National Health care via the Stimulus Bill
 

Are you aware that the stimulus Bill has Tom Daschle's "stealth National Health Care? The Bill has a provision to start a federal office that will monitor everyone's health care records, and require doctors to treat in a cost-appropriate manner. Similar to a British law, the cost of the procedure is divided by the life expectancy of the patient. If the cost per year exceeds some -as-yet-to-be-determined ratio, the care will be denied. If you have ever been denied medicine or an operation bt your insurance company, get ready for Uncle Sam to do it even better.
IOW, old people will die.

This is a topic that demands our attention and national debate. To bring it in stealthily is to really dishonor the "We the People" concept.

Why no discussion of this? Is it not important?

How about some link? You can't have it both ways. You don't want universal health care, but then you also don't want anyone to be denied health care. Not possible.

What part of the stimulus bill are you talking about?

Here is one.
http://www.melissaclouthier.com/2009/01/28/stimulus-package-the-deceitful-way-to-nationalize-healthcare/

Wouldn't you expect our unbiased media to investigate and tell you about this before it becomes law? Ha ha.


IIRC from what I heard, its somewhere around pages 500- 555- of the .pdf version of the Senate Bill.

Do you really expect anyone to read it before they vote?

It seems that you're basing your paranoia on the author's own paranoiac interpretation. Besides, I thought Daschle was out. As far as facts go, all I could see is that they will evaluate which procedures work and which don't. I see nothing bad or new for that matter.

Your source does not support your contention. For one thing, it appears to me that your source overstates the amount to be spent by a factor of 1,000.

The author of your link uses as her source the website townhall.com which makes the following claim:The correct figure is $1.5 million, not $1.5 billion. You can read it on page 136 of this website: http://readthestimulus.org/hr1_text.pdf

Even if the source was accurate, there is nothing in that bill that implements any sort of national health care, not even the parts cited by your source or her source.

EDIT: I haven't read the entire bill, so I should have limited my comments to the parts cited in your source and her source.

You really need to swithch radio stations.
The right wing pundants are grasping for straws that arent even there.

It's in the p. 130-ish range.

I would be HAPPY if I am wrong.

More. This is the one I was looking for, but could not find yesterday.


Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: Betsy McCaughey
Email | Print | A A A

Commentary by Betsy McCaughey

Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama’s stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.

Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.

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.

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.

Elderly Hardest Hit

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.

In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.

Hidden Provisions

If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.

The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).

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.”

More Scrutiny Needed

On Friday, President Obama called it “inexcusable and irresponsible” for senators to delay passing the stimulus bill. In truth, this bill needs more scrutiny.

The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn. This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy.

(Betsy McCaughey is former lieutenant governor of New York and is an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The opinions expressed are her own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Betsy McCaughey at Betsymross@aol.com

I still see nothing bad or new for that matter. Currently the insurance industry is already guiding doctors' decisions. Sometimes an insurance company will deny a claim outright even if it's medically necessary. And insurance companies also deny people with previous conditions, which is something the govt mandate aims to stop. But taking into account the person's age and cost of treatment makes sense. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for an 80-year-old's $200,000 surgery, especially if he or she already has other problems. On the other hand if the patient is younger and the treatment has a proven track record, then by all means fund it.

I think your initial post takes things a wee bit out of context, and you do understand that this bill is a form of 'temporary relief'? That said, I am against socialized medicine, including Daschle's contribution.

Yes they read the bills and their staff attorneys write myriad memos for them on many individual points--remember--legislators write the bills, not the Wizard:D;)

There is a difference between a private insurance company denying benefits, and the government. When the gov. denies your claim there is no recourse; mo other company that you can try.

It makes sense until you reach that age where some low-level government employee decides you will just die.
Do you really want the government making life and death decisions for you?

How long have you gone on and not noticed these hostage situations going on in Congress? They know the Prez cannot do line item veto so they put it into an important bill and force it thru. It has been that way for all other issues. Why not this one?

That is why I want it simple. You MYOB and I do the same. I don't want govt "help" and I don't want them telling me what to do. I can't afford health care, I suffer. If the suffering gets too intense, checking out is an option. No forced healthcare, no way they can tell me what to do.