Spending for health care

TheMercenary • Feb 10, 2009 10:01 pm
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 [email]Betsymross@aol.com[/email]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs
Redux • Feb 10, 2009 11:30 pm
Rush Limbaugh has been spreading this nonsense ..its now making its way through the right wing blogs...and Rush is laughing all the way to bank. He is loving this stimulus bill...what a rating maker to keep his minions listening and spreading the bullshit!

The National Coordinator of Health Information Technology is not a "new bureaucracy" ...in fact, it was created by Bush.

IMO, it was one of the good programs he established. Not only to coordinate the transformation of medical records to a more efficient electronic system. But also to coordinate the dissemination of medical information and research to physicians.

Here is what the stimulus bill says:
[INDENT] 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.

[/INDENT]


I think it will be great that physicians, hospital and labs will have a centralized data base of independent research on medications and medical practices rather than just studies funded by the pharmaceutical and/or insurance industries.

There is absolutely nothing in the current legislation that would expand the mission of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology to "monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. " as suggested in the article above.

Nothing more than fear mongering!
TheMercenary • Feb 10, 2009 11:54 pm
You obviously don't work in health care.
Redux • Feb 10, 2009 11:57 pm
TheMercenary;533105 wrote:
You obviously don't work in health care.

Nope..but unlike you, I dont suggest that I have any special expertise...which you seem to posses regarding everything that Obama does that you dont like.

I dont see any reason to discuss it with you.

You can believe what you want. I know I wont change your mind.

I'm just not as paranoid as you or believe everything I read from an editorial with an agenda.

Try reading or listening to some objective analyses (and the legislation itself) ..rather than limiting yourself to "reports" from "sources" that tell you what you want to see and hear.

It could be mind expanding :eek: ...in a good way!
TheMercenary • Feb 11, 2009 12:18 am
Good points.

I work in health care.

I am not paranoid, I see the changes each and every day.

My objective analyses is my daily work load.

Stop believing that you are the only one in the know, you are not.
Redux • Feb 11, 2009 12:29 am
If there is anyone mandating medical procedures and protocols, it is the HMOs and the health insurance industry, not the federal government.
Redux • Feb 11, 2009 12:46 am
TheMercenary;533116 wrote:

Stop believing that you are the only one in the know, you are not.


Right back at ya! :D
TheMercenary • Feb 11, 2009 12:56 am
Redux;533120 wrote:
If there is anyone mandating medical procedures and protocols, it is the HMOs and the health insurance industry, not the federal government.


For the first part, correct. For the second part, not yet, but isn't that why the po folk elected him? So where is the free medical care?

Guess what folk, it ain't coming. You have been duped.
TheMercenary • Feb 11, 2009 12:57 am
Redux;533127 wrote:
Right back at ya! :D
Actually you would be quite wrong. I have been in this profession for nearly 30 years.
Redux • Feb 11, 2009 1:05 am
TheMercenary;533129 wrote:
For the first part, correct. For the second part, not yet, but isn't that why the po folk elected him? So where is the free medical care?

Guess what folk, it ain't coming. You have been duped.


The folk elected him, in part, for his position to implement programs and policies that will provide quality and affordable medical care for all.

There was no promise of free medical care. cite please on the free health care pledge!

I dont see "free medical care" anywhere in his health care agenda.

More right wing bugaboo about "universal health care means that the government will take over your life?"
TheMercenary • Feb 11, 2009 1:14 am
I guess we will see. Ask around that is not the message that the folk got. They want it and they want it now. It is not what we heard, it is what the electorate heard. They did not hear anything other than government sponsorded health care for those without jobs and those without insurance. So, where's the beef?

Dress up the pig however you care.
Redux • Feb 11, 2009 1:19 am
ahhhhh.....so its not in Obama's health care policy.

Its just something you think the electorate heard?

Guess what..if the electorate heard "government sponsored health care" it was part of the McCain/Palin misinformation campaign....not from Obama.
TheMercenary • Feb 11, 2009 1:46 am
Redux;533138 wrote:

Its just something you think the electorate heard?

Wrong again. Nice try at deflection.


Provide universal health care
"I have made a solemn pledge that I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year."—6/23/07, Hartford, Conn.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/campaigns/2008/wh08/promises_obama.htm

You do understand that there is no provision for a credit of $2500 in the latest stimulus plan that would actually keep health care workers employeed if inacted.

"Every American" includes all 16 babies of that mom and Calif but does not include all the illegal aliens that already get free health care while the working poor of legal Americans get squat. You do understand that right?

Where's the beef?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/18/health-care-group-holds-o_n_144559.html

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama, seeking support from labor union members in New Jersey, vowed Monday to make health insurance available to all Americans by the end of his first term in the White House.



''We can have universal health care by the end of the next president's first term, by the end of my first term,'' Obama said, bringing 600 union workers to their feet during a question-and-answer session with members of AFL-CIO affiliated unions.



http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/385287,051407obama.article

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/71193.php

http://promises.nationaljournal.com/health-care/
Redux • Feb 11, 2009 1:50 am
Nope....ready his remarks carefully.

Nowhere does he promise "free" health care for all.

His "universal" proposals means quality and affordable for all.

It was, and has always, been the Republicans who intentionally mischaracterize "universal" as meaning "government run and and free"

"I have made a solemn pledge that I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year."—6/23/07, Hartford, Conn.


"cut the cost by up to $2500/year"....not free!

Typical average family premiums are currently around $10,000-$12,000/yr and rising every year.

Cutting the cost would be nice. Free was never promised nor is it expected.
TheMercenary • Feb 11, 2009 1:52 am
not what the people heard. I hear it every day!
TheMercenary • Feb 11, 2009 1:54 am
How do you provide "affordable health care" to the 600,000 workers just laid off last month? COBRA? How do they pay for that?
xoxoxoBruce • Feb 11, 2009 1:59 am
TheMercenary;533146 wrote:

Provide universal health care
"I have made a solemn pledge that I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year."—6/23/07, Hartford, Conn.

He's promised to sign it... if congress brings it.


Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama, seeking support from labor union members in New Jersey, vowed Monday to make health insurance available to all Americans by the end of his first term in the White House.


''We can have universal health care by the end of the next president's first term, by the end of my first term,'' Obama said, bringing 600 union workers to their feet during a question-and-answer session with members of AFL-CIO affiliated unions.

I don't see the word "free" anywhere in there.
Massachusetts has passed their own version of universal health care already. My brother, who is self employed, has health insurance he's paying close to $500 a month for. The state has informed him his insurance is unacceptable because it has no prescription coverage.

If it were free, big business, who have been bitching loudly about health care costs for their employees, would be on it like white on rice... they are not.
Redux • Feb 11, 2009 2:02 am
TheMercenary;533152 wrote:
How do you provide "affordable health care" to the 600,000 workers just laid off last month? COBRA? How do they pay for that?


That is absolutely a challenge and why we need a comprehensive economic recovery plan so those folks can return to the workforce which most would like to do....along with reform of employer-based health care coverage which is part of Obama's health care agenda.

The fact remains that Obama has never pledged free health care for all...or government run health care for all.

In the interim, at the very least, the children of those workers can be covered through the expanded SCHIP program that Obama signed last week (that Bush vetoed twice)

And those children will be covered ONLy until the parents are able to get back in the workforce.
TheMercenary • Feb 11, 2009 2:22 am
Obama promises universal health care, he says it over and over.
xoxoxoBruce • Feb 11, 2009 2:24 am
But never once does he say FREE. :p
TheMercenary • Feb 11, 2009 2:25 am
Nothing is free, ass, grass, cash.

You are right. Everyone with a job will pay for it for the rest of the sods.
TheMercenary • Feb 11, 2009 2:28 am
OBAMA and health care:

Universal Coverage
Zero fines & no mandate for small business. (Oct 2008)
Reduce premiums and uninsured get same coverage as Congress. (Oct 2008)
No exclusions for pre-existing conditions. (Oct 2008)
Ban insurance companies from discriminating against the sick. (Aug 2008)
I’ve got a health plan and a plan to get it implemented. (Jun 2008)
AdWatch: My plan costs $2,500 less per family than Clinton’s. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Unclear if Obama’s plan costs less than Clinton’s. (Apr 2008)
Universal health care means anyone who wants it can get it. (Feb 2008)
Insurers are happy to have a mandate; issue is affordability. (Feb 2008)
Voluntary universal participation, like in Medicare Part B. (Feb 2008)
Mandating kids’ insurance ok; mandating adults has problems. (Feb 2008)
Young adults up to age 25 can be covered under parents’ plan. (Feb 2008)
My plan does more than anybody to reduce costs. (Feb 2008)
My health plan does not leave 15 million people uncovered. (Feb 2008)
Adults will get health care as they can afford it. (Feb 2008)
AdWatch: punishing uninsured families doesn’t make sense. (Feb 2008)
FactCheck: Hillary’s plan does mandate; but so does Obama’s. (Feb 2008)
No one turned away due to illness or pre-existing condition. (Feb 2008)
Buy private insurance via National Health Insurance Exchange. (Feb 2008)
Against enforcement mechanism for mandating insurance. (Jan 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, Obama favored single-payer, despite denial. (Jan 2008)
FactCheck: No, US costs are not twice as much as others. (Jan 2008)
AdWatch: Pressure insurance & drug companies to change. (Jan 2008)
FactCheck: OPPORTUNITY to insure all, but no GUARANTEE. (Jan 2008)
AdWatch: Don’t make it illegal not to have health care. (Jan 2008)
Being poor in this country is hazardous to your health. (Dec 2007)
Problem isn’t mandating coverage, but affording it. (Nov 2007)
FactCheck: Coverage plan might leave 8.5 million uninsured. (Nov 2007)
Cautious incremental plan offers choice & subsidy. (Nov 2007)
Added 20,000 children to Illinois healthcare. (Oct 2007)
Government healthcare like members of Congress have. (Sep 2007)
Increase competition in the insurance and drug markets. (Aug 2007)
National Health Insurance Exchange for private coverage. (Aug 2007)
Health plan cuts typical family’s premium by $2,500 a year. (Jun 2007)
Give people the choice to buy affordable health care. (Jun 2007)
National insurance pool & catastrophic insurance. (Apr 2007)
Employers are going to have to pay or play. (Mar 2007)
Need political will to accomplish universal coverage. (Mar 2007)
Universal health care by of first term. (Feb 2007)
Healthcare system is broken without lifetime employment. (Oct 2006)
The market alone can’t solve our health-care woes. (Oct 2006)
Focus on the affordability of a broad healthcare plan. (Jan 2006)
Crises happen in our lives and healthcare is necessary. (Oct 2004)
Believes health care is a right, not a privilege for the few. (Sep 2004)
Will expand health coverage & allow meds to be re-imported. (May 2004)
Ensure access to basic care. (Jul 1998)

Universal Coverage
Zero fines & no mandate for small business. (Oct 2008)
Reduce premiums and uninsured get same coverage as Congress. (Oct 2008)
No exclusions for pre-existing conditions. (Oct 2008)
Ban insurance companies from discriminating against the sick. (Aug 2008)
I’ve got a health plan and a plan to get it implemented. (Jun 2008)
AdWatch: My plan costs $2,500 less per family than Clinton’s. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Unclear if Obama’s plan costs less than Clinton’s. (Apr 2008)
Universal health care means anyone who wants it can get it. (Feb 2008)
Insurers are happy to have a mandate; issue is affordability. (Feb 2008)
Voluntary universal participation, like in Medicare Part B. (Feb 2008)
Mandating kids’ insurance ok; mandating adults has problems. (Feb 2008)
Young adults up to age 25 can be covered under parents’ plan. (Feb 2008)
My plan does more than anybody to reduce costs. (Feb 2008)
My health plan does not leave 15 million people uncovered. (Feb 2008)
Adults will get health care as they can afford it. (Feb 2008)
AdWatch: punishing uninsured families doesn’t make sense. (Feb 2008)
FactCheck: Hillary’s plan does mandate; but so does Obama’s. (Feb 2008)
No one turned away due to illness or pre-existing condition. (Feb 2008)
Buy private insurance via National Health Insurance Exchange. (Feb 2008)
Against enforcement mechanism for mandating insurance. (Jan 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, Obama favored single-payer, despite denial. (Jan 2008)
FactCheck: No, US costs are not twice as much as others. (Jan 2008)
AdWatch: Pressure insurance & drug companies to change. (Jan 2008)
FactCheck: OPPORTUNITY to insure all, but no GUARANTEE. (Jan 2008)
AdWatch: Don’t make it illegal not to have health care. (Jan 2008)
Being poor in this country is hazardous to your health. (Dec 2007)
Problem isn’t mandating coverage, but affording it. (Nov 2007)
FactCheck: Coverage plan might leave 8.5 million uninsured. (Nov 2007)
Cautious incremental plan offers choice & subsidy. (Nov 2007)
Added 20,000 children to Illinois healthcare. (Oct 2007)
Government healthcare like members of Congress have. (Sep 2007)
Increase competition in the insurance and drug markets. (Aug 2007)
National Health Insurance Exchange for private coverage. (Aug 2007)
Health plan cuts typical family’s premium by $2,500 a year. (Jun 2007)
Give people the choice to buy affordable health care. (Jun 2007)
National insurance pool & catastrophic insurance. (Apr 2007)
Employers are going to have to pay or play. (Mar 2007)
Need political will to accomplish universal coverage. (Mar 2007)
Universal health care by of first term. (Feb 2007)
Healthcare system is broken without lifetime employment. (Oct 2006)
The market alone can’t solve our health-care woes. (Oct 2006)
Focus on the affordability of a broad healthcare plan. (Jan 2006)
Crises happen in our lives and healthcare is necessary. (Oct 2004)
Believes health care is a right, not a privilege for the few. (Sep 2004)
Will expand health coverage & allow meds to be re-imported. (May 2004)
Ensure access to basic care. (Jul 1998)
TheMercenary • Feb 11, 2009 2:29 am
www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm
xoxoxoBruce • Feb 11, 2009 2:36 am
:zzz: Somebody say free? No? Then just rant and rave then hold your breath till you turn blue. Ain't gonna change a thing. :zzz:
TheMercenary • Feb 11, 2009 2:37 am
Where in this quote do you see that the individual or employer provides for the health care of the individual?

"I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody."


No where. So what is the message that the electorate heard? What are patients telling me every day? I will tell you. Obama and the gooberment is going to give them free health care, ala the UK or Canada, or France, etc.

Get over it guys. This is exactly the message that Obamy sent to get elected.

Where's the beef?
TheMercenary • Feb 11, 2009 2:39 am
.. double post.
TheMercenary • Feb 11, 2009 2:41 am
xoxoxoBruce;533172 wrote:
:zzz: Somebody say free? No? Then just rant and rave then hold your breath till you turn blue. Ain't gonna change a thing. :zzz:

Not trying to "change a thing", but I will call attention to the failures and lies that got him elected and rub it in the faces of those who view him as their savior. Rock on.

Say as you will dude. If you believe that the people were lied to.

Where in the stimulus package is there stimulus for health care providers to actually provide the care? Nada.
Trilby • Feb 11, 2009 2:47 am
screw you! I ruined my health under W!
TheMercenary • Feb 11, 2009 2:50 am
Hmmmmmm....

Why is Obama declaring illegal aliens will in fact get free medical insurance?
DEMOCRATS' single most important domes tic proposal - universal health insurance - may blow up in Barack Obama's face when voters are exposed to the deadly details.

Obama has said, proudly and often, "I am going to give health insurance to 47 million Americans who are now without coverage." But are they "Americans?"

That 47 million statistic includes illegal immigrants - who virtually all lack insurance. In fact, about one in four of those lacking insurance is here illegally. And they are, by far, the group most in need of health insurance.

About 15 million of the remaining uninsured are eligible for Medicaid but haven't signed up - mainly because they haven't gotten sick. When they do, they enroll in Medicaid and we pick up the full tab for their health care relatively cheaply. (About 80 percent of each Medicaid dollar goes to nursing-home care for the elderly, only about 20 percent for the medical needs of the poor.)

The rest of the uninsured pool? Virtually all the children are eligible for the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Some aren't enrolled because the parents haven't bothered, but most are eligible. That leaves about 20 million uninsured adults who are US citizens or legal immigrants. There are far better ways to handle their needs than to turn our entire health-care system upside down.

Care for illegals is the biggest unmet medical need in our nation, and Obama's program targets it squarely. But do we really want to give them federally paid coverage equal to what US senators get, as Obama proposes?
Trilby • Feb 11, 2009 2:51 am
Brianna;533178 wrote:
screw you! I ruined my health under W!


again, I say.
TheMercenary • Feb 11, 2009 2:53 am
Brianna;533180 wrote:
again, I say.


When you've walked a mile in my shoes, you can give me some advice. Until then, I'd appreciate it if you'd just MYOB where I'm concerned. You don't care for me and I don't care for you, so---what's the point of communicating?[
Trilby • Feb 11, 2009 2:55 am
I wasn't talking to YOU.

Besides, I'm certain you have me on 'ignore'
TheMercenary • Feb 11, 2009 2:56 am
:D
TGRR • Feb 11, 2009 6:42 am
TheMercenary;533152 wrote:
How do you provide "affordable health care" to the 600,000 workers just laid off last month? COBRA? How do they pay for that?


We do. Those of us still working, and the companies that employ us.
TGRR • Feb 11, 2009 6:42 am
TheMercenary;533159 wrote:
Obama promises universal health care, he says it over and over.


At no point does he say "single payer".
TGRR • Feb 11, 2009 6:44 am
Brianna;533178 wrote:
screw you! I ruined my health under W!



And just what were you doing under W? :3eye:
Redux • Feb 11, 2009 7:45 am
Back to Merc's original article....since Merc wont accept that Obama has never pledged to provide free health care to all and that universal means accessible and affordable quality health care for all.

Citing one layperson's unsupported opinion in an editorial that the stimulus bill has a provision that will enable Obama to implement his and Daschel's "so-called policy" to have the government "monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective" does not make it a fact. Damn, Merc...go to the source and read the provision in the bill. I cited it earlier just for you!

What it does is perpetuate bullshit that went from the one editorial writer (with an agenda) to Limbaugh and Drudge (with an agenda) to right wing blogs (dare I say it..with an agenda) and eventually to political forums like the Cellar...where the wing nuts who started the ball rolling hope that ultimately,the more it is repeated, the more likely it might be accepted as factual.

Merc..you can keep playing your role in this farcical charade called "the Obama administration is out to control your life and turn the US into a bastion of socialism" if it makes you feel better, it wont make the allegation any more factual.
classicman • Feb 11, 2009 11:05 am
Morning everyone - Did I miss anything?
Shawnee123 • Feb 11, 2009 12:22 pm
Jebus H Cripes...

That is all.
Redux • Feb 11, 2009 12:32 pm
classicman;533248 wrote:
Morning everyone - Did I miss anything?


I expect the political melodrama, Socialism in America or How I Became a Foot Soldier in the Wingers War to Save the Country, will have at least a four-year run.

I'm hoping it will be extending for eight. It is highly entertaining...the down side is that it makes Rush a fatter cat every day. His listeners will be on the edge of their chair waiting for the next installment.

Stayed tuned. That next act may bring in a new element...the "nefarious" stimulus bill is anti-religion!
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee warned supporters Tuesday that the $828 billion stimulus package is "anti-religious."

In an e-mail that was also posted on his blog ahead of the Senate's passage, Huckabee wrote: "The dust is settling on the 'bipartisan' stimulus bill and one thing is clear: It is anti-religious."

The former Republican presidential candidate pointed to a provision in both the House and Senate versions banning higher education funds in the bill from being used on a "school or department of divinity."

"You would think the ACLU drafted this bill," Huckabee said. "For all of the talk about bipartisanship, this Congress is blatantly liberal...."

...this myth has been making the rounds in right-wing circles for about a week. Originally, the American Center for Law and Justice, a right-wing legal group formed by TV preacher Pat Robertson, said the stimulus bill includes a provision that would prohibit "religious groups and organizations from using" buildings on college campuses. Soon after, religious right groups and right-wing blogs were up in arms, demanding that lawmakers fix the "anti-Christian" language of the bill. Fox News and the Christian Broadcasting Network helped get the word out to the far-right base about the nefarious measure.

There was, however, one small problem: there was no such measure. The ACLJ doesn't know how to read legislation, and didn't realize that the standard language in the bill simply blocks spending for on-campus buildings that are used primarily for religion (like a chapel, for example). This same language has been part of education spending bills for 46 years. It's just the law, and it's never been controversial.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_02/016836.php
sugarpop • Feb 11, 2009 2:59 pm
I am not even going to read this thread, I'm just going to say this:

I am sick to death of conservative whining that we need lower corporate taxes because American corporations can't compete globally. One reason they can't compete is because of health care costs. Every other industrailized country in the world has government health care. When conservatives are willing to give US the same fucking health care they get in Congress, then I will happy to support lower corporate taxes. Until then, they can kiss my ass.
jinx • Feb 11, 2009 3:35 pm
sugarpop;533372 wrote:
Every other industrailized country in the world has government health care.


I noticed these 2 articles when I was reading about the fires is AUS...
Don't assume everything is all rainbows and gummy bears in government health care land. You don't even have to read about it other countries, ask the people here who are on government health care how much they like it...

[SIZE=2]Medibank Private to open own emergency wards[/SIZE]


[SIZE=2]Claims of cover-ups, bungled care at Bundaberg hospital[/SIZE]
sugarpop • Feb 11, 2009 3:55 pm
I'm not claiming it is perfect in other countries, but that they have access to it. I think we should look at what other countries do, and adopt things that would work here. There is no such thing as a perfect system, I don't believe. Ours certainly doesn't work very well though, unless you are fortunate enough to work somewhere that still has good benefits, or unless you can afford good insurance (which doesn't always end up being as good as you think).

Why is OK that taxpayers end up subsidizing health care for employees of rich corporations like WalMart, when they can obviously afford to supply it? Why do we put up with that? Those people don't make enough to buy insrance on their own, so they are mostly on some kind of Medicare. And WalMart is one of the richest corporations in the world. Why aren't you pissed off about that?
Redux • Feb 11, 2009 4:23 pm
jinx;533391 wrote:
I noticed these 2 articles when I was reading about the fires is AUS...
Don't assume everything is all rainbows and gummy bears in government health care land. You don't even have to read about it other countries, ask the people here who are on government health care how much they like it...


Universal affordable and accessible health care does not necessarily mean government health care.

What Obama envisions in the longer term is more quasi-governmental, with a government body overseeing the administration of a program that provides citizens with a range of choices through private health care providers. The citizens would have little or no contact with the government and would interact with their health care provider in much the same manner as they do now if covered by an employer-based plan.

In the short term, the goal is to contain the costs of employer-based plans since they represent over 2/3 of those currently with health care coverage and to provide incentives for small business to create health care pools in order to provide affordable coverage to those small business employees.

Is it doable? I hope we might see steps in that direction if all the fear mongering about government taking over our lives is put aside...and if the economy doesnt keep tanking.
TheMercenary • Feb 11, 2009 8:21 pm
Redux;533223 wrote:
Back to Merc's original article....since Merc wont accept that Obama has never pledged to provide free health care to all and that universal means accessible and affordable quality health care for all.


The point is that da po folk never saw it that way, and that is what message has been sent. I am not really concerned if you believe that or not, it is really not important.
TheMercenary • Feb 11, 2009 8:22 pm
Redux;533416 wrote:
Universal affordable and accessible health care does not necessarily mean government health care.
Great, you tell us all what it means. Speak for Obama.
classicman • Feb 11, 2009 8:44 pm
TheMercenary;533478 wrote:
The point is that da po folk never saw it that way, and that is what message has been sent.


OK Merc, We got yer opinion . . . about 40 times. Others see it differently. We'll all just have to see how it plays out. If its true, would it be the first time a politician was a little vague on something to elected?
IIRC - W was going to be the great uniter - how'd that turn out? Could we be any more divided as a country than we are now?
TheMercenary • Feb 11, 2009 8:45 pm
We have only just begun to be divided IMHO.
Redux • Feb 11, 2009 10:34 pm
TheMercenary;533479 wrote:
Great, you tell us all what it means. Speak for Obama.


As opposed to you speaking for the millions of Americans you have heard from who believe Obama' has pledged free universal health care?

Gimme a fucking break.

I try to gain an understanding of his heath care policy agenda by reading his policy agenda! Damn...why not start there and supplement it with articles and analyses of his proposed policy that provide more than one person's opinion! Makes sense, doesnt it?

Or does it really make more sense to draw such sweeping conclusions as your based on the opinion of an editorial writer who offers nothing to support her opinion and public hearsay?

Perhaps it does for you...not for me.
Aliantha • Feb 11, 2009 10:37 pm
When I see the words 'universal healthcare' I don't see the words free. In fact, it really doesn't tell you much except that it'll be available to everyone 'universally'.

eta: and I don't think I'm any smarter than anyone else, so if i can understand the definition of the word, then why can't others?

We have what you'd probably call universal healthcare here. It's not free, but it's a lot more affordable than private healthcare.
Aliantha • Feb 11, 2009 10:44 pm
Just as an example, if you go to see your GP over here, it'll cost you anywhere from $40 - $100 per visit depending on the length of the appointment, time of day and particular practicioner. Of that amount, let's suggest $60 as the mean average, you'll get back somewhere between half and two thirds. Some clinics 'bulk bill' which means the bill goes straight to the government for less financial patients such as pensioners, for the rest of us, if we choose to see a public GP, we get a substantial saving. Depending on how much you 'spend' at the doctors throughout the year will depend on how much you might have to either pay or not when it's time to pay your taxes. Of course, if you're a pensioner with no other income for example, you're not required to submit a tax return, so you're exempt.

The system here is designed to try and help those who can least afford healthcare while still giving the more wealthy a break too, depending on how much they draw from the system.

It's not too bad, but it has its faults just like every other government funded initiative.

eta: For the more wealthy, there are tax breaks for having private health insurance from the age of 30. Unfortunately, if you don't have PHI before the age of 30, any tax benefits that might have been available to you are no longer applicable. This is one of the bad parts of the legislation in my opinion.
TGRR • Feb 12, 2009 3:52 am
TheMercenary;533479 wrote:
Great, you tell us all what it means. Speak for Obama.


What the hell? :lol:
TheMercenary • Feb 12, 2009 7:56 am
Aliantha;533537 wrote:
Just as an example, if you go to see your GP over here, it'll cost you anywhere from $40 - $100 per visit depending on the length of the appointment, time of day and particular practicioner. Of that amount, let's suggest $60 as the mean average, you'll get back somewhere between half and two thirds. Some clinics 'bulk bill' which means the bill goes straight to the government for less financial patients such as pensioners, for the rest of us, if we choose to see a public GP, we get a substantial saving. Depending on how much you 'spend' at the doctors throughout the year will depend on how much you might have to either pay or not when it's time to pay your taxes. Of course, if you're a pensioner with no other income for example, you're not required to submit a tax return, so you're exempt.

The system here is designed to try and help those who can least afford healthcare while still giving the more wealthy a break too, depending on how much they draw from the system.

It's not too bad, but it has its faults just like every other government funded initiative.

eta: For the more wealthy, there are tax breaks for having private health insurance from the age of 30. Unfortunately, if you don't have PHI before the age of 30, any tax benefits that might have been available to you are no longer applicable. This is one of the bad parts of the legislation in my opinion.

But your system and the one in the UK and Canada are highly supported by your tax system. No?
Aliantha • Feb 12, 2009 4:21 pm
Of course. There aren't any fairy god mothers here either. Where do you think Obama would be planning on getting the money to fund a universal health care system in the US?
classicman • Feb 12, 2009 4:29 pm
C'mon Ali - He was just calming down too! Did you have to fan the flames?:eyebrow:
TheMercenary • Feb 12, 2009 4:32 pm
Aliantha;533751 wrote:
Of course. There aren't any fairy god mothers here either. Where do you think Obama would be planning on getting the money to fund a universal health care system in the US?


I know exactly where he plans on getting it. And that was the point.
Aliantha • Feb 12, 2009 4:32 pm
lol...well I have to leave him something to go on with. I wont be here for a few days. (yes I know there's plenty who'll be happy to see that. Try and control yourselves so you don't look like dicks please)
TheMercenary • Feb 12, 2009 4:33 pm
:D

US? look like dicks? please. :)
Aliantha • Feb 12, 2009 4:35 pm
Well I don't think you lot will be the ones glad I'm not here. ;)

I think there is a contingent who will be though. lol

(but please feel free to act like dicks anyway ;) )
Redux • Feb 12, 2009 5:36 pm
TheMercenary;533758 wrote:
I know exactly where he plans on getting it. And that was the point.


Much of the cost savings that will be passed on to consumers will result from computerizing the health care system.

I dont know how it is in Australia, but in the US, a relatively small percentage of doctors and hospitals are using or maximizing their use of health information technology systems

A Rand report (pdf)found that implementing health IT would result in a mean annual savings of $40 billion over a 15-year period by improving health outcomes through care management, increasing efficiency, and reducing medical errors.

In terms of the $20 billion for health care IT in the stimulus package, a Harvard researcher suggests that the $20 bill investment in health care IT is in fact a both stimulus (creating thousands of jobs) and a means to make health care more efficient and less costly over a period of a few years.

I dont take these studies at face value, but I am inclined to take them as more credible than the unsubstantiated opinion of the editorial writer in the initial article that suggested the health IT investment in the stimulus bill would be "dangerous to your health" and was to "enable the government to dictate to doctors how to treat patients."
classicman • Feb 12, 2009 5:47 pm
Redux;533774 wrote:
Much of the cost savings that will be passed on to consumers will result from computerizing the health care system.

Cost savings passed on to consumers? I'll believe that when I see it.

Redux;533774 wrote:
Harvard researcher suggests that the $20 bill investment in health care IT is in fact a both stimulus (creating thousands of jobs) and a means to make health care more efficient and less costly.


Well for 20 BILLION, it better create tens of thousands of jobs!
Redux • Feb 12, 2009 5:51 pm
Or we could keep slogging along with a health care system where 20-25% (from the Rand study) of the doctors and hospitals are bogged down with paper records or at best, localized data, rather than a broad and more efficient health care IT infrastructure.
classicman • Feb 12, 2009 6:00 pm
One thing about computerizing all this data is that the system will probably be hacked at some point and the info manipulated, exploited or sold for profit somehow.
Redux • Feb 12, 2009 6:08 pm
classicman;533783 wrote:
One thing about computerizing all this data is that the system will probably be hacked at some point and the info manipulated, exploited or sold for profit somehow.

the price of progress.

Should we shut down all ATM machines and return to the days of more manual tellers in banks because of potential hacking, data exploitation?
TheMercenary • Feb 12, 2009 6:39 pm
classicman;533778 wrote:
Cost savings passed on to consumers? I'll believe that when I see it.


It's pie in the sky feel good stuff. I work at a number of places that use computerized record making it hasn't saved patients a dime and it costs thousands to maintain and update. It does give you an occassional longer coffee break. How does the data get into the computer you ask? Oh, yea, that's right SOMEONE HAS TO TYPE IT IN. It is not always faster, in some cases it does. There are so many problems with it I could go on and on. The only people who will profit are IT guys who can interface with companies who already specialize in medical record keeping and there are hundreds of companies out there.
Redux • Feb 12, 2009 6:43 pm
Technology improves efficiency in any sector in a national and global economy.

Efficiency saves money.
TheMercenary • Feb 12, 2009 6:44 pm
I have not seen it. Not in the medical profession. One hospital I worked at introduced automated records in 1995. We spent more time fixing what it recorded than doing it. Made some slick records but that was about it.
Redux • Feb 12, 2009 6:45 pm
I understand that you accept the unsubstantiated and undocumented opinion of the editorial writer and/or your own limited anecdotal experience over Rand studies or Harvard studies.

We know they are part of the vast left wing conspiracy to take over your life.:eek:
TheMercenary • Feb 12, 2009 6:48 pm
How do you figure that. I speak as an end user of automated record keeping. It has many problems. When I start to see Obama give away money for people to purchase the programs, have them installed, and have them pay for the continual upgrades, fixes, and trouble shooting to interface the way they should, we can talk. Until then they are blowing smoke up everyones skirt.
TheMercenary • Feb 12, 2009 6:51 pm
For some reason I don't think that Obama's plan includes giving this stuff away to Dr's, Hospitals, or other private health care facilities.
Redux • Feb 12, 2009 6:51 pm
TheMercenary;533799 wrote:
For some reason I don't think that Obama's plan includes giving this stuff away to Dr's, Hospitals, or other private health care facilities.


I would think that is the $20 billion in the stimululs bill that I think is a good investment for short term jobs and longer term efficiencies in the health care system.

As I said....it's your experience versus numerous medical professionals with equal or more experience and expertise.

You chose the former..I chose the latter.

And as you said...time will tell.
classicman • Feb 12, 2009 6:53 pm
Redux;533787 wrote:
the price of progress.

Should we shut down all ATM machines and return to the days of more manual tellers in banks because of potential hacking, data exploitation?

devils/ Should we? There were a lot less problems and that would probably create more jobs, wouldn't it?/advocate
Redux • Feb 12, 2009 6:55 pm
classicman;533802 wrote:
devils/ Should we? There were a lot less problems and that would probably create more jobs, wouldn't it?/advocate


problems v convenience

bank tellers v it technicians.
TheMercenary • Feb 12, 2009 6:56 pm
Redux;533801 wrote:
I would think that is the $20 billion in the stimululs bill that I think is a good investment for short term jobs and longer term efficiencies in the health care system.

As I said....it's your experience versus numerous medical professionals with equal or more experience and expertise.

You chose the former..I chose the latter.

And as you said...time will tell.

No, those are people who crunch numbers. Not end users. Look behind the people who push the research on electronic medial record keeping and you will find the companies who benifit from it paying for the research.
Redux • Feb 12, 2009 6:58 pm
TheMercenary;533807 wrote:
No, those are people who crunch numbers. Not end users. Look behind the people who push the research on electronic medial record keeping and you will find the companies who benifit from it paying for the research.


The Harvard guy is an end-user:
Dr. John Halamka is the chief information officer at Harvard Medical School and one of its teaching hospitals. He oversees 20,000 computers dedicated to health care.

"It requires a lot of hands on, this means you need training and education much more than hardware and software, and that means a lot of people," Halamka says.

He's helped more than 1,000 doctors in Massachusetts to go electronic, creating 20 new jobs in the process. The doctors can use computers to access patient records and order tests and drugs. And the computers can prompt them about possible diagnoses and treatments.

Using his experiences in Massachusetts, Halamka calculates that equipping hundreds of thousands of doctors with computers would create about 200,000 new jobs — positions for training health personnel and running health systems. There also would be jobs in hardware and software companies, and the growing number of Internet companies that let people keep their own records online.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99916019

I dont take the numbers at face value, but I do take the concept at face value.
TheMercenary • Feb 12, 2009 7:00 pm
"1,000 doctors in Massachusetts to go electronic, creating 20 new jobs in the process."

WOW! 20 jobs! Boy I bet that put Massachusetts on the Map in Job Creation! And I be it did cost them millions.
Redux • Feb 12, 2009 7:04 pm
You like cherry picking, huh?

200,000 jobs nationwide.

I bet you like the horse and buggy too!
TheMercenary • Feb 12, 2009 7:08 pm
Yea, If I owned a Corp that grossed 1.4 billion annually I would be pushing for electronic medical records too...

Our desktop used to have 140 client applications on it. Today, we have Internet Explorer 5. What is the advantage? I have been able to reduce our operating expense by 40 percent over the course of the last two years because rolling out a new application does not require a significant technical challenge. It is a browser.

It has also made our applications available securely to those folks who need them anywhere in the world. CareGroup is a $1.4 billion-dollar company with six hospitals, 3,000 physicians, and a million patients. You might imagine we are fairly geographically dispersed, and people need to get access from their doctors' offices, from hospitals, from their homes. The Web gives us a way to do that.


http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-1059240.html

Like I said, behind every person who does research and calls them self a Doctor while pushing a platform is a multimillion dollar company.
I don't take buzz names like "Harvard Medical School" as proof of efficiency. Nice try though.
Redux • Feb 12, 2009 7:08 pm
TheMercenary;533820 wrote:

I don't take buzz names like "Harvard Medical School" as proof of efficiency. Nice try though.


I wouldnt expect any other response! ;)
TheMercenary • Feb 12, 2009 7:10 pm
While you ignore this guy helps run a company that makes 1.4 billion. Yea, thats some cheap health care right there. Guess who paid for that? Patients and insurance companies.
TheMercenary • Feb 12, 2009 7:12 pm
And check this out paranoids. This is the same doctor that wants to put a chip in all of you.

http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/hardware/soa/Harvard-Medical-School-John-Halamka-CIO/0,139023759,339272554,00.htm

Hey it might be a good idea. Who is going to make the money on that technology?
Redux • Feb 12, 2009 7:17 pm
TheMercenary;533825 wrote:
And check this out paranoids. This is the same doctor that wants to put a chip in all of you.

http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/hardware/soa/Harvard-Medical-School-John-Halamka-CIO/0,139023759,339272554,00.htm

Hey it might be a good idea. Who is going to make the money on that technology?


I dont have time now to read the full interview.

Can you post the Q&A section where he said he wants to put a chip in all of us. It looks to me like he said he is also for opting out if a patient chooses.

I'll check back later to see the section you post.

Thanks!
TheMercenary • Feb 12, 2009 7:20 pm
I am not against computerized medical records. That is not the point here. The point is does it decrease costs? Does it save time? My response is not at first. Maybe over a long period of time it will. Start up costs are EXTREMELY expensive. A brand new Dell computer is now at every bedside all over the hospital all connected via hard wire to a main server, bet that was cheap. I know that in many cases it will decrease medical errors and that in the long run saves millions alone. But with all good comes some trade offs.

And then there are the people who are making money off of it, the same people telling us all how great it is going to be for us:

Physicians who specialize in emergency medicine are disproportionately represented in the ranks of local and national health IT leaders. Examples include:

Dr. Brian Keaton, president of the American College of Emergency Physicians and an emergency medicine physician in Akron, Ohio, leads the Northeast Ohio Regional Health Information Organization (RHIO).
Dr. Edward Barthell, executive vice president of strategy and clinical affairs at Infinity HealthCare in Wisconsin and a practicing emergency medicine physician, is a founder of the Wisconsin Health Information Exchange (HIE).
Dr. John Halamka, an emergency medicine physician at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, is chief information officer at Harvard Medical School and chairman of the Healthcare IT Standards Panel chartered by the federal government.
Dr. Craig Feied and Dr. Mark Smith, emergency medicine physicians at Washington Hospital Center, were among the creators of the Azyxxi software that Microsoft acquired for its foray into health IT.


http://govhealthit.com/Articles/2007/09/On-the-bleeding-edge.aspx

I am sure they gave it to Microsoft at a discount, you know for the good of the patient and skyrocketing costs of healthcare.
Flint • Feb 13, 2009 11:30 am
Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system.
This is light-years from practical implementation. And I say that as a person working on the front lines of integrating healthcare IT systems--I'm a PACS admin, I work under the IHE umbrella of interoperability standards such as DICOM and HL7 (which are poorly implemented by vendors who see propietary functionality as leverage against their competitors, and frankly, the customer having control of their own data). Healthcare IT is struggling to progress past the dark ages.
TheMercenary • Feb 13, 2009 3:46 pm
Flint;534066 wrote:
Healthcare IT is struggling to progress past the dark ages.
Say it brother, this time louder.

The military has gone kicking and screaming into the process. Due to the size and cost of these projects PER HOSPITAL, the money is allocated years before, which means that the purchase is made one year, and implemented sometimes 2 or more years later. Guess what? They don't get the free up grade. We are using Essentris. It is working. Guess what? The year after the bought this program they bought a different one. Next year they take this one out and everyone has to learn the new one. Oh, and Essentris DOES NOT INTERFACE with CHCS except in a very limited way. It does not interface with the outpatient notes program CHCS2 Alta. So now we have three programs that are required to take care of one patient. None of them interface with the monitors. No real time data. Guess what? We use a paper chart for that stuff.

The whole idea that Obama is going to pour money into the health care system and the private system at that is bullcrap. And if he does it is not going to fix it, but it will make a small group of people very very rich. So the private plastic surgery center is going to get free government money to go all electronic with their records? How about the privately owned doctors hospital? How about that 3000 bed inter-city hospital. Does anyone know just how much it would cost to wire up a 3000 bed hospital with computers, laptops, hard wire, training, programs, updates, onsite trainers, IT trouble shooters, etc.? The public is getting smoke blown up its collective skirt.
TheMercenary • Feb 13, 2009 3:49 pm
Let's be clear here. I am not against electronic records. It has merits if properly implemented.
Flint • Feb 14, 2009 12:48 pm
TheMercenary;534144 wrote:
How about the privately owned doctors hospital?
That's me. And I'll tell you. The big healthcare IT vendors are not structured to support implementations at smaller, rural facilities such as ourselves. The problem is that the basic infrastructure of a "paperless" hospital is NOT SCALABLE. [SIZE="1"](Because of the small size and lower volume of our facility, our resources in the IT department are very limited. However, we still have to build all the same systems and interfaces etc. as the larger facilities--which the big vendors are "tuned" to.)[/SIZE]

This doesn't even approach the real issue: that the vendors approach the established standards of interoperability as a set of very loose suggestions, that they skirt or downright ignore at their discretion.

Throwing money at this problem isn't going to fix a broken industry. The solution will only come when the vendors adhere to the interoperability standards THAT ALREADY EXIST AND HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO WORK IF IMPLEMENTED PROPERLY.

Until that time, you will continue to need high-paid guys such as myself to stitch your disparate systems together.
TGRR • Feb 14, 2009 12:55 pm
Redux;533816 wrote:
You like cherry picking, huh?

200,000 jobs nationwide.

I bet you like the horse and buggy too!



We lost 623,000 jobs last month.

And how much of this bill is going to vanish along the way?
TGRR • Feb 14, 2009 12:57 pm
classicman;533778 wrote:
Cost savings passed on to consumers? I'll believe that when I see it.



Well for 20 BILLION, it better create tens of thousands of jobs!



It only costs me $65,000 a year, everything included, to create a job for a journeyman mechanic.

Why does it cost so fucking much for this bill to create each job?
xoxoxoBruce • Feb 14, 2009 7:29 pm
If you've got something for that mechanic to do.
TGRR • Feb 14, 2009 8:58 pm
xoxoxoBruce;534526 wrote:
If you've got something for that mechanic to do.


When I do, I hire one. But there's no need for me to spend a few million per employee.

Especially when that few million is actually just going to vanish.
TheMercenary • Feb 15, 2009 12:00 am
TGRR;534457 wrote:
We lost 623,000 jobs last month.

And how much of this bill is going to vanish along the way?
Well you just let ole Redux know that 20 jobs were created in MA after millions spent so he can feel better about making a bunch of IT savy docs multi-millionares will ya?
TGRR • Feb 15, 2009 12:12 am
TheMercenary;534698 wrote:
Well you just let ole Redux know that 20 jobs were created in MA after millions spent so he can feel better about making a bunch of IT savy docs multi-millionares will ya?



:mad2:
Redux • Feb 15, 2009 12:37 am
TheMercenary;534698 wrote:
Well you just let ole Redux know that 20 jobs were created in MA after millions spent so he can feel better about making a bunch of IT savy docs multi-millionares will ya?


Too late now...its a done deal!

Some IT companies are gonna provide jobs and get richer in the process...and the Obama administration is gonna take over your life :eek:
classicman • Feb 15, 2009 1:17 am
Redux;534714 wrote:
Too late now...its a done deal!

Some IT companies are gonna provide jobs and get richer in the process...and the Obama administration is gonna take over your life :eek:


AHA!
Redux • Feb 15, 2009 1:27 am
[INDENT]Image[/INDENT]
TGRR • Feb 15, 2009 1:30 am
Redux;534727 wrote:
[INDENT]Image[/INDENT]


:lol:

Too funny.
TheMercenary • Feb 15, 2009 1:43 am
Redux;534714 wrote:
Too late now...its a done deal!

Some IT companies are gonna provide jobs and get richer in the process...and the Obama administration is gonna take over your life :eek:

yep, you said it bro, and I can't wait to blame them for the next 4 years of fuckups and failures. :lol:
TGRR • Feb 15, 2009 1:44 am
TheMercenary;534737 wrote:
yep, you said it bro, and I can't wait to blame them for the next 4 years of fuckups and failures. :lol:


Should be as much fun as the last 8 years of fuckups and failures, anyway.
TheMercenary • Feb 15, 2009 1:45 am
Yea turn around is certainly fairplay. As long as it goes both ways I am cool with it.
TGRR • Feb 15, 2009 1:53 pm
TheMercenary;534742 wrote:
Yea turn around is certainly fairplay. As long as it goes both ways I am cool with it.



I hate both sides. When Bush was in, I ripped on him...because he was The Beast. A big, stupid brute with the morals of a shark and the political instinct of a syphilis spirochete. But in the end, he was a monster we could live with, albeit in a most embarrassed fashion.

But that isn't what we've elected this time, is it? Ho ho!
TheMercenary • Feb 15, 2009 10:46 pm
TGRR;534820 wrote:
I hate both sides. When Bush was in, I ripped on him...because he was The Beast. A big, stupid brute with the morals of a shark and the political instinct of a syphilis spirochete. But in the end, he was a monster we could live with, albeit in a most embarrassed fashion.

But that isn't what we've elected this time, is it? Ho ho!

whore is right.
Flint • Feb 15, 2009 11:00 pm
People, here's the reality: you can't even pull up your x-rays from hospital A while you're at hospital B, even if hospital B is right across the street--much less another state. The two simplest reasons that spring to mind are NOT because we haven't invested billions into healthcare IT (because, believe me, we have).

They are: #1 Hospitals view your medial information as proprietary business data. Sure, you can sign a HIPAA form to get the data released, but they sure aren't going to let a BUSINESS COMPETIOR (i.e. another hospital) have free, unfettered access to data that they had to make an investment of time and money generate. To put it simply: HOSPITALS DO NOT WANT TO SHARE YOUR MEDICAL RECORDS. It's not a smart business choice.

And: #2 If the hundred hospitals from this county, and the next, and the next, and the thousands from the next state over, and so on and so forth, wanted to share your medical records... HOW WOULD THEY KNOW WHO YOU ARE? We are still struggling with getting every department WITHIN THE SAME FACILITY to use a common medical record number. It's not that the interoperability standards aren't attempting to deal with this, but what good are these efforts when the technology vendors fight to maintain the proprietray nature of their systems, so that you are compelled not to purchase another brand, lest you have to deal with a costly migration to untangle all the proprietary data you've been storing?

This is just an off-the-cuff rant; but the point is that this kind of thing IS MY JOB. This is what I do every day. There is no magic solution that a few billion dollars or a few hundred billion dollars is going to bring about. The healthcare industry is designed NOT to share data.
TheMercenary • Feb 15, 2009 11:28 pm
here, here.
Flint • Feb 15, 2009 11:30 pm
Just one man's viewpoint from squarely within a situation which is probably nothing more than a soundbyte to most people.
Aliantha • Feb 15, 2009 11:30 pm
I have tums everywhere atm.
TheMercenary • Feb 15, 2009 11:32 pm
Flint, for the last 15 years I have watched the gobberment and large health care companies throw millions into making this work. I have not seen a single one that worked smoothly enough to make me stand back as an end user and say, wow, that really makes my job so much easier. Not one.
Aliantha • Feb 15, 2009 11:34 pm
Flint;535142 wrote:
Just one man's viewpoint from squarely within a situation which is probably nothing more than a soundbyte to most people.


Thanks for editing this post. Mine doesn't make much sense now. :( lol
Flint • Feb 15, 2009 11:34 pm
Tough luck, kid!
Aliantha • Feb 15, 2009 11:35 pm
Well people can just wonder and speculate now. There's a fair bit of that around here anyway. :)
classicman • Feb 16, 2009 9:43 am
Very interesting take Flint, on the real world implications of something that sounds great on the surface, but is apparently completely impractical to implement.

If this is the case and I believe it is, why are we trying to spend so much money on something that isn't feasible?
TheMercenary • Feb 16, 2009 9:51 am
Classic, obviously I can't answer for Flint, but IMHO it is a notable and worth while issue to take on. But most people never thought about throwing money at this program until Obama picked it up as a campaign issue. I feel they cherry picked it as something to show the public that they are addressing a health care issue to make them feel good in the spending package all the while the problem of the under and un-insured, among many other things, has not go away. People in health care have been exposed the digital and electronic record keeping for more than 15 years. This is not a new issue. There are huge problems and it centers around the issues that Flint brought up about proprietary information and lack of interoperability. None of those issues are fixed by throwing money at them. All they are doing is making a very small group of people very rich.
TheMercenary • Feb 16, 2009 11:39 am
Ouch. That one is going to hurt.

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/84712
TGRR • Feb 16, 2009 7:29 pm
TheMercenary;535259 wrote:
Ouch. That one is going to hurt.

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/84712


Good thing our hospitals never make mistakes.
TheMercenary • Feb 16, 2009 8:22 pm
TGRR;535372 wrote:
Good thing our hospitals never make mistakes.

It's not about mistakes. It is about throwing millions, or in our case with Obama, billions at a problem hoping the solution just works it self out for digital record keeping in health care.
TGRR • Feb 16, 2009 8:28 pm
TheMercenary;535399 wrote:
It's not about mistakes. It is about throwing millions, or in our case with Obama, billions at a problem hoping the solution just works it self out for digital record keeping in health care.


Ever try to get your medical records?

The system as is, sucks. Not that I'm really big on anything in the StealFromUs package.
TheMercenary • Feb 16, 2009 8:37 pm
Yea, since I work in the hospital it is easier for me than most, but even my family can't get theirs without a blessing from the Pope. Now if you want a copy for a referral appt that is in 2 days they can let you process a request and you can get it in 2 weeks, maybe.

The one good thing is our Radiology Dept went all digital so radiological tests which involve dye can be obtained on a disk and other providers can actually view the test. The turn around to get those copied was 15 min. Radiology has always been on the cutting edge of the digital revolution in health care, 5 or more years ahead of the rest of the herd.
TGRR • Feb 16, 2009 8:46 pm
TheMercenary;535405 wrote:
Yea, since I work in the hospital it is easier for me than most, but even my family can't get theirs without a blessing from the Pope. Now if you want a copy for a referral appt that is in 2 days they can let you process a request and you can get it in 2 weeks, maybe.

The one good thing is our Radiology Dept went all digital so radiological tests which involve dye can be obtained on a disk and other providers can actually view the test. The turn around to get those copied was 15 min. Radiology has always been on the cutting edge of the digital revolution in health care, 5 or more years ahead of the rest of the herd.



Thing is, trying to FORCE that is like trying to push a string.
Flint • Feb 19, 2009 6:18 pm
TheMercenary;535405 wrote:
Radiology has always been on the cutting edge of the digital revolution in health care, 5 or more years ahead of the rest of the herd.
And yet, those of us in Radiology say things like: "Witness the very nature of DICOM itself, the most non-standard standard that ever existed."
sugarpop • Feb 20, 2009 6:18 pm
sugarpop;533403 wrote:
I'm not claiming it is perfect in other countries, but that they have access to it. I think we should look at what other countries do, and adopt things that would work here. There is no such thing as a perfect system, I don't believe. Ours certainly doesn't work very well though, unless you are fortunate enough to work somewhere that still has good benefits, or unless you can afford good insurance (which doesn't always end up being as good as you think).

Why is OK that taxpayers end up subsidizing health care for employees of rich corporations like WalMart, when they can obviously afford to supply it? Why do we put up with that? Those people don't make enough to buy insrance on their own, so they are mostly on some kind of Medicaid. And WalMart is one of the richest corporations in the world. Why aren't you pissed off about that?


OOPS! I meant to say medicaid, fixed it.
sugarpop • Feb 20, 2009 6:21 pm
TheMercenary;533479 wrote:
Great, you tell us all what it means. Speak for Obama.


Good grief Merc. I have supplied you with links to what his plan looks like. In fact, I got one of them from a link YOU posted (at SMN) to PBR. WTF?
sugarpop • Feb 20, 2009 6:27 pm
classicman;533783 wrote:
One thing about computerizing all this data is that the system will probably be hacked at some point and the info manipulated, exploited or sold for profit somehow.


That already happens. I got letter a couple of years ago that my data might have been stolen. And ftr, people can steal data from paper just as easily, in fact probably easier.
sugarpop • Feb 20, 2009 6:30 pm
TheMercenary;533798 wrote:
How do you figure that. I speak as an end user of automated record keeping. It has many problems. When I start to see Obama give away money for people to purchase the programs, have them installed, and have them pay for the continual upgrades, fixes, and trouble shooting to interface the way they should, we can talk. Until then they are blowing smoke up everyones skirt.


Maybe they should use MACs instead of Microshit... :lol2:
TheMercenary • Feb 20, 2009 6:33 pm
sugarpop;536901 wrote:
Good grief Merc. I have supplied you with links to what his plan looks like. In fact, I got one of them from a link YOU posted (at SMN) to PBR. WTF?


His plans what not been well described, even by him. I have posted what some experts in healthcare were able to tell from the vague plans he put forth. Either way they are going to be VERY expensive. Expensive on a scale which this country has never seen. And now with the Demoncratic Bailout, most likely he will be unable to get one passed, even though he was elected on a platform where he promised affordable health care to all. Where's the beef?
TheMercenary • Feb 20, 2009 6:34 pm
sugarpop;536905 wrote:
Maybe they should use MACs instead of Microshit... :lol2:


The computer is not the problem, it's the software.
sugarpop • Feb 20, 2009 6:45 pm
TheMercenary;534144 wrote:
Say it brother, this time louder.

The military has gone kicking and screaming into the process. Due to the size and cost of these projects PER HOSPITAL, the money is allocated years before, which means that the purchase is made one year, and implemented sometimes 2 or more years later. Guess what? They don't get the free up grade. We are using Essentris. It is working. Guess what? The year after the bought this program they bought a different one. Next year they take this one out and everyone has to learn the new one. Oh, and Essentris DOES NOT INTERFACE with CHCS except in a very limited way. It does not interface with the outpatient notes program CHCS2 Alta. So now we have three programs that are required to take care of one patient. None of them interface with the monitors. No real time data. Guess what? We use a paper chart for that stuff.

The whole idea that Obama is going to pour money into the health care system and the private system at that is bullcrap. And if he does it is not going to fix it, but it will make a small group of people very very rich. So the private plastic surgery center is going to get free government money to go all electronic with their records? How about the privately owned doctors hospital? How about that 3000 bed inter-city hospital. Does anyone know just how much it would cost to wire up a 3000 bed hospital with computers, laptops, hard wire, training, programs, updates, onsite trainers, IT trouble shooters, etc.? The public is getting smoke blown up its collective skirt.


You keep talking about this making a few people very rich. I thought you were a capitalist? :lol2:

Maybe we need to change the capitalist system, and put a cap on how much individuals at the top can earn. Spread the wealth more evenly throughout the entire corporation and hospitals/doctor's offices. Allow all the people at the companies selling the stuff to make money off of it. Would that make you happy? Then it won't make a few people rich, it will make a lot of people more money than they have now.

(why are my quotes all in italics? *scratches head* Does it always do that?)
sugarpop • Feb 20, 2009 6:57 pm
Flint;535126 wrote:
People, here's the reality: you can't even pull up your x-rays from hospital A while you're at hospital B, even if hospital B is right across the street--much less another state. The two simplest reasons that spring to mind are NOT because we haven't invested billions into healthcare IT (because, believe me, we have).

They are: #1 Hospitals view your medial information as proprietary business data. Sure, you can sign a HIPAA form to get the data released, but they sure aren't going to let a BUSINESS COMPETIOR (i.e. another hospital) have free, unfettered access to data that they had to make an investment of time and money generate. To put it simply: HOSPITALS DO NOT WANT TO SHARE YOUR MEDICAL RECORDS. It's not a smart business choice.

And: #2 If the hundred hospitals from this county, and the next, and the next, and the thousands from the next state over, and so on and so forth, wanted to share your medical records... HOW WOULD THEY KNOW WHO YOU ARE? We are still struggling with getting every department WITHIN THE SAME FACILITY to use a common medical record number. It's not that the interoperability standards aren't attempting to deal with this, but what good are these efforts when the technology vendors fight to maintain the proprietray nature of their systems, so that you are compelled not to purchase another brand, lest you have to deal with a costly migration to untangle all the proprietary data you've been storing?

This is just an off-the-cuff rant; but the point is that this kind of thing IS MY JOB. This is what I do every day. There is no magic solution that a few billion dollars or a few hundred billion dollars is going to bring about. The healthcare industry is designed NOT to share data.


Well, hospitals do not technically OWN the data, do they? I mean, someone pays for them, right? (I'm asking, because I don't know. It seems like medical records should really be the property of the person they represent.)

the #2 rant, that just seems wrong, in soooo many ways. And IMHO, that is one of things that is so fucking wrong with this country. Competition and winning, at all costs. It is more to the benefit of society if people would not be so money-oriented. Sharing, anything, is baaaaad now. Why is that?
sugarpop • Feb 20, 2009 6:59 pm
TheMercenary;535146 wrote:
Flint, for the last 15 years I have watched the gobberment and large health care companies throw millions into making this work. I have not seen a single one that worked smoothly enough to make me stand back as an end user and say, wow, that really makes my job so much easier. Not one.


And private industry does SO much better at everything. That's why our economy is doing so WELL right now! Private industry! woot!
sugarpop • Feb 20, 2009 7:02 pm
TheMercenary;536907 wrote:
The computer is not the problem, it's the software.


EXACTLY!
TheMercenary • Feb 20, 2009 7:03 pm
sugarpop;536910 wrote:
You keep talking about this making a few people very rich. I thought you were a capitalist? :lol2:

Maybe we need to change the capitalist system, and put a cap on how much individuals at the top can earn. Spread the wealth more evenly throughout the entire corporation and hospitals/doctor's offices. Allow all the people at the companies selling the stuff to make money off of it. Would that make you happy? Then it won't make a few people rich, it will make a lot of people more money than they have now.

(why are my quotes all in italics? *scratches head* Does it always do that?)
No, see the problem is not that people get rich, the problem is that politicians speak out of both sides of their mouth, and in this case the Dems, who extol this virtue of rescuing the economy is merely, in this case going to make a few people rich with handouts of taxpayers’ money. It is a guise to make the electorate feel good about healthcare spending when in fact they are doing nothing to make healthcare affordable for all with this spending plan. I do support capitalism, where you earn it, not get a handout from the gobberment. Any spending on healthcare in this country will make corps in the back pockets of the Dems very rich, mainly the HMO’s and insurance companies. And in the end the people will get squat. IMHO everyone who voted for Obama because of our healthcare crisis is going to sorely disappointed.
TheMercenary • Feb 20, 2009 7:04 pm
sugarpop;536913 wrote:
And private industry does SO much better at everything. That's why our economy is doing so WELL right now! Private industry! woot!


I promise you, big gobberment is not the answer. Talk about a long sorid history of totally screwing things up. You should know that better than anyone. :D
sugarpop • Feb 20, 2009 7:14 pm
TheMercenary;536918 wrote:
No, see the problem is not that people get rich, the problem is that politicians speak out of both sides of their mouth, and in this case the Dems, who extol this virtue of rescuing the economy is merely, in this case going to make a few people rich with handouts of taxpayers’ money. It is a guise to make the electorate feel good about healthcare spending when in fact they are doing nothing to make healthcare affordable for all with this spending plan. I do support capitalism, where you earn it, not get a handout from the gobberment. Any spending on healthcare in this country will make corps in the back pockets of the Dems very rich, mainly the HMO’s and insurance companies. And in the end the people will get squat. IMHO everyone who voted for Obama because of our healthcare crisis is going to sorely disappointed.


Well IMHO, the government should tell people how much they will pay them for stuff, not the other way around. In my reasoning, that is part of the reason why some things cost so damn much now. The government hands out a contract, then the contractor goes over (I think on purpose, because you know how cynical I am when it comes to business), so they make more money, a LOT more. That shouldn't happen. If they go over, they should have to eat it.

I recently heard something on PBR about a nuclear power plant that was supposed to be built. Initially, the cost was, like, 300 million or something (I don't remember exactly). Now the cost has more than tripled. WTF? How exactly does that happen?
Happy Monkey • Feb 20, 2009 7:27 pm
Business and government both have long histories of screwing things up. They also have long histories of doing things well.

One thing I'm not sure is up business' alley is defining a standard format for medical records. Everyone who contributes will want their own proprietary stuff to be part of the standard, and won't want to pay for anyone else's. Most of the truly interoperable file formats came from government or (often government-funded) academia.

I would think that one of the best things the government could do about medical records would be to have NIST come out with a standard, non-proprietarty format, require that all doctors and hospitals be able to at least export to and import from that format, and put the funding towards that effort.
Happy Monkey • Feb 20, 2009 7:30 pm
sugarpop;536926 wrote:
I recently heard something on PBR about a nuclear power plant that was supposed to be built. Initially, the cost was, like, 300 million or something (I don't remember exactly). Now the cost has more than tripled. WTF? How exactly does that happen?
Never attribute to malice what can be accounted for by malice and incompetence.

While they may have had no problem padding the cost, there's a good chance that they also woefully underbid the project in the first place.
TGRR • Feb 20, 2009 8:39 pm
TheMercenary;536919 wrote:
I promise you, big gobberment is not the answer. Talk about a long sorid history of totally screwing things up. You should know that better than anyone. :D


Big business isn't the answer, either.

Join us, Comrade...don't be afraid...
classicman • Feb 21, 2009 2:19 am
sugarpop;536910 wrote:
Maybe we need to change the capitalist system, and put a cap on how much individuals at the top can earn. Spread the wealth more evenly throughout the entire corporation and hospitals/doctor's offices. Allow all the people at the companies selling the stuff to make money off of it. Would that make you happy? Then it won't make a few people rich, it will make a lot of people more money than they have now.


Whats that share the wealth philosophy called again? Everyone gets a share of everything....? Damn it sounds familiar. social something?
xoxoxoBruce • Feb 21, 2009 3:33 am
sugarpop;536926 wrote:

I recently heard something on PBR about a nuclear power plant that was supposed to be built. Initially, the cost was, like, 300 million or something (I don't remember exactly). Now the cost has more than tripled. WTF? How exactly does that happen?


Happy Monkey;536933 wrote:

While they may have had no problem padding the cost, there's a good chance that they also woefully underbid the project in the first place.


Nukes take many years to get from "lets build it", to bring it on line. During the entire process the regulatory powers are constantly changing the rules. Even after the final plan has all the necessary approvals and construction begins, they keep changing the rules, in many cases requiring the contractor to rip out work completed to accommodate those changes or redesign things that hook to the changes.

This has been the rule, with no exceptions, since they've been building them.

France has been successful with nukes by standardizing one design and let them build as many as they wanted, all alike. That way you know what you're building and how much it will cost, up front.
sugarpop • Feb 21, 2009 11:05 pm
Originally Posted by sugarpop
I recently heard something on PBR about a nuclear power plant that was supposed to be built. Initially, the cost was, like, 300 million or something (I don't remember exactly). Now the cost has more than tripled. WTF? How exactly does that happen?


Happy Monkey;536933 wrote:
Never attribute to malice what can be accounted for by malice and incompetence.

While they may have had no problem padding the cost, there's a good chance that they also woefully underbid the project in the first place.


And if they underbid, they should have to eat that as well. Purposely underbidding a project when you know you will later jack up the price is unethical and immoral, and we really need to get rid of that mindset and practice, don't you think?
sugarpop • Feb 21, 2009 11:07 pm
xoxoxoBruce;537078 wrote:
Nukes take many years to get from "lets build it", to bring it on line. During the entire process the regulatory powers are constantly changing the rules. Even after the final plan has all the necessary approvals and construction begins, they keep changing the rules, in many cases requiring the contractor to rip out work completed to accommodate those changes or redesign things that hook to the changes.

This has been the rule, with no exceptions, since they've been building them.

France has been successful with nukes by standardizing one design and let them build as many as they wanted, all alike. That way you know what you're building and how much it will cost, up front.


Then maybe we should follow their example. Oh wait! We can't! We hate the French! :rolleyes:
sugarpop • Feb 21, 2009 11:08 pm
classicman;537061 wrote:
Whats that share the wealth philosophy called again? Everyone gets a share of everything....? Damn it sounds familiar. social something?


WTF? You are OK with socialism for corporations and rich people, but not for anyone else? Damn classic. Please, read some David Cay Johnston.
xoxoxoBruce • Feb 21, 2009 11:10 pm
There is still the problem of nuke waste, where to store it.

Of course we couldn't put it where we did all those bomb tests, and won't be safe for a million years anyway. :rolleyes:
sugarpop • Feb 21, 2009 11:44 pm
I would rather spend the money on alternative, green technologies than on nuclear power plants. It takes too long to build them, and there is a very real risk that goes along with it. Plus, it's way expensive to build them. I think developing newer, cleaner technologies will help create a LOT more jobs (even an industry boom, much like the computer boom), can be executed a LOT faster, and the risk is negligible.
TGRR • Feb 22, 2009 12:32 am
xoxoxoBruce;537369 wrote:
There is still the problem of nuke waste, where to store it.

Of course we couldn't put it where we did all those bomb tests, and won't be safe for a million years anyway. :rolleyes:


You mix it with sand, fuse the sand into glass, and store it in caves in the Arizona mountains.

End of fucking story.

Problem is, once they agree on a place, half of the NRC has worked itself out of a job...so they'll keep putting it in 25 year barrels and stacking them up.
TGRR • Feb 22, 2009 12:33 am
sugarpop;537384 wrote:
I would rather spend the money on alternative, green technologies than on nuclear power plants.


Like solar? You know, where the process used to make the panels creates a shitload of horrible chemicals?
classicman • Feb 22, 2009 6:47 pm
sugarpop;537368 wrote:
WTF? You are OK with socialism for corporations and rich people, but not for anyone else?


Nope - I'm not ok with that either - not at all.