to keep their jobs.....

See WHY we need oversight??????



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 



Anyone familiar with "biosurveillance"?


If you have a heart condition or something like that. Your vitals can be monitored at all times.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by cognoscente]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 02:52 AM
link   
this doesn't surprise me. next, we'll all be told how may big macs we can eat per year, how many sodas and cups of coffee we can have per day, how much exercise we need...you see where i'm going with this. reminds me a bit of the compulsory "physical jerks" in 1984...



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by cognoscente
reply to post by jibeho
 



Anyone familiar with "biosurveillance"?


If you have a heart condition or something like that. Your vitals can be monitored at all times.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by cognoscente]


I had some time to do a little research and found this article in the WAPO


Biosurveillance, Intelligence and Bugs
The House Committee on Energy and Commerce has decided to investigate the creation of the National Biosurveillance Integration System at the Department of Homeland Security.

The operation was mandated by Homeland Security Presidential Directive 10. Its mission is to "to provide early detection and situational awareness of biological events of potential national consequence by acquiring, integrating, analyzing, and disseminating existing human, animal, plant, and environmental biosurveillance system data into a common operating picture," according to the DHS.


blog.washingtonpost.com...

This is definitely connected to Homeland Security and potential threats of bioterrorism.

Another article from CDC:

Biosurveillance is the automated monitoring of information sources of potential value in detecting an emerging epidemic, whether naturally occurring or the result of bioterrorism. Information sources that can be monitored for early warning include purchases of nonprescription medication (1) and symptoms reported during ambulatory care (2). Although these sources offer opportunities for early detection, they may also lead to high rates of false-positive reactions. A more definitive tool for biosurveillance is the electronic reporting of diagnostic results confirming the presence of a pathogen.

Heightened concerns about bioterrorism have led public health organizations to reevaluate methods used to report diseases. Currently, most healthcare providers notify public health organizations of reportable diseases by telephone, fax, or mail (3). These techniques generally delay the communication of confirmatory test results and notification of the appropriate public health organization (4). Underreporting is a major concern with traditional disease surveillance strategies (5); even cases of severe diseases sometimes go unreported (6). In addition, substantial variability exists in the completeness of the information sent to public health; initial reports often include only the test result and the patient name. They lack demographic details that are useful to public health officials, requiring them to perform followup calls to get the additional information (7). These delays and inconsistencies may impair the ability of public health officials to detect or respond to a bioterrorist event. One solution to these deficiencies is to use an electronic system to report disease to public health authorities.Text


www.cdc.gov...



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I think it was your capitalization of the word 'my' in that last post that made it seem as though you were insinuating something. Sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying.


I agree that it is possible for government to run health care and have it turn out to be something great. And I agree that our health care system is broken right now. It needs to be fixed. However, tucking it into a stimulus bill when this will not stimulate the economy is underhanded at best.

As it stands right now our economy is going down the toilet fairly quickly. What we need is to create jobs and entice companies to create jobs here and not outsource them. The last thing congress should be working on right now is creating a few jobs for their friends on some board who gets to tell the elderly that they aren't getting that surgery because the length of time it will benefit them isn't long enough.

Not to mention, and someone correct me if I am wrong here since this just occurred to me and I could be way off base, if and when the government takes over health care won't all those people working for insurance companies be out of a job? If the government is running health care, our taxes pay for it, and a board gets to decide who gets care and who doesn't based on how long treatment will benefit that person, we won't have health insurance anymore. Thousands upon thousands of people will suddenly be jobless. So if I am right about that, then this is going to further harm our economy.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join