Welcome to PatsFans.com

Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by ljuneau, Feb 10, 2009.

  1. ljuneau

    ljuneau Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2007
    Messages:
    1,286
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: Betsy McCaughey

    Looks like Obama is going to pass a Universal Health bill underhandedly via the Stimulus Bill. Hillary couldn't do it openly, so BO is going to do it without most Americans even aware of it.

    Read the article, quite eye-opening and extremely scary!
  2. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,851
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    I was waiting for someone to post this. I read this article this morning and was immediately confused by how vague it was. It's difficult to even get a handle as to what she's talking about. So I read the language in the bill for the exact sections she's talking about and I realized why she's so vague; she's deliberately taking language from the Medicaid provision and making it seem as though it applies to the entire health care system.

    I strongly urge anyone who reads this article to actually click on the link for HR 1EH and read the GPO bill in the pdf format so that you can see the context of the words she quotes. If you look at her article she quotes the word "guides" and then talks generally about the entire database system as being good for the purpose of information efficiency and then deliberately uses the phrase "more stringent measures of meaningful use" for "meaningful users" to make it seem as if the government is going to be strong arming private health care practitioners.

    How frightening!! But take a look, the snippets she takes out are over 100 pages apart! Why? because the phrase "meaningful users" applies to medicaid providers, not just anyone who uses the system and the phrase "more stringent measures of meaningful use" refers solely the Medicaid program, not the overall health care system. The use of the word "guides" comes from this phrase: "provides appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care." (442)

    Not only that but the only "measures" outlined in the bill are incentives for Medicaid providers and there's no mention of any "penalties" whatsoever, hence the fact that she refers to them vaguely but never quotes any of them nor provides a citation. She's banking on the fact that readers won't actually look into this and see through her scare tactics. If you don't believe me take a look for yourself.

    THOMAS (Library of Congress)

    (Click on the link that says "GPO office" and it will open the pdf version so that you can read where all of her excerpts come from. It'll be much more "eye opening" than her article.)

    It's no coincidence that she not only excerpts only a handful of random words from the bill, but she jumps around from section to section broadly applying her projected meaning of these out of context phrases onto sections to which they don't apply. She then goes on to ramble about Tom Daschle's book, which is not only completely irrelevant to this, but which I'm sure she's being just as intellectually dishonest in quoting also. I don't know what her agenda is but this is seriously one of the most dishonest articles I've ever seen.

    The sole purpose of this provision is to make the system run more efficiently and to cut down on waste by HELPING the private sector get the right information at the right time. It's littered with dozens of security provisions calling for proper encryption and technological security measures that must be in place.

    Not only is her article a load of horseshit, but there's nothing even in her lies that suggests "universal healthcare," so I don't even know where you got that from.
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2009
  3. ljuneau

    ljuneau Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2007
    Messages:
    1,286
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Thanks for examining this further, Wildo7. Once I have another cup of coffee or two, I'll looks at the details found in the bill. Obviously, I didn't invest the amount of time you did to research and verify the information contained in the article. I appreciate your input.
  4. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    A classy, thoughtful response? ljuneau what are you doing ruining the tone of the political forum by being reasonable? Not even a derogatory name for Wildo, you really need to step up your game...
  5. STFarmy

    STFarmy Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Good catch guys, I didn't even know this was happening. I'm wary anytime when any politician from any party urges us to pass something with utmost haste. Sure time is costly, but we need to examine things like this.
  6. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,249
    Likes Received:
    171
    Ratings:
    +319 / 20 / -48

    #50 Jersey

    This is a stimulus bill, yet they have health care guidelines and procedures in it?

    What am I missing here?

    There doesn't seem to be a direct connection between the two.
  7. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,979
    Likes Received:
    186
    Ratings:
    +429 / 5 / -2

    Haven't you heard, spending=stimulus.....by definition. Also, if we don't pass it, we'll never, ever recover.
  8. STFarmy

    STFarmy Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    I <3 sarcasm.
  9. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,249
    Likes Received:
    171
    Ratings:
    +319 / 20 / -48

    #50 Jersey

    Wildo-
    I've read the entire section covering the "HITECH" act and there are plenty of issues with it. I do agree that the author of the article in question did a poor job putting together her argument. I also agree that it does nothing to suggest universal health care. Her article is also wrong in regards to the Coordinator's position in that he will not be "guiding" individual doctors. He'll be guiding how the plan is set up and implemented.

    Now, about your attack on the author regarding how far apart the "snippets" are. Since you read the bill, you know damn well that the reason they are 100 pages apart is because one snippet deals with health care not covered by Medicare and the other snippet deals with health care covered by Medicare. How can you blame the author for the snippets being so far apart when that is how the bill was written?

    Now, I also think that you, yourself are just as much at fault for taking the author's words out of context as you claim her to be regarding the bill. First of all, the mention of Tom Daschle's book is relevent because he was up for the position of head of the HHS and she is pointing out that the terminology is virtually identical. She is clearly making an attempt to show it in a bad light due to Daschle's liberalism. Next, regarding the term "Meaninful User". Did you skip over the paragraphs mentioned? If you go to page 516, it goes into detail as to what "meaningful use is", yet leaves the interpretation open, totally, to the HHS. So, since you and I both know that the Secretary of HHS is NOT going to review hundreds of thousands or millions of doctors, pharmacies, and healthplans, its going to get delegated. And it leaves it open to other people determining whether or not the person meets the criteria stated. The author just did a poor job of explaining it.

    However, this "HITECH" act is bad for several reasons.

    1) It creates 2 positions and 2 committees that really aren't needed. The reality is that there is already an entity that could handle this. Its called the Joint Commission on Accredidation of Healthcare Organizations.

    2) In one section it talks about how this will link health care providers, health plans, government agencies and "other interested parties." Who are these other interested parties? Is it pharmaceutical companies? Is it marketing agencies?

    3) If done improperly, this will cost hospitals, doctors, and pharmacies money they don't have. So, that means it will end up costing the government money it doesn't have. If the Coordinator specifies a specific software, he will be giving one company an monopoly. The ONLY thing they should be specifying is the File protocol that the information will be saved. That way, numerous software companies can compete to provide software to all the affected businesses.

    4) Where this Bill steps over the line is that the health care providers could be charged a fee for the certification that they are compliant with whatever system the government deemed be implemented.

    5) While a doctor, healthplan, or pharmacy won't be "required" to adopy the standards mentioned, All it will take is a few articles in the Post, NY Times, and LA Times attacking whichever company doesn't want to support their grandiose plan and they'll capitulate.

    6) Between the Joint Commission and the AHIC Successor, Inc that the government started, there is no need for the National Health Information coordinator, the Chief Privacy Officer or either of the two committees that this bill proposes.

    7) This bill is going to create a study that will determine what the barriers are for implementing this sort of system. I'm 100% sure that the Joint Commission and AHIC could tell them that information without having to have another study done. There is such thing as Paralysis by Analysis.

    8) Why does it need to set aside grant money for covering the research and development of security protocols spefically for health information? This seems like it is duplicating things that are already in industry and in R&D. There are plenty of programs out there that are already studying computer security. And its not limited to just the health industry. This seems like micromanagement to me.

    9) This is no need to great the "regional centers" as they stipulate in the Bill. First of all, many hospitals already back up their information and store it off-site. This is part of their Catastrophe Planning. Secondly, those centers just provide another access point from which the data could be stolen.
  10. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,249
    Likes Received:
    171
    Ratings:
    +319 / 20 / -48

    #50 Jersey

    WOW. so you think that the government, who had a big hand in creating this mess (at least in terms of the banks and mortgage crisis) can fix this problem? The problem is that the government spends too much time trying to regulate things that they shouldn't and not enough time regulating the things they should.

    The reality is that the bill that was passed back in 1997 or 1998 (i forget which) which basically said that banks had to give mortgages to anyone regardless of their credit started the banks down a perilous road. The banks deciding to screw people over with the ARMs that they offered figuring that they would be able to repossess the homes and then sell them at a higher amount to people who could afford them, backfired on them. And it backfired because many people who were sound financially, made the stupid mistake of going to an ARM without thinking about the possibility of what would happen down the line because they just assumed they'd be able to re-finance without any issues.

    And companies did the same things. And it hurt them because they couldn't get out from the ARMs either. So the banks have ended up with a lot of properties and foreclosed mortgages that they had borrowed money on and they can't pay their debts because they don't have the money.

    What makes matters worse is that the banks that were bailed out have made it nearly impossible to re-work the loans. There are horror stories going on all over the country about people who have tried and the banks just refuse even though they've received money to cover the difference.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>