westvirginia Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 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.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 H8 already linked to that article. If all true (and I'm sure there's another side to the argument) I'm glad Daschle is gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 big brotha is watching!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 H8 already linked to that article. If all true (and I'm sure there's another side to the argument) I'm glad Daschle is gone. But he was really who Obama wanted until he found out he was another tax cheating dem. I've also heard that medicaid will be extended to anyone drawing unemployment, and to their family as well. The problem here is it doesn't matter if the guy has $1,000,000 in the bank, if he's drawing unemployment he qualifies, and so does his family, even if his wife is still employed. The local radio station owner was ranting about this morning. The biggest problem I see is in the rush to save the world, these lawmakers aren't reading what everyone is tagging on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 big brotha is watching!!!!!!!! That's bad enough by itself, but not even the worst of it. The obamessiah wants to ration your medical care. But I'm sure Ursa will be along shortly to tell us about all the administrative savings to be gained from government health care. The government, who gives us the boondogle of the Pentagon that ursa is always railing about, is going to administrate healthcare payments more effeciently than an insurance company who has a profit motive. Whodathunkit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 do i want the govt wire-tapping terrorists or looking at my medical history? thats a tough one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Finally some GOOD news! 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. Hows that HOPENCHANGE RR!!! You people so deserve what you're gonna get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I for one welcome our Socialist Overlords! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 It's so simple. The Gubment pays everyone's healthcare under 18. After that, you die in the ditch, lonely and with your pants around yer ankles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budlitebrad Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I love how Specter is now against these provisions, even though he voted for the bill. Nice to see people are actually reading this thing before voting on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerx Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 This one part of the bill I actually endorse. Involving IT solutions to curb or curtail our runaway healthcare costs can be very effective in saving everyone money. I regret to reveal that I actually currently work in this industry(IT Healthcare) as my opinion could obviously come across as slanted. However, it also gives me a better vantage point as to what is involved in going to a paperless environment. And yes, that is basically the main gist of all this. It is simply "going paperless". Is that REALLY that bad? Many, many industries have taken this measure to save their companies money (and many with personal/confidential information i.e. law firms, CPA's, etc ). Actually, most major (large) healthcare organizations are already in the process of doing this. These are private institutions that still have patient confidentiality privileges in place. As for jeopardizing the gov't snooping into a patient or doctors' business, that is a totally separate issue from this. All I can say, is that the main intent of this is to make the healthcare companies as efficient as possible. In fact, if it becomes cost efficient enough, we may be able to stop all this talk of nationalizing healthcare. And if you want to see the benefits or improvements that can be made through this, just look at what it has done for the VA hospitals. Not to mention cutting down on inaccuracies, and thus, better treatment and less lawsuits...or cutting down on the busy work for the already limited employee resources...or getting in to see a doctor expediently... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 This one part of the bill I actually endorse. Involving IT solutions to curb or curtail our runaway healthcare costs can be very effective in saving everyone money. I regret to reveal that I actually currently work in this industry(IT Healthcare) as my opinion could obviously come across as slanted. However, it also gives me a better vantage point as to what is involved in going to a paperless environment. And yes, that is basically the main gist of all this. It is simply "going paperless". Is that REALLY that bad? Many, many industries have taken this measure to save their companies money (and many with personal/confidential information i.e. law firms, CPA's, etc ). Actually, most major (large) healthcare organizations are already in the process of doing this. These are private institutions that still have patient confidentiality privileges in place. As for jeopardizing the gov't snooping into a patient or doctors' business, that is a totally separate issue from this. All I can say, is that the main intent of this is to make the healthcare companies as efficient as possible. In fact, if it becomes cost efficient enough, we may be able to stop all this talk of nationalizing healthcare. And if you want to see the benefits or improvements that can be made through this, just look at what it has done for the VA hospitals. Not to mention cutting down on inaccuracies, and thus, better treatment and less lawsuits...or cutting down on the busy work for the already limited employee resources...or getting in to see a doctor expediently... I will second the fact that it saves a good deal of money. You should see the amount of file storage Hospitals use. About 5 years ago the local hospital started changing over to computerized files. I will say this though, it is kind of scary what they can bring up with a few keys strokes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 This one part of the bill I actually endorse. Involving IT solutions to curb or curtail our runaway healthcare costs can be very effective in saving everyone money. I regret to reveal that I actually currently work in this industry(IT Healthcare) as my opinion could obviously come across as slanted. However, it also gives me a better vantage point as to what is involved in going to a paperless environment. And yes, that is basically the main gist of all this. It is simply "going paperless". Is that REALLY that bad? Many, many industries have taken this measure to save their companies money (and many with personal/confidential information i.e. law firms, CPA's, etc ). Actually, most major (large) healthcare organizations are already in the process of doing this. These are private institutions that still have patient confidentiality privileges in place. As for jeopardizing the gov't snooping into a patient or doctors' business, that is a totally separate issue from this. All I can say, is that the main intent of this is to make the healthcare companies as efficient as possible. In fact, if it becomes cost efficient enough, we may be able to stop all this talk of nationalizing healthcare. And if you want to see the benefits or improvements that can be made through this, just look at what it has done for the VA hospitals. Not to mention cutting down on inaccuracies, and thus, better treatment and less lawsuits...or cutting down on the busy work for the already limited employee resources...or getting in to see a doctor expediently... Did you actually read the HC portion of the bill? It more than doubled the size. And "going paperless" was only a tiny portion of it. Now, if you want to tell me that hospitals, insurance cos, etc with a profit motive aren't going after the most cost-effective solutions I'd call you a liar. The government, on the other hand... Now, having said all that, the government hasn't been involved one iota in any doctor's visit or healthcare I've ever been a part of. Why should they be monitoring any treatment I'm undergoing? Bullsh!t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Electronic solutions have their own host of issues. It's not all peaches and cream to have everything "digital" To go "paperless" with medical records would not be the best of ideas IMO. Using electronic media to share has some merits... ...but lord knows what kind of security issues will arise from that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerx Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Electronic solutions have their own host of issues. It's not all peaches and cream to have everything "digital" To go "paperless" with medical records would not be the best of ideas IMO. Using electronic media to share has some merits... ...but lord knows what kind of security issues will arise from that. no doubt. they do have their issues and it isn't all peaches and cream...but as with most things, weighing the positive and the negative, the positives outweigh it by a ton. Admittedly, measures need to be taken, such as redundancy, and there will be/are going to be some stumbles, but that happens now. As for security, yes, indeed it needs to be extremely tight. But, can't you say that with just about everything that is electronic nowadays? Hacking information illegally is just the state of fact that we have to acknowledge and deal with. It is simply yet another hurdle in the evolution of intellectual society. I have always believed that if someone wants something bad enough, they are going to get it. Whether this is by legal or illegal means. A comparison would be a paper file in a cabinet stored in a doctors office vs. some hacking into a hospitals database. If a burglar broken and stole it, it would be no different than hacker doing the same thing. In both instances, you hope that the perpetrator leaves evidence behind that will allow you to track them down, and then learn from it so as to be better prepared the next time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 Finally some GOOD news! Hows that HOPENCHANGE RR!!! You people so deserve what you're gonna get. Man, republitards wanna starve widows and orphans, and now demonrats want old people to just lay down and die. Perhaps we should have a "Logan's Run" scenario? Of course, we'd have to kill off ursa, sky, RR, and all those old dudes... But think of the money we'd save in healthcare costs! Soylent Green, anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 What a circle jerk. Warrantless wiretapping = patriotism Federal monitoring of doctors ripping off patients = Have to agree here Governement intrusion!! You people are weird. No wonder you can't win an election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 What a circle jerk. Warrantless wiretapping = patriotism Federal monitoring of doctors ripping off patients = Have to agree here Governement intrusion!! You people are weird. No wonder you can't win an election. Many were against warrantless wiretapping, others didn't have a strong feeling one way or the other, a few supported it. In any case you are talking about wire tapping international calls to areas with known terrorist. If you don't see the difference here and that this medical records issue is completely different, and much more intrusive then you are more disconnected that I previously thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Why is this a big deal when insurance companies are already doing it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I will say this though, it is kind of scary what they can bring up with a few keys strokes. It's exactly the same as they can bring up by opening a manila folder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 It's exactly the same as they can bring up by opening a manila folder. If they have a folder at that site. There is a limit to the amount of paper files that can be saved at one place. About 5 years ago we did an expansion to a small rural hospital that was in a larger hospital system. This system was the same system that our insurance at work use. They were doing training prior to opening up, and I was down their doing one final inspection to make sure all the punch list items had been worked off. The girl at the reception desk was really cute, and we engaged in some harmless flirting. She did not know my name but asked me what my address was. I gave it to her, and just with my address she was able with in seconds to pull up my name, ss #, and tell me all procedures I had ever had done. She was also able to tell me who employed me, how long I had worked there, my wife and children's names, and how much our household income was the previous year because my daughter had a major surgery that we put on payments. Yes, they can probably find the same information in a manila folder, if they have manila folder on site, and had the time to dig through it. She was able to pull this info up with a few key strokes literally in a matter of seconds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 In any case you are talking about wire tapping international calls to areas with known terrorist. No I'm not. I'm talking about secret warrantless wiretapping that someone says maybe involved terrorism but didn't ever have to prove. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 No I'm not. I'm talking about secret warrantless wiretapping that someone says maybe involved terrorism but didn't ever have to prove. either way, the govt will now know youre on cialis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 either way, the govt will now know youre on cialis You know what happens next then: Sex tax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 You know what happens next then: Sex tax Whatever gets the old people in the ground faster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.