• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Huge changes to healthcare sneaking into the stimulus bill

Scary indeed, and they are sneaking it in as part of the biggest single pork spending package ever in the history of the country, if not the world. Welcome to government run, government mandated health care......
 
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Scary indeed, and they are sneaking it in as part of the biggest single pork spending package ever in the history of the country, if not the world. Welcome to government run, government mandated health care......

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.? :shocked:

 
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.

There's a LOT of editorial scattered in there but the facts are hard to run from. A small committee of people will be the final say on who gets healthcare and how much they receive and what types of treatment will be available to who in what circumstances.

 
While I don't support this legislation I also don't see it as a significant change from the current system where insurance company flunkies are providing direction, guidance, and generally backseat doctoring. The only thing that changes is who is calling the shots, an insurance company accountant or a govmint accountant.
 
Originally posted by: ironwing
While I don't support this legislation I also don't see it as a significant change from the current system where insurance company flunkies are providing direction, guidance, and generally backseat doctoring. The only thing that changes is who is calling the shots, an insurance company accountant or a govmint accountant.
I can still pay out of pocket to get whatever treatment I want in the current system.
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: ironwing
While I don't support this legislation I also don't see it as a significant change from the current system where insurance company flunkies are providing direction, guidance, and generally backseat doctoring. The only thing that changes is who is calling the shots, an insurance company accountant or a govmint accountant.
I can still pay out of pocket to get whatever treatment I want in the current system.

The vast majority of America cannot afford to do that including a great many who are generally considered middle class.
 
So I smell another right wing paranoid circle jerk based upon scant information or a misreading of documents they don't understand? Methinks I do! It's amazing how much time that article spent talking about Daschle's plan considering he's not only not going to be the HHS director, but he was replaced by a Republican. Maybe they wrote it a few weeks ago and didn't want to waste it? hahaha.
 
As a company owner with a vested interested in healthcare IT, especially with respect to the electronic health record, I have a deep appreciation for the potential such an approach can provide. One of the things I was excited about with respect to both McCain and Obama's administration was the investment in healthcare IT infrastructure. The costs associated with providing Americans with healthcare is absolutely flabbergasting, and the inflated costs as a result flow right down to the consumer. So, I'm happy to see reform.

Though everyone loves to demonize the government and Obama, few understand the actual issues which provided this response in the first place. It's fun to say, "OMG, he's just trying to grow government and take over!", but let's cut the histrionics and be rational about it.

Fraud is rampant in healthcare, especially with respect to Medicare/Medicaid processing. No, I won't pull up statistics. Costs are tremendous, because healthcare providers have a difficult time processing insurance (denials, etc.) and therefore experience huge revenue losses that are often sent to third-parties for collection at a much reduced revenue capture rate. Guess who pays for that loss? We do, both in terms of collections should it get to that point and in terms of increased healthcare costs when we go again.

Admittedly, the implications of an eHR with government control frightens me. So does government control of the healthcare process itself, but someone needs to exercise vision and structure over the process. As Americans, we've been assuming these additional costs for far, far too long. Is government the answer? I don't think so, but I'm personally open to better options.

 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
So I smell another right wing paranoid circle jerk based upon scant information or a misreading of documents they don't understand? Methinks I do! It's amazing how much time that article spent talking about Daschle's plan considering he's not only not going to be the HHS director, but he was replaced by a Republican. Maybe they wrote it a few weeks ago and didn't want to waste it? hahaha.
You're doing a good job. Don't forget to wash your hands when we are done.
 
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Someone needs to drop kick the US government.

It's all the usual smoke and mirrors behind the guise of change.

I'm sick of it.

False.

Have you read the bill? Have you read the plans Obama and McCain both put forth in their campaigns?

I've been on the receiving end of government regulation for years, including HIPAA standards changes that ripple through the industry and ultimately result in potentially billions of dollars in terms of costs. You think UNH, BCBS, etc. eat these costs?

This nationalization has been happening for years. That's the other thing no one will tell you. There have been steps to centralize everything for a very long, long time. Subtle changes to be sure, but enough so that a more comprehensive change can be made.

It's not all smoke and mirrors. It's ok to be skeptical, but let's at least be genuine about our concern. There exists no known better solution to the problem unless you can explain to me how a free market can compel a competitive-driven company to standard with their competition for the purposes of reducing consumer costs.

[edit]To give a concrete example, look at the NPI Standards (warning, PDF). This has been rippling through the industry for years.[/edit]

 
People love to complain how Medicare will bankrupt us, but the very same people are up in arms if the government tries to implement any sort of cost containment on Medicare.
This is typical Republicanism, screw up governing, then pretend that government is the problem.
 
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: senseamp
Sounds like a first step toward universal health care. So far so good.

If it's from the government, it is almost certainly bad.

As opposed to same thing from the insurance company?

It's not the same. You have no choice with the Government. With private company, you can go elsewhere. Called the free market as opposed to socialism.
 
Originally posted by: senseamp
People love to complain how Medicare will bankrupt us, but the very same people are up in arms if the government tries to implement any sort of cost containment on Medicare.
This is typical Republicanism, screw up governing, then pretend that government is the problem.

Didnt I already make you look like an idiot in another thread where you though republicans were "in power" up until last month?


Congress passes laws.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
So I smell another right wing paranoid circle jerk based upon scant information or a misreading of documents they don't understand? Methinks I do! It's amazing how much time that article spent talking about Daschle's plan considering he's not only not going to be the HHS director, but he was replaced by a Republican. Maybe they wrote it a few weeks ago and didn't want to waste it? hahaha.

The article provides a (pdf) link to the stimulus bill, and gives cites (page numbers) for it's claims. Why not check it out instead of speculating?

Edit: Forgot to mention - Oh yeah, d@mn, look more new stuff discovered buried in the +600 pages. Doesn't look to be related to 'stimulus' in any meaningful way.

Let's see so far the stimulus bill that's about "jobs" (according to Obama) also has (1) Individual welfare/unemployment, (2) welfare/support for states, (3) Education, (4) now we see health care reform. What else?

Fern
 
Originally posted by: senseamp
People love to complain how Medicare will bankrupt us, but the very same people are up in arms if the government tries to implement any sort of cost containment on Medicare.
This is typical Republicanism, screw up governing, then pretend that government is the problem.

Not I. Cut medicare and SS all you want. Privatize all of it is absolutely fine with me. Let me keep my money and decide how I want to fund retirement and healthcare. I don't need some brainless moron in a D.C. office deciding for me.
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: ironwing
While I don't support this legislation I also don't see it as a significant change from the current system where insurance company flunkies are providing direction, guidance, and generally backseat doctoring. The only thing that changes is who is calling the shots, an insurance company accountant or a govmint accountant.
I can still pay out of pocket to get whatever treatment I want in the current system.

Why would this prevent you from doing so in the future? If you wanted to have something done, and the government denies to cover it, you still have the option of paying for it yourself. This section of the bill does not strip you of that right. Currently, this gives the government no more control of the process than individual insurers have. I really don't see the outrage.
 
Originally posted by: dphantom
It's not the same. You have no choice with the Government. With private company, you can go elsewhere. Called the free market as opposed to socialism.

Much too black and white. A mix of properly government funded and regulated UHC in addition to privatized health insurance options is a better answer.
 
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: senseamp
People love to complain how Medicare will bankrupt us, but the very same people are up in arms if the government tries to implement any sort of cost containment on Medicare.
This is typical Republicanism, screw up governing, then pretend that government is the problem.

Not I. Cut medicare and SS all you want. Privatize all of it is absolutely fine with me. Let me keep my money and decide how I want to fund retirement and healthcare. I don't need some brainless moron in a D.C. office deciding for me.

And what happens to everyone (including you) during times like these where you have tons of people that planned wisely to retire using whatever they had, but had it all vanish within a couple months thanks to a bad time in the economy?

Part of the government's job is to preserve the common welfare of each and every one of it's citizens. That means they need a low risk trump card for preservation and that is going to cost money. Just because the government is letting you keep your taxes doesn't mean you have control of your money even in a 100% free market. The only difference is that you end up giving it to corporations to control it for you instead which is fine, but this country needs a back up plan if it intends to survive during hard times and that is the government's job.
 
Back
Top