PDA

View Full Version : A look into government controlled health care


Hammer Of The GODS
07-21-2009, 11:53 AM
So, you want government controlled health care?

Just remember that you can't sue the government. So if you are unlucky enough to need surgery and the government is running the show you could be in the same boat as this poor guy!

http://www.foxnews.com:80/story/0,2933,534050,00.html

A Texas Airman stationed at an Air Force Base near Sacramento, Calif. has lost both legs after surgeons reportedly botched a routine surgery to remove his gallbladder.

Colton Read, 20, underwent laproscopic surgery last week at David Grant Medical Center at Travis Air Force Base near Sacramento. Laproscopic surgery is a minimally invasive procedure that involves making a tiny incision to minimize pain and speed recovery time.

About an hour into the surgery, something went wrong. Read's wife Jessica told CBS11TV.com.

"A nurse runs out, 'we need blood now' and she rounds the corner and my gut feelings is 'oh my God, is that my husband?'" Jessica Read said. Read's wife said an Air Force general surgeon mistakenly cut her husband's aortic valve, which supplies blood to the heart, but waited hours to transport Colton Read to a state hospital with a vascular surgeon.

Read, who is still in intensive care, lost both legs as a result of the blood loss. Meanwhile, his gallbladder still has not been removed. Jessica Read said the doctor admitted his mistake, but under federal law the Reads cannot sue.

The future of Colton Read's career is now uncertain, FOX 40 in Sacramento reported.

Jessica Read told FOX 40 she is appalled that the Air Force is even considering medical retirement or medical discharge while Airman Read is incapable of making any type of decision. She said he is not 100 percent lucid and is still heavily medicated.

The Air Force is conducting a review of the case using outside experts.

It would be naive to think that if the government ran health care that they would NOT put the same policies in place that they have for the military.

I really feel sorry for this guy. 20 years old and his life will never be the same.



.

SCSTILLER
07-21-2009, 12:10 PM
HOTG, military health care is a joke. My buddy broke his ankle over a year and a half ago and his ankle is still broke and will be for the rest of his life. The reason it never got fixed was 1. it took him nearly 2 weeks to get an appointment 2. his doctor wouldn't refer him to an ortho (finally went after his doctor got orders out) 3. and he fell through the cracks. In the military, your Primary Care Manager is non negotiable, if you don't have confidence in how they are treating, oh well. You have to wait till you move or they move.

It is a joke, and this is what some of our politicians want for the rest of America? Sorry, I cannot buy off on that.

stlrtruck
07-21-2009, 12:20 PM
It is a joke, and this is what some of our politicians want for the rest of America? Sorry, I cannot buy off on that.

Why not? It's not like politicians really give a rats arse about the common folk anymore. I mean really, if they did they would fix things like social security and medicaid - but why don't they? BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY IN TO THEM!

Never leave to a politican what you want to work!

SCSTILLER
07-21-2009, 02:44 PM
Why not? It's not like politicians really give a rats arse about the common folk anymore. I mean really, if they did they would fix things like social security and medicaid - but why don't they? BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY IN TO THEM!

Never leave to a politican what you want to work!

Very true!

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
07-21-2009, 03:09 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AqD-nMpsYAY&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AqD-nMpsYAY&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Hammer Of The GODS
07-21-2009, 03:36 PM
The only "CHANGE" in the new healthcare program will be exchanging your current wardrobe for orthopedic clothes!



.

Godfather
07-21-2009, 08:50 PM
Why not? It's not like politicians really give a rats arse about the common folk anymore. I mean really, if they did they would fix things like social security and medicaid - but why don't they? BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY IN TO THEM!

Never leave to a politican what you want to work!

That's a common myth. They do have to pay into the system.

They just don't need the benefits because most of them spend their career stealing everything that isn't nailed down.

lamberts-lost-tooth
07-22-2009, 03:29 PM
I'm sure by now that you have heard politicians saying that they want to pattern the Federal Helathcare program after the one implemented in Massachusetts.

They say that Government Healthcare should meet 5 criteria. Coverage should be...

1) universal,
2) not tied to a job,
3) affordable for individuals and families
4) affordable for society (amount we need to be taxed to sustain the program)
5) and it should provide access to high-quality care for everyone.

One problem with basing it on Massachusetts state's plan.....the Massachusetts flunks on all counts. It has been a failure.

The state has more than 200,000 without coverage, and the count can only go up with rising unemployment.

Tthe reform never addressed the problem of insurance being connected to jobs. For individuals, this means their insurance is not continuous if they change or lose jobs. For employers, especially small businesses, health insurance is an expense they can ill afford.

Third, the program is not affordable for many individuals and families.... For middle-income people not qualifying for state-subsidized health insurance, costs are too high for even skimpy coverage. For an individual earning $31,213, the cheapest plan can cost $9,872 in premiums and out-of-pocket payments..... Low-income residents, previously eligible for free care, have insurance policies requiring unaffordable copayments for office visits and medications.

Fourth, the costs of the reform for the state have been formidable. Spending for the Commonwealth Care subsidized program has doubled, from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion for 2009, which is not sustainable.

Fifth, reform does not assure access to care.....High-deductible plans that have additional out-of-pocket expenses have resulted in many people not using their insurance when they are sick. Simply put...There is no Healthcare if you cannot afford it.

In one case...a divorced mother stopped treatment for her son because the father had changed insurance, leaving them with an unaffordable deductible....and at Cambridge Health Alliance, doctors and nurses have cared for patients who, unable to afford the new copayments, were forced to interrupt care for HIV and even cancers that could be treated with chemotherapy.

Access to care is also affected by the uneven distribution of healthcare dollars between primary and specialty care... and between community hospitals and tertiary care hospitals.

Partners HealthCare, which includes two major tertiary care hospitals in Boston, was able to negotiate a secret agreement with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts to be paid 30 percent more for their services than other providers in the state, contributing to an increase in healthcare costs for Massachusetts, which are already the highest per person in the world. Agreements that tilt spending toward tertiary care threaten the viability of community hospitals and health centers that provide a safety net for the uninsured and underinsured.

If Massachusetts healthcare reform fails on all five Institute of Medicine criteria. Congress should not make it a model for the nation

revefsreleets
07-22-2009, 04:19 PM
This plan is a POS. It has no provision to reward thrift, nothing to control costs, hit small business with ANOTHER tax (this time 8%) which may be the straw that breaks THAT camels back.

It's a joke. It's awful. There's not a single redeeming quality in this plan if you live in the same World that my grandparents worked (and fought) so hard to create.

revefsreleets
07-23-2009, 10:27 AM
Here's another look. Leonhardt is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, and even he is beginning to question this POS.

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/51457877.html

Obama's test: Selling health-care reform

By David Leonhardt
New York Times

Published on Thursday, Jul 23, 2009

WASHINGTON: What's in it for me?

On the subject of health care reform, most Americans probably don't have a good answer to the question. And that, obviously, is a problem for the White House and for Democratic leaders in Congress.

Current bills would expand the number of insured — but 90 percent of voters already have insurance. Congressional leaders say the bills would cut costs. But experts are dubious. Instead, they point out that covering the uninsured would cost billions.

So the typical person watching from afar is left to wonder: What will this project mean for me, besides possibly higher taxes?

Barack Obama was able to rise from the Illinois State Senate to the presidency in large measure because of his ability to explain complex issues and then to make a persuasive argument. He now has a challenge worthy of his skills.

Our health care system is engineered, deliberately or not, to resist change. The people who pay for it — you and I — often don't realize that they're paying for it. Money comes out of our paychecks, in withheld taxes and insurance premiums, before we ever see it. It then flows to doctors, hospitals and drug makers without our realizing that it was our money to begin with.

The doctors, hospitals and drug makers use the money to treat us, and we of course do see those treatments. If anything, we want more of them. They are supposed to make us healthy, and they appear to be free. What's not to like?

The immediate task facing Obama to explain that the health care system doesn't really work the way it seems to. He won't be able to put it in such blunt terms. But he will need to explain how a typical household, one that has insurance and thinks it always will, is being harmed.

The United States now devotes one-sixth of its economy to medicine. Divvy that up, and health care will cost the typical household roughly $15,000 this year, including the often-invisible contributions by employers. That is almost twice as much as two decades ago (adjusting for inflation). It's about $6,500 more than in other rich countries, on average.

We may not be aware of this stealth $6,500 health care tax, but if you take a moment to think, it makes sense. Over the past 20 years, health costs have soared, and incomes have grown painfully slowly. The two trends are directly connected: Employers had to spend more money on benefits, leaving less for raises.

In exchange for the $6,500 tax, we receive many things. We get cutting-edge research and heroic surgeries. But we also get fabulous amounts of waste — bureaucratic and medical.

One thing we don't get is better health than other rich countries, whether it's Canada, France, Japan or many others. In some categories, like emergency room care, this country seems to do better. In others, like chronic-disease care, it seems to do worse. ''The fact that we spend all this money and don't have better outcomes than other countries is a sign of how poorly we're doing,'' says Dr. Alan Garber of Stanford University. ''We should be doing way better.''

So far, no one has grabbed the mantle as the defender of the typical household — the opponent of spending that creates profits for drug companies and hospitals at no benefit to people's health and at significant cost to their finances.

Republicans have actually come out against doing research into which procedures improve health. Blue Dog Democrats oppose wasteful spending but until recently have not been specific. Liberals rely on the wishful idea — yet to be supported by evidence — that more preventive care will reduce spending. The American Medical Association, not surprisingly, endorses this notion of doing more care in the name of less care.

Obama says many of the right things. Yet the White House has not yet shown that it's willing to fight the necessary fights. Remember: the $6,500 tax benefits someone. And that someone has a lobbyist. The lobbyist even has an argument about how he is acting in your interest.

These lobbyists, who include big names like like Dick Armey and Richard Gephardt, have succeeded in persuading Congress to write bills with a rather clever feature. They include some of the ideas that would cut costs — but defang them.

One proposal would pay doctors based on the quality of care, rather than quantity, but it's a pilot project. Doctors who already provide good care may well opt in; doctors providing wasteful but lucrative care surely will not. The bills would also finance research on which treatments are effective. But Medicare officials would not be prevented from continuing to spend taxpayer money on ineffective treatments.

In reaction, some people who should be natural supporters of reform have become critics. The Mayo Clinic — one of Obama's favorite models of care — says the legislation fails to ''help create higher-quality, more affordable health care.''

Today, Obama will visit another example he likes to cite, the Cleveland Clinic. Its successes capture what real reform would look like. Like Mayo, the Cleveland Clinic pays its doctors a salary, rather than piecemeal, and delivers excellent results for relatively little money.

''I came here 30-some years ago,'' Toby Cosgrove, a heart surgeon who is the clinic's chief executive, told me. ''And I have never received any additional pay for anything I did. It never made a difference if I did five heart operations or four — I got paid the same amount of money. So I had no incentive to do any extra tests or anything.''

This is the crux of the issue, economists say: The current fee-for-service system needs to be remade. The administration has made some progress, by proposing a powerful new Medicare overseer who could force the program to pay for good results and stop paying for bad ones.

But even a strong Medicare plan won't be enough. Reform will need to attack the piecemeal system in numerous ways. Among the most promising, which Obama has resisted, is a limit on tax subsidies for the costliest health insurance plans. This limit would give households and employers a reason to become smarter shoppers.

Above all, reform can't revolve around politely asking the rest of the medical system to become more like the Cleveland Clinic.

In recent weeks, polls have shown that a solid majority of Americans support the stated goals of health reform. Most want the uninsured to be covered and want the option of a government-run insurance plan. Yet the polls also show that people are worried about the package emerging from Congress.

Maybe they have a point.
Leonhardt is a New York Times business columnist. He can be e-mailed at Leonhardt@nytimes.com.

revefsreleets
07-27-2009, 10:15 AM
More on "Obamacare"

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/51726057.html

Why is Obamacare sinking? Weight of reality

By Charles Krauthammer
Washington Post

Published on Sunday, Jul 26, 2009

WASHINGTON: What happened to Obamacare? Rhetoric met reality. As both candidate and president, the master rhetorician could conjure a world in which he bestows upon you health care nirvana: more coverage, less cost.

But you can't fake it in legislation. Once you commit your fantasies to words and numbers, the Congressional Budget Office comes along and declares that the emperor has no clothes.

President Obama premised the need for reform on the claim that medical costs are destroying the economy. True. But now we learn — surprise! — that universal coverage increases costs. The congressional Democrats' health care plans, says the CBO, increase costs in the range of $1 trillion plus.

In response, the president retreated to a demand that any bill he sign be revenue neutral. But that's classic misdirection: If the fierce urgency of health care reform is to radically reduce costs that are producing budget-destroying deficits, revenue neutrality (by definition) leaves us on precisely the same path to insolvency that Obama himself declares unsustainable.

The Democratic proposals are worse still. Because they do increase costs, revenue neutrality means countervailing tax increases. It's not just that it is crazily anti-stimulatory to saddle a deeply depressed economy with an income tax surcharge that falls squarely on small business and the investor class.

It's that health-care reform ends up diverting for its own purposes a source of revenue that might otherwise be used to close the yawning structural budget deficit that is such a threat to the economy and to the dollar.

These blindingly obvious contradictions are why the Democratic health plans are collapsing under their own weight — at the hands of Democrats. It's Max Baucus, Democratic chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, who called Obama unhelpful for ruling out taxing employer-provided health insurance as a way to pay for expanded coverage.

It's the Blue Dog Democrats in the House who wince at skyrocketing health-reform costs just weeks after having swallowed hemlock for Obama on a ruinous cap-and-trade carbon tax.

The president is therefore understandably eager to make this a contest between progressive Democrats and reactionary Republicans. He seized on Republican Sen. Jim DeMint's comment that stopping Obama on health care would break his presidency to protest, with perfect disingenuousness, that ''this isn't about me. This isn't about politics.''

It's all about him. Health care is his signature reform. And he knows that if he produces nothing, he forfeits the mystique that both propelled him to the presidency and has sustained him through a difficult first six months.

Which is why Obama's red lines are constantly shifting. Universal coverage? Maybe not. No middle-class tax hit? Well, perhaps, but only if they don't ''primarily'' bear the burden. Because it's about him, Obama is quite prepared to sign anything as long as it is titled ''health-care reform.''

This is not about politics? Then why is it, to take but the most egregious example, that in this grand health-care debate we hear not a word about one of the worst sources of waste in American medicine: the insane cost and arbitrary rewards of our malpractice system?

When a neurosurgeon pays $200,000 a year for malpractice insurance before he even turns on the light in his office or hires his first nurse, who do you think pays? Patients, in higher doctor fees to cover the insurance.

And with jackpot justice that awards one claimant zillions while others get nothing — and one-third of everything goes to the lawyers — where do you think that money comes from? The insurance companies, who then pass it on to you in higher premiums.

But the greatest waste is the hidden cost of defensive medicine: tests and procedures that doctors order for no good reason other than to protect themselves from lawsuit. Every doctor knows, as I did when I practiced years ago, how much unnecessary medical cost is incurred with an eye not on medicine but on the law.

Tort reform would yield tens of billions in savings. Yet you cannot find it in the Democratic bills. And Obama breathed not a word about it in the full hour of his health care news conference. Why? No mystery. The Democrats are parasitically dependent on huge donations from trial lawyers.

Didn't Obama promise a new politics that puts people over special interests? Sure. And now he promises expanded, portable, secure, higher-quality medical care — at lower cost! The only thing he hasn't promised is to extirpate evil from the human heart. That legislation will be introduced next week.
Krauthammer is a Washington Post columnist. He can be e-mailed at letters@charleskrauthammer.com.

RunWillieRun
07-27-2009, 04:15 PM
The only thing he hasn't promised is to extirpate evil from the human heart. That legislation will be introduced next week.


:sofunny:


Krauthammer is a great op-ed writer.

revefsreleets
07-27-2009, 04:27 PM
See, we just need to give him MORE TIME! We're all just being short-sighted, ignorant and we fail to have good reading comprehension, that's all...he's still going to save us all!

Fire Haley
07-27-2009, 04:49 PM
They are going to shove this down our throats.

It's coming....CBO flip-flops

Gov't plan can coexist with private insurance

A new government health insurance plan sought by President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats could coexist with private insurers without driving them out of business, an analysis by nonpartisan budget experts suggests.

The estimate by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office — seen as good news by Democrats — comes as leaders pushed Monday to make progress on health care overhaul before lawmakers go home for their August recess.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., says a floor vote is still possible in the next few days, and Democrats called a meeting of all their House members late Monday afternoon. In the Senate, a small group of lawmakers from both parties were resuming negotiations in search of an elusive compromise.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090727/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul

Fire Haley
07-27-2009, 08:09 PM
Uh-oh...it gets worse

Mandatory private insurance.

It's dropping the requirement that employers provide coverage too.


Senate finance committee drops pubic option

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/27/senate-group-dropping-dem_n_245839.html

MACH1
07-27-2009, 09:17 PM
Negotiators also are considering fees on the manufacturers of medical devices and on the makers of both brand name and generic drugs coming onto the market.

And this is supposed to save money how? The cost will be passed to the consumer. What a cluster f***.

revefsreleets
07-28-2009, 11:19 AM
And more...there seem to be plenty of viable workable options already in existence, yet, for some reason, Barry and his cohorts in Congress aren't interested in solvent common-sense options.

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/51842477.html

Doctors at the heart of health-care reform

By David Leonhardt
New York Times

Published on Tuesday, Jul 28, 2009

WASHINGTON: Every fight over health-care reform is different, and every fight over health-care reform is the same.

In 1929, Michael Shadid, a doctor in western Oklahoma, proposed an idea for making medical care affordable to farmers. Rather than pay piecemeal for treatments, farmers would each contribute $50 a year to a cooperative. Dr. Shadid and his colleagues would pay their own salaries and expenses with the aggregate sum, and no farmer's annual bill for family medical care would exceed $50.

Horrified by the plan, other Oklahoma doctors tried to revoke Dr. Shadid's license. The conflict was soon duplicated across the country; cooperatives sprang up, and the American Medical Association tried to beat them back. The AMA's members, as the historian Paul Starr has written, felt threatened because the cooperatives ''subjected doctors' incomes and working conditions to direct control by their clients.''

The issue was clear: Who controls the doctor-patient relationship? That question has been at the core of every big subsequent battle over health care. Should doctors determine not only their patients' treatment but also their own pay, through the fee-for-service system that has survived since the 1920s? Or should patients have more power in the relationship? And who could claim to act on patients' behalf, monitoring treatments and bargaining with doctors?

A succession of presidents — from Harry S. Truman to Richard M. Nixon to Bill Clinton — volunteered the government for the role of patients' advocate, and their grand efforts all failed. Now it is President Obama's turn to try to remake America's medical system.

Last week's back and forth, when congressional Democrats squabbled and Obama took his case to the public, highlighted how difficult his task will be. Reform of health care has the potential to threaten profits and incomes that make up one-sixth of the economy. More daunting, perhaps, Americans seem to have great trust in their doctors — more, certainly, than they trust the government on medical matters.

More than three in four Americans are ''very satisfied'' or ''somewhat satisfied'' with their own care, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. But a substantial majority also say that the health-care system needs fundamental change and that rising costs are a serious threat to the economy — a view that economists strongly share.

Thus the political challenge facing any effort at an overhaul: Americans say they want change, but they also want to preserve their own status quo.

The disconnect can be explained partly by the peculiar economics of health care. Because third parties — the government or a private insurer — typically pay the bill, many people miss the fact that the money originally comes from them. They see the benefits of medical care without seeing the costs.

But trust in doctors is a factor as well. Even when doctors order costly treatments with serious side effects and little evidence of their being effective, as studies find is common, patients are loath to question the decision. Instead of blaming such treatments for the rising cost of medicine, many people are inclined to blame forces that health economists say are far less important, like greedy insurance companies or onerous malpractice laws.

Obama is well aware of the public perception. This is why he directs his criticism not at doctors but at insurers and drug companies. In his news conference on Wednesday night, he advocated creating a government panel with the power to begin moving Medicare away from its fee-for-service model and emphasize outcomes instead. But he described it in doctor-friendly terms — as ''an independent group of doctors and medical experts who are empowered to eliminate waste and inefficiency.''

His rhetorical choices highlight one of the least discussed but most important conflicts in the current health care debate. The fight isn't just a matter of Democrats vs. Republicans, Blue Dogs vs. liberals or patients vs. insurers. It is also doctors vs. doctors.

That's the same as in Oklahoma in 1929. And what has happened to Dr. Shadid's model? It has survived. He built a team of doctors who collaborated closely and were not paid based on how many procedures they performed. Today, this description fits the Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic (which Obama visited on Thursday), as well as less-known groups around the country.

Medicare data shows that these groups generally provide less expensive care and appear to deliver better results. Armed with this data, the doctors who run the groups have been lobbying Congress to make their model a bigger part of health reform. Two weeks ago, 13 such groups released a letter saying that recent versions of proposed legislation did not control costs enough.

Their goal is to weaken the fee-for-service system. In its place, doctors might receive a lump-sum payment to treat a patient with a certain condition, based on average costs elsewhere and on what scientific evidence had found to be effective. Hospitals with especially good outcomes might earn bonuses.

Advocates say such a system could ultimately give doctors more control. Rather than having to organize their schedules around the tests and procedures that insurers agree to reimburse, doctors could opt for the treatments they deem most effective. ''It's a lot more accountability, which is why it's scary for physicians,'' said Dr. Mark McClellan, a former head of Medicare under George W. Bush. ''But in some ways it's also more autonomy.''

On Tuesday, doctors and hospital executives from 10 cities with below-average cost growth gathered in Washington for a conference called, ''How Do They Do That?'' They were a diverse lot, only some of whom hailed from providers resembling the Mayo Clinic. While crediting a range of factors for their success, they generally agreed about what ails American medicine.

When Dr. McClellan, who helped organize the conference, asked how many people thought the fee-for-service system was ''archaic and fundamentally at odds'' with good practice, most hands shot up. In effect, they were siding with Dr. Shadid and against a system that provides incentives for more and more care, regardless of its benefit.

''There are no consequences right now to over-utilization,'' Dr. Anthony F. Oliva, chief medical officer of the Guthrie Healthcare System, in northeast Pennsylvania, said later. ''If you don't have consequences, you won't change the culture. If you don't have consequences, the people that are killing themselves to control cost are going to say, 'Why am I doing this?' ''

It is a message, of course, that a doctor can deliver more easily than anyone else.
Leonhardt is a New York Times business columnist.

.

SteelersinCA
07-28-2009, 01:19 PM
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/conyers_why_bother_to_read_bil.html

Conyers sees no point in reading the bill. Awesome. When is he up for re-election?

xfl2001fan
07-28-2009, 01:35 PM
And this is supposed to save money how? The cost will be passed to the consumer. What a cluster f***.

Who are you to question OBAAAAAAAMA?

KeiselPower99
07-28-2009, 02:07 PM
I heard this morning that members of Congress have been told not to call it Government Health Care now cause its scarring people.

stlrtruck
07-28-2009, 02:40 PM
I heard this morning that members of Congress have been told not to call it Government Health Care now cause its scarring people.

What should they call it? You're about to get screwed Health care or better yet, "We the politicians don't care health care!"

KeiselPower99
07-28-2009, 02:46 PM
What should they call it? You're about to get screwed Health care or better yet, "We the politicians don't care health care!"

They didnt say what it was gonna be called. I was wondering that myself.

43Hitman
07-29-2009, 12:38 PM
Health Care Translated

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07242009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/deadly_doctors_180941.htm?&page=0

THE health bills coming out of Congress would put the de cisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They'd decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare.

Yet at least two of President Obama's top health advisers should never be trusted with that power.

Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free. "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change," he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).

Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.

Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.

Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).

Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.

He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).

The bills being rushed through Congress will be paid for largely by a $500 billion-plus cut in Medicare over 10 years. Knowing how unpopular the cuts will be, the president's budget director, Peter Orszag, urged Congress this week to delegate its own authority over Medicare to a new, presidentially-appointed bureaucracy that wouldn't be accountable to the public.

Since Medicare was founded in 1965, seniors' lives have been transformed by new medical treatments such as angioplasty, bypass surgery and hip and knee replacements. These innovations allow the elderly to lead active lives. But Emanuel criticizes Americans for being too "enamored with technology" and is determined to reduce access to it.

Dr. David Blumenthal, another key Obama adviser, agrees. He recommends slowing medical innovation to control health spending.

Blumenthal has long advocated government health-spending controls, though he concedes they're "associated with longer waits" and "reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices" (New England Journal of Medicine, March 8, 2001). But he calls it "debatable" whether the timely care Americans get is worth the cost. (Ask a cancer patient, and you'll get a different answer. Delay lowers your chances of survival.)

Obama appointed Blumenthal as national coordinator of health-information technology, a job that involves making sure doctors obey electronically deivered guidelines about what care the government deems appropriate and cost effective.

In the April 9 New England Journal of Medicine, Blumenthal predicted that many doctors would resist "embedded clinical decision support" -- a euphemism for computers telling doctors what to do.

Americans need to know what the president's health advisers have in mind for them. Emanuel sees even basic amenities as luxuries and says Americans expect too much: "Hospital rooms in the United States offer more privacy . . . physicians' offices are typically more conveniently located and have parking nearby and more attractive waiting rooms" (JAMA, June 18, 2008).

No one has leveled with the public about these dangerous views. Nor have most people heard about the arm-twisting, Chicago-style tactics being used to force support. In a Nov. 16, 2008, Health Care Watch column, Emanuel explained how business should be done: "Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda. If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort."

Do we want a "reform" that empowers people like this to decide for us?

Betsy McCaughey is founder of the Committee to Reduce Infec tion Deaths and a former New York lieutenant governor.

X-Terminator
07-29-2009, 07:28 PM
Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.

Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.

Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).

Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.

He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).

The bills being rushed through Congress will be paid for largely by a $500 billion-plus cut in Medicare over 10 years. Knowing how unpopular the cuts will be, the president's budget director, Peter Orszag, urged Congress this week to delegate its own authority over Medicare to a new, presidentially-appointed bureaucracy that wouldn't be accountable to the public.

Since Medicare was founded in 1965, seniors' lives have been transformed by new medical treatments such as angioplasty, bypass surgery and hip and knee replacements. These innovations allow the elderly to lead active lives. But Emanuel criticizes Americans for being too "enamored with technology" and is determined to reduce access to it.

So basically, this guy is saying that my mother, who is a double amputee, has ESRD that requires dialysis, glaucoma that cost her one eye and had an attack of hypoglycemia this morning that prevented her from going to her dialysis treatment, should not and does not deserve to receive care under his plan, because it "costs too much" and that she shouldn't have access to medical technology that "Americans have become too enamored with?" He is basically advocating sentencing my mother to death because he doesn't believe we should spend money to keep her alive.

There is something I'd really like to say, but because this is a PG-rated board, I'll just tell you to kiss my ass, Emanuel!

And people actually WANT this for America?????

MACH1
07-29-2009, 07:34 PM
So basically, this guy is saying that my mother, who is a double amputee, has ESRD that requires dialysis, glaucoma that cost her one eye and had an attack of hypoglycemia this morning that prevented her from going to her dialysis treatment, should not and does not deserve to receive care under his plan, because it "costs too much" and that she shouldn't have access to medical technology that "Americans have become too enamored with?"

There is something I'd really like to say, but because this is a PG-rated board, I'll just tell you to kiss my ass, Emanuel!

And people actually WANT this for America?????

As our savior said "just take a pain pill it'll go away" :banging:

In his own words!

U-dQfb8WQvo

I am shocked the he is being so honest in basically saying that instead of treatments older people will be denied and told to start taking pain pills and preparing for death instead under the government plan.

Why isn't everyone appalled that he would even say that and run screaming from government health care?

Preacher
07-30-2009, 12:23 AM
So, you want government controlled health care?

Just remember that you can't sue the government. So if you are unlucky enough to need surgery and the government is running the show you could be in the same boat as this poor guy!

http://www.foxnews.com:80/story/0,2933,534050,00.html



It would be naive to think that if the government ran health care that they would NOT put the same policies in place that they have for the military.

I really feel sorry for this guy. 20 years old and his life will never be the same.


And sadly, that is neither the first nor the last time. Growing up on and around an Air base, it just isn't surprised.

El-Gonzo Jackson
07-30-2009, 01:23 AM
That article is unfortunate, but honestly about equal to a barber slicing somebodys carotid atery while giving them a shave.

I work in the med field and have seen hundreds of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomies. Dr. Nick Riviera wouldnt even do that. I have seen surgical residents do gall bladder surgery and never come close to a mishap like in that article. The surgeon must have been blind, drunk or both.

The major problem with the current system in terms of costs from a surgical cost perspective is that the majority of hospitals use disposable instruments and simply pass the cost along to the patient and their HMO. Other countries with govt run and private healthcare save costs by using reusable instruments and items. Its the equivalent of using disposable cutlery or just buying some flatware that is gonna last 10 years.

Here is a link to an article showing cost comparison of reuseable vs. single use instruments....but the reality is that Covidien, J&J (Ethicon), B-D and other disposable item manufacturers dominate the US healthcare system.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/ww595q11285770m5/

Preacher
07-30-2009, 06:06 AM
That article is unfortunate, but honestly about equal to a barber slicing somebodys carotid atery while giving them a shave.

I work in the med field and have seen hundreds of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomies. Dr. Nick Riviera wouldnt even do that. I have seen surgical residents do gall bladder surgery and never come close to a mishap like in that article. The surgeon must have been blind, drunk or both.

The major problem with the current system in terms of costs from a surgical cost perspective is that the majority of hospitals use disposable instruments and simply pass the cost along to the patient and their HMO. Other countries with govt run and private healthcare save costs by using reusable instruments and items. Its the equivalent of using disposable cutlery or just buying some flatware that is gonna last 10 years.

Here is a link to an article showing cost comparison of reuseable vs. single use instruments....but the reality is that Covidien, J&J (Ethicon), B-D and other disposable item manufacturers dominate the US healthcare system.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/ww595q11285770m5/

Honestly, I would pay 5 times the amount AT LEAST for disposable equipment to be used on me. Never touch someone else, never will touch someone else. Thank you very much!!! :wink02:

El-Gonzo Jackson
07-30-2009, 10:16 AM
Honestly, I would pay 5 times the amount AT LEAST for disposable equipment to be used on me. Never touch someone else, never will touch someone else. Thank you very much!!! :wink02:

And that is why healthcare is so expensive and not affordable to a large majority of people.

The hospital will reprocess hemostats and effectively sterilize them for use on you and dozens of other people, but spend $500 on a disposable laparoscopic instrument, then throw it away and bill the HMO instead of buying a reusable one that can be reused hundreds of times.

THAT is why its entirely possible to make a model of affordable healthcare available to the masses.............and still have an option for people such as yourself that would pay AT LEAST 5 TIMES more for their healthcare.

fansince'76
07-30-2009, 10:27 AM
As our savior said "just take a pain pill it'll go away" :banging:

In his own words!

U-dQfb8WQvo

I am shocked the he is being so honest in basically saying that instead of treatments older people will be denied and told to start taking pain pills and preparing for death instead under the government plan.

Why isn't everyone appalled that he would even say that and run screaming from government health care?

I can only imagine what the media backlash would have been like if the "idiotic, satanic Chimpy McFlightsuit" would have said it. Suffice to say that this is the first I've seen or heard of this - if it had been the previous admin? It would have gotten nonstop coverage for at LEAST a week and I wouldn't be able to get away from hearing about it. "ZOMFG, in addition to being a puppy-drowning, baby-killing fascist who hates black people, Bush hates old people too!" :coffee:

revefsreleets
07-30-2009, 10:35 AM
And that is why healthcare is so expensive and not affordable to a large majority of people.

The hospital will reprocess hemostats and effectively sterilize them for use on you and dozens of other people, but spend $500 on a disposable laparoscopic instrument, then throw it away and bill the HMO instead of buying a reusable one that can be reused hundreds of times.

THAT is why its entirely possible to make a model of affordable healthcare available to the masses.............and still have an option for people such as yourself that would pay AT LEAST 5 TIMES more for their healthcare.

I can see how government healthcare would run...the hospital would buy hundreds of DISPOSABLE instruments at $500, purchase NO reusable ones and bill everything to the government...the worst abuses of both worlds...

It's bad now...it will only get worse...

Vincent
07-30-2009, 10:21 PM
The whole damned thing is monstrously evil.

Seriously. This gives the gubmint to “right” to murder anybody at their sole discretion. We should be shouting this from the housetops.

But I guess when a nation has already murdered 10s of millions of its children, any “moral compass” has long since passed. It’ll be interesting to see in the Great By & By, how many (“Mom” & “Dad” included in the “decision”) that died at the hand of this bill had previously aborted their children. Pay back’s a bitch.

This passage is particularly disturbing…

PG 425 Lines 4-12 Government mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life.
PG 425 Lines 17-19 Government will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of atty. Mandatory!
PG425 L22-25, 426 L1-3 Government provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death.
PG 427 Lines 15-24 Government mandates program for orders for end of life. The Government has a say in how your life ends. The 2nd Amendment says we have a “say” in how the gubmint ends.
PG 429 Lines 1-9 An “advance care planning consultant” will be used frequently as patients health deteriorates.
PG 429 Lines 10-12 “advance care consultation” may include an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from Government.
PG 429 Lines 13-25 The Government will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order. Logan’s Run anyone? No, “Soilent Green”.

This probably gives the moral imperative to the “patient” for murder. “Self defense”.