[quote]pushharder wrote:
dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:
Yes, it reads scary, by design! Of course…it isn’t true, McCaughey just makes it up out of thin air. You could of course just read the Bill!
you really are simple aren’t you? Let take a look at this shall we.
SEC. 3001. OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL COORDINATOR FOR HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.
"(a) Establishment-- There is established within the Department of Health and Human Services an Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (referred to in this section as the 'Office'). The Office shall be headed by a National Coordinator who shall be appointed by the Secretary and shall report directly to the Secretary.
"(b) Purpose-- The National Coordinator shall perform the duties under subsection (c) in a manner consistent with the development of a nationwide health information technology infrastructure that allows for the electronic use and exchange of information and that--
Hmmm…let’s take a look at what this unelected official will be responsible for…
"(1) ensures that each patient's health information is secure and protected, in accordance with applicable law;
Who makes the law? We know who should be making laws. Our elected officials. Unfortunately they have granted this power to unelected bureaucrats every chance they get. Not quite what the constitution had in mind.
"(2) improves health care quality, reduces medical errors, reduces health disparities, and advances the delivery of patient-centered medical care;
The federal gov’t reducing errors? What does reducing health disparities mean? Advances the deliver how? What does patient-centered medical care mean?
"(3) reduces health care costs resulting from inefficiency, medical errors, inappropriate care, duplicative care, and incomplete information;
An unelected bureaucrat with no guaranteed knowledge of healthcare, much less specific medical procedures, deciding what appropriate care is. I would prefer my doctor do this. I really don’t need the gov’ts help on this. Will we have a choice to opt out of this?
"(4) provides appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care;
Again, I don’t need a bureaucrat in the operating room with me the doctors and nurses. How could this possibly end well?
"(5) ensures the inclusion of meaningful public input in such development of such infrastructure;
Not sure what this means. My medical care is no ones business but my own. I don’t need any public input.
"(6) improves the coordination of care and information among hospitals, laboratories, physician offices, and other entities through an effective infrastructure for the secure and authorized exchange of health care information;
The federal gov’t is going to do this? Please give me one example where the federal gov’t has improved coordination of anything.
"(7) improves public health activities and facilitates the early identification and rapid response to public health threats and emergencies, including bioterror events and infectious disease outbreaks;
Not a big fan of FEMA, but I guess they’ve done such a bang up job, why not create another federal institution to give it a shot. BTW, local gov’t already handle these things. Usually by county in coordination with the regional hospitals. I am sure federal involvement will streamline this process.
"(8) facilitates health and clinical research and health care quality;
regulation
"(9) promotes prevention of chronic diseases;
Again, this is already being handled locally. Is this really an epidemic in this country?
"(10) promotes a more effective marketplace, greater competition, greater systems analysis, increased consumer choice, and improved outcomes in health care services; and
This is just plain funny. A federal bureaucracy promoting a more effective marketplace, competition, increased choice, and improved service? That’s funny, I don’t who you are.
"(11) improves efforts to reduce health disparities.
Here we go again with health disparities. What does this mean? I can eat cheese burgers and smoke cigarettes and the gov’t will ensure there is no disparity between my health and anyone else?s?
See, it isn’t the govt. that will help guide medical decisions, no… it’s “development of a nationwide health information technology infrastructure that allows for the electronic use and exchange of information”.
It is a bureaucracy like any other. FDA, USDA, SEC, FAA, etc. They will become legislator, police, judge and jury like the rest of them. What don’t you get?
Get it? having access to accurate patient information will allow doctors to make the appropriate medical decisions. Sound like a good idea? Of course!
and the fed will help them make the appropriate medical decisions after they all review the applicable information. yeah, that will speed things up. Again, I wasn’t aware of an epidemic in need of action.
But if you’re trying to dupe sheep like headhunter into not supporting good ideas, you have to lie to them!
Next phony outrage…
Unlike you, the rest of us live in the real world. We understand all to well what this means. What do you think their budget will be? Do you really think federal involvement can improve health care in any way? Who would you rather deal with in discussing a discrepancy, American Express or the IRS? If you have to send something very important, what service do you use, US mail or FedEx? Do we need to keep going?
Excellent post.
The Cliff Notes version of this bill would be “Hi, I hear you’re sick. Well, I’m with the government and I’m here to help you.”[/quote]
…providing that its worth the money to keep you alive. If you’re old and sick and the first treatment doesn’t work, its your patriotic duty to die.