Health Provisions Slipped in Stimulus Bill

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
dhickey wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:

“could be” and “pretty close” are not justification of a health Czar. Neither is the flu. Actually this may be a bit hasty on my part. One would have to weigh the lives lost from the things you point out, compared to some estimate of the lives lost do to increased bureaucracy and decreased efficiency.

This is something our gov’t would never do. Take the FDA for example. It kept Bayer from advertising the preventative effects of asprin on heart attacks for 8 years.

How many lives were lost that could have been spared in 8 years? I don’t know, but probably more than would have died due to advertising this before the FDA was satified with the testing of a product millions of people had been taking for years.

There is no turning back from this.

-never said i wanted a health czar, it was a simple response to you saying What epidemics?. Neither is the flue? Wow, youre really as uniformed as you sound. do you realize what happens if say our flue vaccination manages to be ineffective? (and btw it gets weaker year after year, and more strains emerge). If we keep fucking up antibiotics like we are, yes things like VRE an MRSA will be huge.
[/quote]
Speculation. how long have we been hearing about this? in an effort to get back on topic I will admit I am far from a healthcare expert. If you believe this legislation will prevent the impending crisis, please explain how. If you don’t, we can just leave this part.

Why is there no point in the Bayer thing? This is how gov’t agencies work. They do not weigh benefit .vs risk. They do this with experimental medications.

Ones that we are not allowed to try, even if we know it is experimental and not FDA approved. To pretend like this doesn’t cost us pain, suffering, and death is just plain naive.

You sound like an intelligent guy but this is not an intelligent question. Do you really believe there are only two options here? Either completely unregulated and what we have today?

I think it’s very convenient to be able to look at labels and know that there should be some integrety in advertising. Way to go gov’t. Like any gov’t compliance or licensing aimed at consumer protection, I believe it should be optional.

You want an FDA stamp of approval, great. You don’t think you need it to sell your product, fine. At the end of the day the gov’t has no business telling what I can and can’t buy or consume. If I chose to roll the dice, that’s my problem.

If their certification provides so much value the market will show this. People won’t buy products that haven’t been blessed by the gov’t. People won’t seek medical care from providers not AMA certified. People won’t seek legal services from some one that is not certified by the BAR.

Making any certification and licensing mandatory is ridiculous. Keep certifying and regulating, just make it optional.

I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to here. If you are talking about health care, you are not as smart as I thought. If you are talking about education, I take that back.

Why is it so bad? Just because it’s private?

It’s not being stripped down much. It’s a disgrace.

It may seem funny to you if you don’t read much world history or truly understand the devastation of Fascism.

I don’t believe it will be the end of the world. You are correct about the realignment. Problem is that these realignments have historically been very painful.

Am I wrong for being a bit frustrated when I see us going down a path well travelled and historically very devastating? I am wrong for worrying about what kind of country my children will inherit?

[/quote]

42

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:

If doctors have a fault it is not in the availability of information, it is in insight; the insight in the application of information to the individual case, and that is a commodity which the government can not provide, at any cost.

This point needs to be quoted for emphasis. This is the nature of the problem. Doctors, along with medical researchers and straight biochemical researchers, of which I am one, have unparalleled access to incredible amounts of data both from clinical studies and raw basic research, in addition to an unbelievable amount of correlation and cross referencing between sources and databases.

In addition, they also have very detailed patient data–I would submit that the notion of “inaccurate patient data” as a cause for mishaps in medicine is negligible.

The fact is they have excellent access to it. True, digitizing records could be very helpful, but the core problem is as the good Dr. wrote one of application and understanding, which ONLY the medical doctor is qualified for. The gov’t cannot perform that function at all, nor should they try to.

but that’s not what I’m outraged at. Well, I am, kinda, but the primary outrage for me is the fact that they’re trying to piggy back this instead of going through the full democratic process of discussion, debate, formulation, approval/rejection.

This is WAAAAYY too important of an issue to just slide into a bill a beta version of gov’t involvment. Gov’t involvement is too problem riddled as is, we don’t need, of all things, a beta version that hasn’t been debugged or even planned out yet. That’s terrible governance.[/quote]

thanks, and agreed!

43

[quote]snipeout wrote:
100meters wrote:
snipeout wrote:
100meters wrote:
snipeout wrote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

This reads scary. They are going to guide doctors decisions on standard treament for diseases. I’m glad diseases affect each person exaclty the same, otherwise it might be scary allowing an appointed official to determine what kind of medical care we receive.

If you don’t think this administration has a socialist agenda how do you explain this little hidden gem?

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!

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--

    "(1) ensures that each patient's health information is secure and protected, in accordance with applicable law;

    "(2) improves health care quality, reduces medical errors, reduces health disparities, and advances the delivery of patient-centered medical care;

    "(3) reduces health care costs resulting from inefficiency, medical errors, inappropriate care, duplicative care, and incomplete information;

    "(4) provides appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care;

    "(5) ensures the inclusion of meaningful public input in such development of such infrastructure;

    "(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;

    "(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;

    "(8) facilitates health and clinical research and health care quality;

    "(9) promotes prevention of chronic diseases;

    "(10) promotes a more effective marketplace, greater competition, greater systems analysis, increased consumer choice, and improved outcomes in health care services; and

    "(11) improves efforts to reduce health disparities.

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”.

Get it? having access to accurate patient information will allow doctors to make the appropriate medical decisions. Sound like a good idea? Of course!
But if you’re trying to dupe sheep like headhunter into not supporting good ideas, you have to lie to them!

Next phony outrage…

You are that inept at treading between the lines huh?

The same government that guided mortgage lending is now going to guide medical decisions? The Barney Franks of tihs government are going to regulate health care? Now, on top of insurance companies regulating medical decisions now you have a government agency regulating decisions.

You are a joke, no one can be so blind as to support everything that their party of choice produces. Every time you post you are blindly supportng something just because it is dem sponsored. Read between the lines. The last thing healthcare needs is more limits and boundaries.
You’re not getting it…This is a made up controversy, started by Mccaughey, then Rush and Drudge and of course then Fox. Just read the bill.

Take a look at #4. That doesn’t scare you at all? Another group of people(very much like those in insurance companies)deciding what kind of medical care is necessary.

If this is drummed up controversy why is it being piggy backed on an economic stimulus bill? Bah, Bah little Obama/losi/eid sheep. Don’t believe everything you are fed.
[/quote]

Uh, CAN YOU READ?
Again, the govt. isn’t doing number 4, the Doctor is, thanks to A and B. Read A and B first. Essentially thanks to the patient network that would be established the Doctor would have access to accurate patient information, which he could then use to make the best medical decisions.

(extreme)Example: patient comes in ER and can’t fill out history
so Doctor can access said network, sees patient has some previous condition, and Doctor acts accordingly. Can then update network, transfer patient, next hospital is then able to coordinate, etc…

This is obviously a VERY good thing…which makes some of the hysteria a wee bit funny.

44

[quote]snipeout wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
snipeout wrote:

Some funny stuff

How in the hell did you turn this:

"(4) provides appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care;

Into this:

Take a look at #4. That doesn’t scare you at all? Another group of people(very much like those in insurance companies)deciding what kind of medical care is necessary.

lol. “provide information” = “decide what is necessary”??? lol.

Because anytime the government “guides” anything they fuck it up. Be smarter than Barney Frank tells you to be, or don’t and believe everything you are told and read, don’t question a thing, ever.

[/quote]
Government is guiding Forest, the patient information is. That’s good

45

[quote]100meters wrote:
snipeout wrote:
100meters wrote:
snipeout wrote:
100meters wrote:
snipeout wrote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

This reads scary. They are going to guide doctors decisions on standard treament for diseases. I’m glad diseases affect each person exaclty the same, otherwise it might be scary allowing an appointed official to determine what kind of medical care we receive.

If you don’t think this administration has a socialist agenda how do you explain this little hidden gem?

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!

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--

    "(1) ensures that each patient's health information is secure and protected, in accordance with applicable law;

    "(2) improves health care quality, reduces medical errors, reduces health disparities, and advances the delivery of patient-centered medical care;

    "(3) reduces health care costs resulting from inefficiency, medical errors, inappropriate care, duplicative care, and incomplete information;

    "(4) provides appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care;

    "(5) ensures the inclusion of meaningful public input in such development of such infrastructure;

    "(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;

    "(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;

    "(8) facilitates health and clinical research and health care quality;

    "(9) promotes prevention of chronic diseases;

    "(10) promotes a more effective marketplace, greater competition, greater systems analysis, increased consumer choice, and improved outcomes in health care services; and

    "(11) improves efforts to reduce health disparities.

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”.

Get it? having access to accurate patient information will allow doctors to make the appropriate medical decisions. Sound like a good idea? Of course!
But if you’re trying to dupe sheep like headhunter into not supporting good ideas, you have to lie to them!

Next phony outrage…

You are that inept at treading between the lines huh?

The same government that guided mortgage lending is now going to guide medical decisions? The Barney Franks of tihs government are going to regulate health care? Now, on top of insurance companies regulating medical decisions now you have a government agency regulating decisions.

You are a joke, no one can be so blind as to support everything that their party of choice produces. Every time you post you are blindly supportng something just because it is dem sponsored. Read between the lines. The last thing healthcare needs is more limits and boundaries.

You’re not getting it…This is a made up controversy, started by Mccaughey, then Rush and Drudge and of course then Fox. Just read the bill.

Take a look at #4. That doesn’t scare you at all? Another group of people(very much like those in insurance companies)deciding what kind of medical care is necessary.

If this is drummed up controversy why is it being piggy backed on an economic stimulus bill? Bah, Bah little Obama/losi/eid sheep. Don’t believe everything you are fed.

Uh, CAN YOU READ?
Again, the govt. isn’t doing number 4, the Doctor is, thanks to A and B. Read A and B first. Essentially thanks to the patient network that would be established the Doctor would have access to accurate patient information, which he could then use to make the best medical decisions.

(extreme)Example: patient comes in ER and can’t fill out history
so Doctor can access said network, sees patient has some previous condition, and Doctor acts accordingly. Can then update network, transfer patient, next hospital is then able to coordinate, etc…

This is obviously a VERY good thing…which makes some of the hysteria a wee bit funny.[/quote]

In this little example this person has a form of ID on them I assume? We all know in traumatic accidents everyone is properly ID’d. I will take my chances with the old system. Obviously you are unaware of medical transfers that already go from hospital to hospital when a patient is transfered.

You are already sold on this so to continue is pointless. It’s obvious you need government to guide every aspect of your life, I do not.

46

[quote]snipeout wrote:
100meters wrote:
snipeout wrote:
100meters wrote:
snipeout wrote:
100meters wrote:
snipeout wrote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

This reads scary. They are going to guide doctors decisions on standard treament for diseases. I’m glad diseases affect each person exaclty the same, otherwise it might be scary allowing an appointed official to determine what kind of medical care we receive.

If you don’t think this administration has a socialist agenda how do you explain this little hidden gem?

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!

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--

    "(1) ensures that each patient's health information is secure and protected, in accordance with applicable law;

    "(2) improves health care quality, reduces medical errors, reduces health disparities, and advances the delivery of patient-centered medical care;

    "(3) reduces health care costs resulting from inefficiency, medical errors, inappropriate care, duplicative care, and incomplete information;

    "(4) provides appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care;

    "(5) ensures the inclusion of meaningful public input in such development of such infrastructure;

    "(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;

    "(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;

    "(8) facilitates health and clinical research and health care quality;

    "(9) promotes prevention of chronic diseases;

    "(10) promotes a more effective marketplace, greater competition, greater systems analysis, increased consumer choice, and improved outcomes in health care services; and

    "(11) improves efforts to reduce health disparities.

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”.

Get it? having access to accurate patient information will allow doctors to make the appropriate medical decisions. Sound like a good idea? Of course!

But if you’re trying to dupe sheep like headhunter into not supporting good ideas, you have to lie to them!

Next phony outrage…

You are that inept at treading between the lines huh?

The same government that guided mortgage lending is now going to guide medical decisions? The Barney Franks of tihs government are going to regulate health care? Now, on top of insurance companies regulating medical decisions now you have a government agency regulating decisions.

You are a joke, no one can be so blind as to support everything that their party of choice produces. Every time you post you are blindly supportng something just because it is dem sponsored. Read between the lines. The last thing healthcare needs is more limits and boundaries.

You’re not getting it…This is a made up controversy, started by Mccaughey, then Rush and Drudge and of course then Fox. Just read the bill.

Take a look at #4. That doesn’t scare you at all? Another group of people(very much like those in insurance companies)deciding what kind of medical care is necessary.

If this is drummed up controversy why is it being piggy backed on an economic stimulus bill? Bah, Bah little Obama/losi/eid sheep. Don’t believe everything you are fed.

Uh, CAN YOU READ?
Again, the govt. isn’t doing number 4, the Doctor is, thanks to A and B. Read A and B first. Essentially thanks to the patient network that would be established the Doctor would have access to accurate patient information, which he could then use to make the best medical decisions.

(extreme)Example: patient comes in ER and can’t fill out history
so Doctor can access said network, sees patient has some previous condition, and Doctor acts accordingly. Can then update network, transfer patient, next hospital is then able to coordinate, etc…

This is obviously a VERY good thing…which makes some of the hysteria a wee bit funny.

In this little example this person has a form of ID on them I assume? We all know in traumatic accidents everyone is properly ID’d. I will take my chances with the old system. Obviously you are unaware of medical transfers that already go from hospital to hospital when a patient is transfered.

You are already sold on this so to continue is pointless. It’s obvious you need government to guide every aspect of your life, I do not.

[/quote]

The old system? the old system is bunk, no one in the health field thinks our current system is adequate. You are obviously unaware of how slow medical transfers are, and how slow the current system is. saying you’d rather risk that is a testament to your judgment.

You are already sold on the idea that every sentence of this bill is a hammer and sickle, so its pointless for you. You’d rather die in an emergency situation than let a governement sponsored network let a doctor know what treatments will or will not kill you, the rest of us would like to continue living.

47

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
snipeout wrote:
100meters wrote:
snipeout wrote:
100meters wrote:
snipeout wrote:
100meters wrote:
snipeout wrote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

This reads scary. They are going to guide doctors decisions on standard treament for diseases. I’m glad diseases affect each person exaclty the same, otherwise it might be scary allowing an appointed official to determine what kind of medical care we receive.

If you don’t think this administration has a socialist agenda how do you explain this little hidden gem?

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!

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--

    "(1) ensures that each patient's health information is secure and protected, in accordance with applicable law;

    "(2) improves health care quality, reduces medical errors, reduces health disparities, and advances the delivery of patient-centered medical care;

    "(3) reduces health care costs resulting from inefficiency, medical errors, inappropriate care, duplicative care, and incomplete information;

    "(4) provides appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care;

    "(5) ensures the inclusion of meaningful public input in such development of such infrastructure;

    "(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;

    "(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;

    "(8) facilitates health and clinical research and health care quality;

    "(9) promotes prevention of chronic diseases;

    "(10) promotes a more effective marketplace, greater competition, greater systems analysis, increased consumer choice, and improved outcomes in health care services; and

    "(11) improves efforts to reduce health disparities.

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”.

Get it? having access to accurate patient information will allow doctors to make the appropriate medical decisions. Sound like a good idea? Of course!

But if you’re trying to dupe sheep like headhunter into not supporting good ideas, you have to lie to them!

Next phony outrage…

You are that inept at treading between the lines huh?

The same government that guided mortgage lending is now going to guide medical decisions? The Barney Franks of tihs government are going to regulate health care? Now, on top of insurance companies regulating medical decisions now you have a government agency regulating decisions.

You are a joke, no one can be so blind as to support everything that their party of choice produces. Every time you post you are blindly supportng something just because it is dem sponsored. Read between the lines. The last thing healthcare needs is more limits and boundaries.

You’re not getting it…This is a made up controversy, started by Mccaughey, then Rush and Drudge and of course then Fox. Just read the bill.

Take a look at #4. That doesn’t scare you at all? Another group of people(very much like those in insurance companies)deciding what kind of medical care is necessary.

If this is drummed up controversy why is it being piggy backed on an economic stimulus bill? Bah, Bah little Obama/losi/eid sheep. Don’t believe everything you are fed.

Uh, CAN YOU READ?
Again, the govt. isn’t doing number 4, the Doctor is, thanks to A and B. Read A and B first. Essentially thanks to the patient network that would be established the Doctor would have access to accurate patient information, which he could then use to make the best medical decisions.

(extreme)Example: patient comes in ER and can’t fill out history
so Doctor can access said network, sees patient has some previous condition, and Doctor acts accordingly. Can then update network, transfer patient, next hospital is then able to coordinate, etc…

This is obviously a VERY good thing…which makes some of the hysteria a wee bit funny.

In this little example this person has a form of ID on them I assume? We all know in traumatic accidents everyone is properly ID’d. I will take my chances with the old system. Obviously you are unaware of medical transfers that already go from hospital to hospital when a patient is transfered.

You are already sold on this so to continue is pointless. It’s obvious you need government to guide every aspect of your life, I do not.

The old system? the old system is bunk, no one in the health field thinks our current system is adequate. You are obviously unaware of how slow medical transfers are, and how slow the current system is. saying you’d rather risk that is a testament to your judgment.

You are already sold on the idea that every sentence of this bill is a hammer and sickle, so its pointless for you. You’d rather die in an emergency situation than let a governement sponsored network let a doctor know what treatments will or will not kill you, the rest of us would like to continue living.[/quote]

You want to bet know one in the health field thinks its adequate, I bet I know far more doctors then you do.

48

[quote]snipeout wrote:
100meters wrote:
snipeout wrote:
100meters wrote:
snipeout wrote:
100meters wrote:
snipeout wrote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

Uh, CAN YOU READ?
Again, the govt. isn’t doing number 4, the Doctor is, thanks to A and B. Read A and B first. Essentially thanks to the patient network that would be established the Doctor would have access to accurate patient information, which he could then use to make the best medical decisions.

(extreme)Example: patient comes in ER and can’t fill out history
so Doctor can access said network, sees patient has some previous condition, and Doctor acts accordingly. Can then update network, transfer patient, next hospital is then able to coordinate, etc…

This is obviously a VERY good thing…which makes some of the hysteria a wee bit funny.

In this little example this person has a form of ID on them I assume? We all know in traumatic accidents everyone is properly ID’d. I will take my chances with the old system. Obviously you are unaware of medical transfers that already go from hospital to hospital when a patient is transfered.

You are already sold on this so to continue is pointless. It’s obvious you need government to guide every aspect of your life, I do not.

[/quote]

Yes, snipeout.
Naively 100meters thinks that computers record and store The Truth, not just speculation in the ER. ER speculation is that last thing that we need in immutable medical records.

(Just remember how hard it is to fix an error on your credit card or driver’s license. Do you want to carry medical errors around with you?)

No, 100meters.
We have in place a very efficient set of records for ER patients: it is a carbon-based linear analogue recursive system with universal access and understanding:
Pencil on paper. Many of my patients have used it…Successfully.

No, PB-Crawl.
Nothing in a bill pased in DC prevents medical misjudgment in an ER.
Where do you think docs get their info and judgment? Cornflakes boxes?
There is nothing in medicine so slow, so biased, so out-of-date, compromised by committee, than a government directive.

Just forget about The Government trying to “help” make medical decisions, at least until one of you can answer this example:
I know how to treat Hodgkin’s disease…for cure. I know how to treat Hodgkin’s disease in the elderly.

So which government committee is going to tell me how to treat today’s 84 year old Hodgkin’s patient with normal pressure hydrocephalus, pulmonary fibrosis and a hangnail?
Will they take responsibility for the results?
Will they explain their reasoning to the family?

Sorry, no.

I don’t need a new bureau of medical standards–the insurance company and the government do, but only to limit spending at the cost of someone’s pain and suffering.
I don ‘t need a bureau of information–I can vet my own. And I have seen the government experts’ flaws.

I don’t need the advice of a committee, until they take full responsibility for its outcomes.

And last, if any of this crap is worthwhile, it is worth having a separate national debate about it.

50

[quote]pushharder wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:

… an utter lack of faith in government…[/quote]

This week an insurance company denied payment of a drug that I had used; for the purposes of this example, it doesn’t matter that it cost me $2500.

What raised my ire is that their “expert reviewer” had found that the use of the medicine was not established to “extend life” or improve results. I was therefore a crook.
Well, I could appeal through the usual process, which might take 4 months, while the patient–a potentially curable one–would either have to take her chances, and die or risk unnecessary injury. Or I could take my chances and buy the drug for her 5 more times, and hope to get payment over the next year. (And why should I be put in this quandary in the first place?)

Nope, in my acid letter to the Insurance Company Genius, I reviewed 262 articles in my favor (none against), the National Guidelines (chapter, verse, page and reference numbers.) Sarcasm and shame work occasionally, and I clearly threatened The Company with suit in the state administrative court on behalf of the patient. It took time away from my real work, but The Insurance Company reversed its decision in 36 hours.

Now multiply that by 20 such patients per month.

I am sure that Gambit Lost and 100meters and PB-Crawl would prefer a vast and benevolent government agency to direct me in these matters. But push, you and I know that the Government Agency would find the same Committee of Losers to make their decisions, to enforce them, to deprive me and my patients of the tools and the imagination to use them, and then…I could appeal. And wait.

51

[quote]snipeout wrote:
In this little example this person has a form of ID on them I assume? We all know in traumatic accidents everyone is properly ID’d. I will take my chances with the old system. Obviously you are unaware of medical transfers that already go from hospital to hospital when a patient is transfered.

You are already sold on this so to continue is pointless. It’s obvious you need government to guide every aspect of your life, I do not.
[/quote]

Yes, I’m sold on doctors being able to make better decisions, saving lives and money and time. But then again I’m also comfortable with the earth being round.

52

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:

The old system? the old system is bunk, no one in the health field thinks our current system is adequate. You are obviously unaware of how slow medical transfers are, and how slow the current system is. saying you’d rather risk that is a testament to your judgment.

You are already sold on the idea that every sentence of this bill is a hammer and sickle, so its pointless for you. You’d rather die in an emergency situation than let a governement sponsored network let a doctor know what treatments will or will not kill you, the rest of us would like to continue living.[/quote]

Don’t give him to much credit, he was told what to think and he thinks it, what he’d “rather do” is whatever Rush/Hannity/Doocy and the rest of the republican leadership tell him.

53

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

Just forget about The Government trying to “help” make medical decisions, at least until one of you can answer this example:
I know how to treat Hodgkin’s disease…for cure. I know how to treat Hodgkin’s disease in the elderly.

So which government committee is going to tell me how to treat today’s 84 year old Hodgkin’s patient with normal pressure hydrocephalus, pulmonary fibrosis and a hangnail?
Will they take responsibility for the results?
Will they explain their reasoning to the family?

Sorry, no.

I don’t need a new bureau of medical standards–the insurance company and the government do, but only to limit spending at the cost of someone’s pain and suffering.
I don ‘t need a bureau of information–I can vet my own. And I have seen the government experts’ flaws.

I don’t need the advice of a committee, until they take full responsibility for its outcomes.

[/quote]

Oh for god’s sake another non-reader. You’re still battling McCaughey made up straw man. The provision only creates an electronic record systems allowing doctors to have accurate and timely information on their patients.

So…you’re bluster on treating Hodgkins, just stupid. (and the “naive” comment also odd. I can read so you assume I must be naive? Since you can’t read, what would that make you?)

54

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
pushharder wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:

… an utter lack of faith in government…

This week an insurance company denied payment of a drug that I had used; for the purposes of this example, it doesn’t matter that it cost me $2500.

What raised my ire is that their “expert reviewer” had found that the use of the medicine was not established to “extend life” or improve results. I was therefore a crook.
Well, I could appeal through the usual process, which might take 4 months, while the patient–a potentially curable one–would either have to take her chances, and die or risk unnecessary injury. Or I could take my chances and buy the drug for her 5 more times, and hope to get payment over the next year. (And why should I be put in this quandary in the first place?)

Nope, in my acid letter to the Insurance Company Genius, I reviewed 262 articles in my favor (none against), the National Guidelines (chapter, verse, page and reference numbers.) Sarcasm and shame work occasionally, and I clearly threatened The Company with suit in the state administrative court on behalf of the patient. It took time away from my real work, but The Insurance Company reversed its decision in 36 hours.

Now multiply that by 20 such patients per month.

I am sure that Gambit Lost and 100meters and PB-Crawl would prefer a vast and benevolent government agency to direct me in these matters. But push, you and I know that the Government Agency would find the same Committee of Losers to make their decisions, to enforce them, to deprive me and my patients of the tools and the imagination to use them, and then…I could appeal. And wait.
[/quote]

So, just to be clear, a private agency tried to fuck your patient over. In your mind, this means that the government will do the same but worse.

Your simple assumption is that government is always wrong and cannot do good. That’s fine. I disagree. I think government does have a role to play.

55

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
pushharder wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:

… an utter lack of faith in government…

This week an insurance company denied payment of a drug that I had used; for the purposes of this example, it doesn’t matter that it cost me $2500.

What raised my ire is that their “expert reviewer” had found that the use of the medicine was not established to “extend life” or improve results. I was therefore a crook.
Well, I could appeal through the usual process, which might take 4 months, while the patient–a potentially curable one–would either have to take her chances, and die or risk unnecessary injury. Or I could take my chances and buy the drug for her 5 more times, and hope to get payment over the next year. (And why should I be put in this quandary in the first place?)

Nope, in my acid letter to the Insurance Company Genius, I reviewed 262 articles in my favor (none against), the National Guidelines (chapter, verse, page and reference numbers.) Sarcasm and shame work occasionally, and I clearly threatened The Company with suit in the state administrative court on behalf of the patient. It took time away from my real work, but The Insurance Company reversed its decision in 36 hours.

Now multiply that by 20 such patients per month.

I am sure that Gambit Lost and 100meters and PB-Crawl would prefer a vast and benevolent government agency to direct me in these matters. But push, you and I know that the Government Agency would find the same Committee of Losers to make their decisions, to enforce them, to deprive me and my patients of the tools and the imagination to use them, and then…I could appeal. And wait.

So, just to be clear, a private agency tried to fuck your patient over. In your mind, this means that the government will do the same but worse.

Your simple assumption is that government is always wrong and cannot do good. That’s fine. I disagree. I think government does have a role to play. [/quote]

It is an odd postition. I was screwed by the current system, like nearly all of us have been, therefore we must keep the current system.

56

[quote]100meters wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
pushharder wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:

… an utter lack of faith in government…

This week an insurance company denied payment of a drug that I had used; for the purposes of this example, it doesn’t matter that it cost me $2500.

What raised my ire is that their “expert reviewer” had found that the use of the medicine was not established to “extend life” or improve results. I was therefore a crook.
Well, I could appeal through the usual process, which might take 4 months, while the patient–a potentially curable one–would either have to take her chances, and die or risk unnecessary injury. Or I could take my chances and buy the drug for her 5 more times, and hope to get payment over the next year. (And why should I be put in this quandary in the first place?)

Nope, in my acid letter to the Insurance Company Genius, I reviewed 262 articles in my favor (none against), the National Guidelines (chapter, verse, page and reference numbers.) Sarcasm and shame work occasionally, and I clearly threatened The Company with suit in the state administrative court on behalf of the patient. It took time away from my real work, but The Insurance Company reversed its decision in 36 hours.

Now multiply that by 20 such patients per month.

I am sure that Gambit Lost and 100meters and PB-Crawl would prefer a vast and benevolent government agency to direct me in these matters. But push, you and I know that the Government Agency would find the same Committee of Losers to make their decisions, to enforce them, to deprive me and my patients of the tools and the imagination to use them, and then…I could appeal. And wait.

So, just to be clear, a private agency tried to fuck your patient over. In your mind, this means that the government will do the same but worse.

Your simple assumption is that government is always wrong and cannot do good. That’s fine. I disagree. I think government does have a role to play.

It is an odd postition. I was screwed by the current system, like nearly all of us have been, therefore we must keep the current system.
[/quote]

First, GL, I am not making any simple assumption about Government. You see, I work with It every day, so I working knowledge. I can forgive 100meters and your ignorance of the matter because you do not. You and he do not have to fight it every day.

The example I offered–a private agency-- I gave was perhaps digestible. Government will magnify the problem, not diminish it. I am screwed by the current system but the system you might prefer will ultimately screw everyone worse. Why would you want that, except for some crappy ideological reasons?

If you want an example from Our Benevolent Government, I would ask you to review the Medicare policy, changed in AUgust 2007, which restricts the use of erythropoietin (“ESAs”). ESAs were the largest line item in the MediCare budget, so it was targeted “for review.”
After years of safe and effective use at well established standards, the FDA guidance committee misinterpreted the key studies, disallowing treatment to prevent the need for transfusions and awful fatigue for cancer patients.

It was deemed better to commit the patients to suffer for 2 months before trying a medicine proved safe and effective for years.
Incidentally, not so for kidney disease patients. Why? You mask ask. Because a politically connected witness to the committee said, “Shit, we can’t live like that!” And so the committee ruled: cancer patients suffer with one arbitrary rule, kidney patients not.

Now multiply that error by 250,000 this year.

You, GL and 100m, may dream that it be otherwise, that the Powers That Be only exercise true and just judgment. But there are always error in judgment. I would not trust a government committee to select the correct size bandaid for a papercut.
When I err, one suffers, and I am responsible; when The Government errs, thousands suffer, without reprieve.

57

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Your simple assumption is that government is always wrong and cannot do good. That’s fine. I disagree. I think government does have a role to play.

First, GL, I am not making any simple assumption about Government. You see, I work with It every day, so I working knowledge. I can forgive 100meters and your ignorance of the matter because you do not. You and he do not have to fight it every day.

The example I offered–a private agency-- I gave was perhaps digestible. Government will magnify the problem, not diminish it. I am screwed by the current system but the system you might prefer will ultimately screw everyone worse. Why would you want that, except for some crappy ideological reasons?
[/quote]

Your assumption is that government can only do harm. This is an ideological position that you are welcome to. I simply disagree. I think government has a role and can do good work.

[quote]
If you want an example from Our Benevolent Government, I would ask you to review the Medicare policy, changed in AUgust 2007, which restricts the use of erythropoietin (“ESAs”). ESAs were the largest line item in the MediCare budget, so it was targeted “for review.”
After years of safe and effective use at well established standards, the FDA guidance committee misinterpreted the key studies, disallowing treatment to prevent the need for transfusions and awful fatigue for cancer patients.

It was deemed better to commit the patients to suffer for 2 months before trying a medicine proved safe and effective for years.
Incidentally, not so for kidney disease patients. Why? You mask ask. Because a politically connected witness to the committee said, “Shit, we can’t live like that!” And so the committee ruled: cancer patients suffer with one arbitrary rule, kidney patients not.

Now multiply that error by 250,000 this year. [/quote]

So are you proposing we should do away with the FDA? Or should it be reformed? Does it play a role? Should it exist?

That’s a nice strawman, and easy enough to knock down. Care to argue against my actual positions? If not, that’s fine.

59

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

Your assumption is that government can only do harm. This is an ideological position that you are welcome to. I simply disagree. I think government has a role and can do good work…

The problem with your position is it is based on ideology and not historical precedent.

While I do not believe that “government can only do harm”, I can look at the historical record and intelligently extrapolate that the bigger government is the more harm it does. This is inarguable IF one is a student of history. It is arguable if one is blindly entrenched in an ideology that precludes looking at the past as the key to forecasting the future.[/quote]

So then government should never grow? Or should it grow in some areas and shrink in others?

60

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
100meters wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
pushharder wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:

… an utter lack of faith in government…

This week an insurance company denied payment of a drug that I had used; for the purposes of this example, it doesn’t matter that it cost me $2500.

What raised my ire is that their “expert reviewer” had found that the use of the medicine was not established to “extend life” or improve results. I was therefore a crook.
Well, I could appeal through the usual process, which might take 4 months, while the patient–a potentially curable one–would either have to take her chances, and die or risk unnecessary injury. Or I could take my chances and buy the drug for her 5 more times, and hope to get payment over the next year. (And why should I be put in this quandary in the first place?)

Nope, in my acid letter to the Insurance Company Genius, I reviewed 262 articles in my favor (none against), the National Guidelines (chapter, verse, page and reference numbers.) Sarcasm and shame work occasionally, and I clearly threatened The Company with suit in the state administrative court on behalf of the patient. It took time away from my real work, but The Insurance Company reversed its decision in 36 hours.

Now multiply that by 20 such patients per month.

I am sure that Gambit Lost and 100meters and PB-Crawl would prefer a vast and benevolent government agency to direct me in these matters. But push, you and I know that the Government Agency would find the same Committee of Losers to make their decisions, to enforce them, to deprive me and my patients of the tools and the imagination to use them, and then…I could appeal. And wait.

So, just to be clear, a private agency tried to fuck your patient over. In your mind, this means that the government will do the same but worse.

Your simple assumption is that government is always wrong and cannot do good. That’s fine. I disagree. I think government does have a role to play.

It is an odd postition. I was screwed by the current system, like nearly all of us have been, therefore we must keep the current system.

First, GL, I am not making any simple assumption about Government. You see, I work with It every day, so I working knowledge. I can forgive 100meters and your ignorance of the matter because you do not. You and he do not have to fight it every day.

The example I offered–a private agency-- I gave was perhaps digestible. Government will magnify the problem, not diminish it. I am screwed by the current system but the system you might prefer will ultimately screw everyone worse. Why would you want that, except for some crappy ideological reasons?

If you want an example from Our Benevolent Government, I would ask you to review the Medicare policy, changed in AUgust 2007, which restricts the use of erythropoietin (“ESAs”). ESAs were the largest line item in the MediCare budget, so it was targeted “for review.”
After years of safe and effective use at well established standards, the FDA guidance committee misinterpreted the key studies, disallowing treatment to prevent the need for transfusions and awful fatigue for cancer patients.

It was deemed better to commit the patients to suffer for 2 months before trying a medicine proved safe and effective for years.
Incidentally, not so for kidney disease patients. Why? You mask ask. Because a politically connected witness to the committee said, “Shit, we can’t live like that!” And so the committee ruled: cancer patients suffer with one arbitrary rule, kidney patients not.

Now multiply that error by 250,000 this year.

You, GL and 100m, may dream that it be otherwise, that the Powers That Be only exercise true and just judgment. But there are always error in judgment. I would not trust a government committee to select the correct size bandaid for a papercut.
When I err, one suffers, and I am responsible; when The Government errs, thousands suffer, without reprieve.
[/quote]
Again, straw man. Remember this entire thread based on a lie. The govt. still not selecting anything…that was made up, then repeated by Drudge, Rush, then FOX, then here.