Terry Mauro Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Former Surgeon General Koop raises the specter of health care rationing. DR. KOOP: I’m 93 and thank God for every year. I’m here with 2 artificial joints, 2 pacemakers to keep my heart in rhythm, as well as a stent to keep my coronaries open. Seniors in this country can get the care I received, but in some places, like the United Kingdom, we would be considered too old and the cost to the state too high. It is vital that America’s seniors understand what Congress is doing. But Democrats are working on a health care bill -- and keeping the discussion and specifics secret. We seniors are concerned about proposals that would reduce Medicare spending. The Administration promised transparent deliberation, which has not been forthcoming. America deserves better than this http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0110/Koo...rationing_.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted March 22, 2010 Author Share Posted March 22, 2010 I would like to hear from members what they make of the health-care bill passed on Sunday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 I would like to hear from members what they make of the health-care bill passed on Sunday. It dies in the courts..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 (edited) Initially, I felt that any proposed change had to be an improvement on the present dreadful system. After reading through some of the details of the legislation passed last night, I believe I was wrong. Somehow, against all odds, our corrupt and incompetent leaders may have managed to actually make this mess even worse. As I understand it, the only "reforms" those presently insured under the present system will receive is that pre-existing conditions will no longer be an excuse for insurance companies to turn someone down (but inexplicably only beginning in 2014), and parents will now be able to keep their children who are attending college on their policies until age 26 (up from 21). Also, the legislation decrees that almost everyone will be insured now (is it 94%- it's very confusing), and this will obviously help the poor and others who simply can't afford insurance (or their companies don't provide it). Now for the downside.... Nothing, absolutely nothing, is in this legislation which will reign in the monstous profits of the insurance and pharmaceudical companies, not to mention the outrageous salaries of hospital administrators and CEOs. In fact, it is now very likely that the insurance companies will raise the rates on those they insure (with the excuse that the dreaded Obamacare has made their costs go up). Since the law mandates all companies with 50 or more employees must provide insurance, it is a certainty that any company within shouting distance of 50 employees will lay enough people off to get down to 49 or less. Nothing in there about the ridiculous rates the insurance companies already charge, or the prohibitive cost of prescriptions. Nothing about limiting rates or rate increases, or the amount of co-pays. Finally, the most absurd part of the legislation is the stipulation that everyone must get insurance. If one doesn't, one is subject to penalties which increase each year. What kind of "reform" is that? I should have known that the Democrats would capitulate and offer up a "solution" that touches on none of the biggest problems most people face under the present system. The present system is screwed up beyond repair- the fair and reasonable thing to do is to scrap it entirely and go with a single-payer system, like the rest of the world. But that would mean for once the "American People" wouldn't be the ones sacrificing, the rich and powerful would. None of the Republicrats who "represent" us are about to do that, considering they all belong to the same class. It has been proven again that none of our representatives have the courage to stand up and do the right thing. It's nice to know that all will be insured (to the point of being fined if they aren't), but unless there is something done about the financial burden our present health care system places on businesses and individuals, eventually health care will be just what some want it to be; a privilege, not a right. I would urge all Americans to do everything they can to stay healthy. Edited March 23, 2010 by Don Jeffries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Initially, I felt that any proposed change had to be an improvement on the present dreadful system. After reading through some of the details of the legislation passed last night, I believe I was wrong. Somehow, against all odds, our corrupt and incompetent leaders may have managed to actually make this mess even worse. Let me see if I understand your logic here Don. The pols in Washington are corrupt and incompetent and screwed up the heathcare bill, so your solution is to give the entire system to the same corrupt and incompetent pols? BTW, what constitutes excessive profit? 10% 20% 30%? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 - The SOB Is A Fascist - On Sunday, March 21, the disgraced and hated U.S. Congress committed an act of simultaneous genocide and political suicide, by voting to pass President Obama's fascist health care legislation. That bill includes the Nazi T-4-modelled IPAB (Independent Payment Advisory Board)--exactly as Lyndon LaRouche had warned for months was the British Empire's central demand. London and Wall Street immediately expressed their satisfaction at the vote, with the London {Economist} only demanding that bigger "fangs" should be added into the IPAB provision. LaRouche, who has given leadership to the mass strike ferment sweeping the country since last August, was blunt in his assessment: "We're dealing with {fascism}! The son-of-a-bitch is a fascist! When people wake up and recognize that, then they are going to start thinking more clearly. You don't have to be a World War II veteran to know what a fascist is. This son-of-a-bitch is a fascist, and the sooner he's called that, the better for all concerned. Then we have the debate on the right grounds. And it {will} come on those grounds. There's no way they are going to avoid that. One way or the other, the fascism question is going to come out. And the Hitler question is going to come out. And people are going to start growing moustaches, or not. You know: `I shine my shoes with a toothbrush moustache.' "You've got to have a sense of humor about this," LaRouche noted, "but a {dark} sense of humor." LaRouche also criticized the approach being taken to stop the bill by many Republicans, which centers on parliamentary maneuvers and obstruction. "That's a bad approach," LaRouche commented. "I think that will not work, because I know what we're dealing with. And they do not yet want to know what we're dealing with. We're dealing with {fascism}!" As for the way the bill was rammed through Congress by Nancy Pelosi et al., LaRouche said: "The whole thing was a mob scene; it's like a lynch mob. What you saw in the process here, was the behavior of a lynch mob. There's nothing rational about it. They were terrified, and being the gutless wonders that they are--you get our poor Ohio ex-Trotskyist, Kucinich, who didn't have the guts to be a Stalinist, and he became a Trotskyist because, since Trotsky was defeated, he thought that made it all right. He's politically dead--he's dead meat as a candidate for anything." The same applies to the pathetic cave-ins by Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), and others. "I think Stupak needs to be treated for insanity," LaRouche suggested sympathetically. In fact, the only national political figure of stature left standing, morally, at this point, after the Congressional vote, is Lyndon LaRouche. Let's make sure we turn that into London's worst nightmare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted March 23, 2010 Author Share Posted March 23, 2010 Initially, I felt that any proposed change had to be an improvement on the present dreadful system. After reading through some of the details of the legislation passed last night, I believe I was wrong. Somehow, against all odds, our corrupt and incompetent leaders may have managed to actually make this mess even worse. This is what the Guardian editorial had to say about the legislation: We live in an age that is quicker to claim that history has been made than it is to try to understand the present. However, a piece of history was made on Sunday night, and yesterday Republicans were scrambling to come to terms with it. It is not just that the United States finally has healthcare legislation that will ensure near-universal coverage (although it will take until 2019 to acquire it). America yesterday also woke up to the comparatively new spectacle of a Democratic president who can get things done. Not a Jimmy Carter, who failed, or a Bill Clinton, who dodged and wove his way through office, but a Barack Obama, who can straightforwardly claim to have delivered the major promise of his manifesto. Not many leaders can claim that after one year in office. It has been a gruelling year, in which the Obama presidency all but foundered before it had really begun. This has also been a sharp learning curve for the man drawn instinctively to the centre ground, only to realise late in the day that the turf he was standing on was boggy and that he was sinking into it. Over the past week, he and his much-criticised enforcer, Rahm Emanuel, have fought on multiple fronts – even in the House of the Representatives' gym – to keep their party together. Even so, 34 Democrats voted against the motion. The legislation falls far short of the ideal: it has no public option – cheaper insurance plans offered by the federal government – and the executive order assuring that no federal funds would be used to subsidise abortion may have secured the support of a handful of Catholic Democrats, but it would have appalled the rest. But after the compromises he has offered, the carrots he has dangled, the threats he has made, no one can accuse Mr Obama of standing aloof from the ugly fray or being a greenhorn in the dark arts of gaining votes on Capitol Hill. After a fight like this, he has acquired the status of a combat veteran, as hardened as his secretary of state, with whom he was once unfavourably compared. For Republicans, who took a strategic decision to oppose healthcare reform no matter what it did, this episode has been a disaster and could postpone by at least one presidential term the day when they are deemed fit for office. David Frum, George Bush's speechwriter, to whom the axis of evil phrase is attributed, calls the battle they have just lost their Waterloo. Republican moderates were repeatedly offered a chance to shape the healthcare plan, which would surely not have been as alien to them as they claimed. A plan similar to the Senate bill was passed in Massachusetts when the Republican Mitt Romney was governor. By eschewing all contact with Mr Obama's satanic verses, they have abandoned a large swath of political ground. They don't know it yet but mainstream conservatives, appalled at the chants of a crowd of Tea Party activists on Capitol Hill, surely do. What happens next comes down to a cold calculation. Will popular opposition to the reforms swell as people discover that their Medicare taxes are going up, or will they claim ownership of a reform that means they can no longer be rejected for insurance because of pre-existing medical conditions and that their children can be kept on their plans longer? Mr Obama has history on his side. No one today is talking about eliminating Medicare, which was denounced in much the same terms when it was passed in 1965, because, far from becoming, in Ronald Reagan's famous words, the end of American freedom, it has instead become part of the American landscape. Mr Obama is banking on a similar fate for his reforms and, if he is right, it means that the Republicans are losing a battle based on the politics of fear. They will take a long time to recover a positive message they can sell to the people. Mr Obama will have to get the message out across the country between now and the midterm elections in November. But he will do so as a changed man and a more assured political fighter. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...re-barack-obama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 (edited) Initially, I felt that any proposed change had to be an improvement on the present dreadful system. After reading through some of the details of the legislation passed last night, I believe I was wrong. Somehow, against all odds, our corrupt and incompetent leaders may have managed to actually make this mess even worse. This is what the Guardian editorial had to say about the legislation: We live in an age that is quicker to claim that history has been made than it is to try to understand the present. However, a piece of history was made on Sunday night, and yesterday Republicans were scrambling to come to terms with it. It is not just that the United States finally has healthcare legislation that will ensure near-universal coverage (although it will take until 2019 to acquire it). America yesterday also woke up to the comparatively new spectacle of a Democratic president who can get things done. Not a Jimmy Carter, who failed, or a Bill Clinton, who dodged and wove his way through office, but a Barack Obama, who can straightforwardly claim to have delivered the major promise of his manifesto. Not many leaders can claim that after one year in office. It has been a gruelling year, in which the Obama presidency all but foundered before it had really begun. This has also been a sharp learning curve for the man drawn instinctively to the centre ground, only to realise late in the day that the turf he was standing on was boggy and that he was sinking into it. Over the past week, he and his much-criticised enforcer, Rahm Emanuel, have fought on multiple fronts – even in the House of the Representatives' gym – to keep their party together. Even so, 34 Democrats voted against the motion. The legislation falls far short of the ideal: it has no public option – cheaper insurance plans offered by the federal government – and the executive order assuring that no federal funds would be used to subsidise abortion may have secured the support of a handful of Catholic Democrats, but it would have appalled the rest. But after the compromises he has offered, the carrots he has dangled, the threats he has made, no one can accuse Mr Obama of standing aloof from the ugly fray or being a greenhorn in the dark arts of gaining votes on Capitol Hill. After a fight like this, he has acquired the status of a combat veteran, as hardened as his secretary of state, with whom he was once unfavourably compared. For Republicans, who took a strategic decision to oppose healthcare reform no matter what it did, this episode has been a disaster and could postpone by at least one presidential term the day when they are deemed fit for office. David Frum, George Bush's speechwriter, to whom the axis of evil phrase is attributed, calls the battle they have just lost their Waterloo. Republican moderates were repeatedly offered a chance to shape the healthcare plan, which would surely not have been as alien to them as they claimed. A plan similar to the Senate bill was passed in Massachusetts when the Republican Mitt Romney was governor. By eschewing all contact with Mr Obama's satanic verses, they have abandoned a large swath of political ground. They don't know it yet but mainstream conservatives, appalled at the chants of a crowd of Tea Party activists on Capitol Hill, surely do. What happens next comes down to a cold calculation. Will popular opposition to the reforms swell as people discover that their Medicare taxes are going up, or will they claim ownership of a reform that means they can no longer be rejected for insurance because of pre-existing medical conditions and that their children can be kept on their plans longer? Mr Obama has history on his side. No one today is talking about eliminating Medicare, which was denounced in much the same terms when it was passed in 1965, because, far from becoming, in Ronald Reagan's famous words, the end of American freedom, it has instead become part of the American landscape. Mr Obama is banking on a similar fate for his reforms and, if he is right, it means that the Republicans are losing a battle based on the politics of fear. They will take a long time to recover a positive message they can sell to the people. Mr Obama will have to get the message out across the country between now and the midterm elections in November. But he will do so as a changed man and a more assured political fighter. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...re-barack-obama The majority of Americans hate this bill and they will exact revenge on the Democrates who voted for it in November by voting them out. And unless he gets VERY lucky, they will vote Obama out as well in 12. The comparison to Romney care is really telling. That program is a disaster! Medicare is broken...just this week Walgreens, a large national pharmacy announced they will no longer take new Medicare patients. Dr's are doing the same. My doctor already has decided no more medicare. In fact she is on the forefront of the new reality. A deep discount for cash and no insurance paperwork. Social Security, that other history making program is this year going to take in less than it spends, forcing it to cash in some of the "notes" extended to the Federal Government to stay afloat. And how will the Feds pay back these notes? Why borrow from China of course. So they answer this situation by creating MORE taxes on people and business, at a time when LESS taxes is the answer to increasing jobs. Oh yea people WILL remember Obama, just, I think not in the way painted in the article. He IS the next Carter. Edited March 25, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Gillespie Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 (edited) Initially, I felt that any proposed change had to be an improvement on the present dreadful system. After reading through some of the details of the legislation passed last night, I believe I was wrong. Somehow, against all odds, our corrupt and incompetent leaders may have managed to actually make this mess even worse. This is what the Guardian editorial had to say about the legislation: We live in an age that is quicker to claim that history has been made than it is to try to understand the present. However, a piece of history was made on Sunday night, and yesterday Republicans were scrambling to come to terms with it. It is not just that the United States finally has healthcare legislation that will ensure near-universal coverage (although it will take until 2019 to acquire it). America yesterday also woke up to the comparatively new spectacle of a Democratic president who can get things done. Not a Jimmy Carter, who failed, or a Bill Clinton, who dodged and wove his way through office, but a Barack Obama, who can straightforwardly claim to have delivered the major promise of his manifesto. Not many leaders can claim that after one year in office. It has been a gruelling year, in which the Obama presidency all but foundered before it had really begun. This has also been a sharp learning curve for the man drawn instinctively to the centre ground, only to realise late in the day that the turf he was standing on was boggy and that he was sinking into it. Over the past week, he and his much-criticised enforcer, Rahm Emanuel, have fought on multiple fronts – even in the House of the Representatives' gym – to keep their party together. Even so, 34 Democrats voted against the motion. The legislation falls far short of the ideal: it has no public option – cheaper insurance plans offered by the federal government – and the executive order assuring that no federal funds would be used to subsidise abortion may have secured the support of a handful of Catholic Democrats, but it would have appalled the rest. But after the compromises he has offered, the carrots he has dangled, the threats he has made, no one can accuse Mr Obama of standing aloof from the ugly fray or being a greenhorn in the dark arts of gaining votes on Capitol Hill. After a fight like this, he has acquired the status of a combat veteran, as hardened as his secretary of state, with whom he was once unfavourably compared. For Republicans, who took a strategic decision to oppose healthcare reform no matter what it did, this episode has been a disaster and could postpone by at least one presidential term the day when they are deemed fit for office. David Frum, George Bush's speechwriter, to whom the axis of evil phrase is attributed, calls the battle they have just lost their Waterloo. Republican moderates were repeatedly offered a chance to shape the healthcare plan, which would surely not have been as alien to them as they claimed. A plan similar to the Senate bill was passed in Massachusetts when the Republican Mitt Romney was governor. By eschewing all contact with Mr Obama's satanic verses, they have abandoned a large swath of political ground. They don't know it yet but mainstream conservatives, appalled at the chants of a crowd of Tea Party activists on Capitol Hill, surely do. What happens next comes down to a cold calculation. Will popular opposition to the reforms swell as people discover that their Medicare taxes are going up, or will they claim ownership of a reform that means they can no longer be rejected for insurance because of pre-existing medical conditions and that their children can be kept on their plans longer? Mr Obama has history on his side. No one today is talking about eliminating Medicare, which was denounced in much the same terms when it was passed in 1965, because, far from becoming, in Ronald Reagan's famous words, the end of American freedom, it has instead become part of the American landscape. Mr Obama is banking on a similar fate for his reforms and, if he is right, it means that the Republicans are losing a battle based on the politics of fear. They will take a long time to recover a positive message they can sell to the people. Mr Obama will have to get the message out across the country between now and the midterm elections in November. But he will do so as a changed man and a more assured political fighter. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...re-barack-obama ___________________________________________________________________ I thought only Yankee fans were poor winners. This is predictably arrogant, willfully ignorant and overflows with the snide, faux insouciance of editorial sleight-of-hand. Of course, we seldom hear or read of the Far Left, though it exists surely as much as the embittered prose, above, and the violently radical philosophy of (nearly) all the President's men. The American People, nearly collectively, are horrified and demoralized by a group of corrupt, hypocritical oafs whose morals are malleable to a fault - and those are just the Republicans. This is not about ideology but rather all about money and, especially, power. Is the Guardian editorial spot on? Well, yes, if critical political thinking ends with the Left/Right paradigm. One quickly notices the 'poster boy' aspects of this hype, wherein the pre-existing condition allowances and extended children benefits are extolled, as they should be. But, true to the tenets of all good propaganda (Warren Commission, 9-11 Commission, this), it is the many omissions that expose it. Literally, they are too many to note here. But -suffice to say - like the bloated Warren Commission, one must actually read this 'reform' to fully appreciate the depth and stench of its mire. I have. So go ahead, Guardian, you have time. JG Edited March 24, 2010 by John Gillespie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Gillespie Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 (edited) This has been a very interesting thread. I find myself in the unaccustomed position of strongly agreeing with Andy Walker and disagreeing with Terry Mauro. I don't have any first hand knowledge of the British health system, but it simply couldn't be as bad as ours. I just don't think it would be possible for anyone to devise a poorer one. I worked directly for a huge health care system for decades, and I could tell you countless horror stories about what I personally saw (and I had no real direct contact with patients). The fact is, for more than a decade now, the cost of health insurance has been rising far more rapidly than the average cost of living raise for the majority of American workers. To make matters worse, there has been a simultaneous cutting of benefits- higher co-pays, with fewer procedures covered. In this country, insurance and pharmaceutical companies, health care administrators and doctors profit enormously from the present system. There is obviously a strong incentive for them to keep the present plan. Our politicians also have one of the best medical programs in the country. They, too, have little reason to push for change. Obama's attempts at reform are tiny and only baby steps in the right direction. We have to have a single payer, government run health care system, like England and Canada. There is no other option, because those who have been getting rich from the present system are not going to willingly give up their profits, and without them doing that costs can never be cut. Without drastic cost cuts, the present system simply cannot endure. Either we go entirely in the other direction- ala Craig Lamson- and promote the idea that health care is a "privilege" and not a fundemantal right, or we scrap the unworkable present system. Everyone should have access to medical care- I don't know how that can even be up for debate. ------------------------------------------------------ Don, I agree with Craig Lamson. Besides, as you know, NO ONE gets turned down at hospitals. Please give me evidence to the contrary and I'll cry 'Uncle' even if it's anecdotal. I just posted the following in response to Simkin's gushing promo of an editorial in The Guardian (the usual fare: the 'Far Right' is the primary opposition, which is total bull as we know from multiple polls and news stories): I thought only Yankee fans were poor winners. This is predictably arrogant, willfully ignorant and overflows with the snide, faux insouciance of editorial sleight-of-hand. Of course, we seldom hear or read of the Far Left, though it exists surely as much as the embittered prose, above, and the violently radical philosophy of (nearly) all the President's men. The American People, nearly collectively, are horrified and demoralized by a group of corrupt, hypocritical oafs whose morals are malleable to a fault - and those are just the Republicans. This is not about ideology but rather all about money and, especially, power. Is the Guardian editorial spot on? Well, yes, if critical political thinking ends with the Left/Right paradigm. One quickly notices the 'poster boy' aspects of this hype, wherein the pre-existing condition allowances and extended children benefits are extolled, as they should be. But, true to the tenets of all good propaganda (Warren Commission, 9-11 Commission, this), the many omissions expose it. Literally, they are too many to note here. But -suffice to say - like the bloated Warren Commission, one must actually read this 'reform' to fully appreciate the depth and stench of its mire. I have. So go ahead, Guardian, you have time. JG Edited March 24, 2010 by John Gillespie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 (edited) John and Craig, I am not suggesting that it's a good option to give more power to the government, especially since it is run by those I feel are corrupt and incompetent. However, the alternative is to let the vaunted marketplace handle things. Unfortunately, the corportate mentality is even worse than the bureaucratic one. That's why I am a populist- I'm against too much concentrated power, whether it's in government or business. Yes, the poor can get treatment at hospitals now. However, the 75% or so of working-class people (throw out the top 1%, who run things and are above such financial considerations, and the next 20% or so that are paid extremely well to manage the mess, and the poor souls at the very bottom of the economic ladder), the majority of whom have some kind of health insurance coverage, will not be helped in the least by this bill (except for the pre-existing conditions reform and the extension of college students to age 26). That's where the problem lies; the cost is prohibitive now for the vast majority of people, and will only grow because of this bill. Right now, I have what is considered a pretty good insurance plan through my employer. I pay about $12,000 per yer in paycheck deductions. That's just the start- my co-pays for everything increase pretty much every year, and even though I have the "top" (most expensive) plan, I still would have to pay 10% for any hospital or surgical procedures. Considering what those run now for even the most minor things, you can calculate what such a bill would mean to most people. There are also things added each year to the non-coverage list. Not life threatening, but desired, and more importantly, things that were covered only a few years ago. This legislation didn't address the primary problem, which is that too many people are making too much money off the present system. Insurance companies are raping the public, and nothing in this bill will change that. Pharmaceudical companies are raping the public, and nothing in this bill will change that. Hospital CEOs and administrators, not to mention surgeons and doctors, have grown extremely wealthy under the present system. They will not lose a thing under this bill (in fact, one of the provisions actually assures that doctors will make even more money, since they will now be compensated at their regular rate for taking on medicare patients). Unless those who are profiting the most from the present system are asked to sacrifice, no sensible reform can be accomplished. This bill is typical Republicrat nonsense; loud trumpeting and beating of chests, but in reality much ado about nothing. The problem has not been addressed, and the broken system has not been given even a minor repair. We needed at least a public option, and we didn't even get that. This really assures that before too long health care will become a privilege, and not a right. Edited March 24, 2010 by Don Jeffries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Gillespie Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 (edited) John and Craig, I am not suggesting that it's a good option to give more power to the government, especially since it is run by those I feel are corrupt and incompetent. However, the alternative is to let the vaunted marketplace handle things. Unfortunately, the corportate mentality is even worse than the bureaucratic one. That's why I am a populist- I'm against too much concentrated power, whether it's in government or business. _______________________________________________________ I'm with you on most of that, Don, and there are many, many ways to skin this cat. Instead - and this thing really has to be examined even to believe what is in there - they have concocted a truly Draconian and suppressive edict which, I believe, is all about creating another vehicle for a New World Order. The IRS will be used as an enforcer, by the way. I dread the gummint's incompetence but I fear the gummint's tentacles even more. It's probably too late now. Like Social Security and many of the Great Society programs, everyone gets locked in. The perpetrators know that, of course, and they certainly have proven that they know how to count votes, too. Guess the author of this quote (hint - most of the members will hate to hear the name uttered): "One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can't afford it." Meanwhile, Richard C. Hoagland is talking about the upcoming Space summit and how "we've got to go to Mars." Is someone stuck there, lost and in need of a ride? Bon Soir, JG Edited March 24, 2010 by John Gillespie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Is there a real difficulty among EF members recognizing what this so called healthcare bill really respresents? In Section 3403, the bill creates an Independent Medicare Advisory Board which is directed to make recommendations the purpose of which is to "reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending." Specifically the bill says that "implementation of the recommendations ... would not be expected to result, over the 10-year period starting with the implementation year, in any increase in the total amount of net Medicare program spending relative to the total amount of net Medicare program spending that would have occurred absent such implementation." The bill also "empowers the Secretary of Health and Human Services to impose "efficiency measures." While there are limits on the use of comparative effectiveness research to justify denial of treatment based on quality of life criteria, the quality and efficiency measures are not made subject to these critically important anti-discrimination protections. Specifically, the Board's proposals shall include recommendations that "improve the health care delivery system and health outcomes, including by promoting ... quality and efficiency improvement... and protect and improve Medicare beneficiaries' access to evidence-based items and services." Starting in 2014, the Board is to make recommendations to ensure that the growth rate of expenditures does not exceed a stipulated level. For 2015, unless Medicare spending is projected to come in at or below a "target" set at the midway point between medical inflation and the average inflation rate for all goods and services (the "Consumer Price Index-Urban"), the Board is to specify how to cut Medicare payments by either the difference from the target or half a percent, whichever is less. For 2016, the Board is to specify how to cut Medicare by the lesser of the difference from the target for that year or 1 percent, and for 2017 by the lesser of the difference from the target for that year or 1.25 percent. For 2018 and subsequent years, the target shifts to the growth in the nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita plus 1.0 percentage point, and the Board must specify how to cut Medicare payments by the lesser of the difference from that target and 1.5 percent. Each year, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must implement the Board's directives unless Congress, within a given deadline, legislates an alternative set of restrictions to accomplish the same result. However, Congress could not reduce the net of the targeted cuts unless three-fifths of both chambers voted to do so. The bill goes so far as to forbid a future Congress from repealing these provisions, except for a one-time opportunity to terminate it in 2017! The latter would require a joint resolution to be introduced no late than Feb. 1 of 2017 and enacted no later than Aug. 15, 2017. But if the board is terminated, it does not go into effect until August 16, 2018. - How is the Board to bring about these Medicare reductions? - Nominally, the bill instructs the Board not "to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums ..., increase Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing ..., or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria." Predominately, the reductions will have to come in reimbursement rates for health care providers. This, according to the Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics, is likely to have either/or, more likely, both of two rationing effects. First, an increasing number of Medicare providers, being paid further and further below their costs of providing care, would stop accepting new Medicare patients. Second, the Board could change the way reimbursement rates are structured, away from a fee-for-service model toward a "capitated" model, for example, under which practitioners are paid a set annual amount per patient, or toward an "episode" model somewhat similar to the DRG payment system for hospitals, under which a set amount is paid per illness or injury. In either of these cases, the physician or other health care provider would have a strong financial incentive to limit treatment, especially if it is costly. So, in compliance with the statute, the Board itself would not be "rationing" treatment--instead, it would be compelling health care providers to do so. Section 10304 empowers the Secretary of Health and Human Services to impose "efficiency measures," in addition to the "quality measures" on health care providers. These measures are to be incorporated "in workforce programs, training curricula, and any other means of dissemination determined appropriate by the Secretary." They are to be used in the calculation of value-based purchasing from hospitals, and renal dialysis services must abide by them or be penalized. Health care providers, including hospices, ambulatory surgical centers, rehabilitation facilities, home health agencies, physicians and hospitals must provide reports, generally made publicly available, based on these measures. Consequently, they exercise considerable influence on how health care providers practice medicine, and consequently on what treatment patients do--and do not--receive. In the medical and bioethical literature, quality and efficiency measures are often based on "quality of life" standards that discriminate on the basis of age and disability. Accordingly, during the period when the group of six Senators were negotiating in an attempt to achieve a bipartisan health care bill, agreement was reached to make anti-discrimination language applicable to the results of comparative effectiveness research. However, the quality and efficiency measures are NOT made subject to the same limits on employment of quality of life criteria that are applied to the use of comparative effectiveness research. Consequently, the Secretary is free to formulate such measures in a way that has the effect of rationing treatment on the basis of disability, age, or other "quality of life" criteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 (edited) I would like to hear from members what they make of the health-care bill passed on Sunday. PREPARED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEES ON WAYS AND MEANS, ENERGY AND COMMERCE, AND EDUCATION AND LABOR MARCH 23, 2010: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Media/pdf/11...010_SUMMARY.pdf Timeline for implementation: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Media/pdf/11...re/TIMELINE.pdf Edited March 25, 2010 by Michael Hogan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 OBAMA'S CMS NOMINEE ADVISED BRITISH NHS, WAS KNIGHTED BY QUEEN FOR IT March 29, 2010 (LPAC) -- The physician President Obama is nominating to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) was recently named an honorary knight commander of the British Empire. The service for which the Queen Elizabeth honored Dr. Donald Berwick, was his role as consultant and advisor to the British National Health Service (NHS) from 1996 to 2003. During this period, Prime Minister Tony Blair reorganized NHS treatment decisions around the creation of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), notorious for denying treatments to Britain's elderly, very young, and very sick. The NHS system during the decade of NICE has otherwise been devastated by cuts in national health spending. In 2005, {Modern Healthcare} called Berwick the third most powerful person in American health care. Dr. Elliot Fisher of the discredited Dartmouth Health Policy Center says Berwick "is an extraordinary leader when it comes to inspiring people and creating the will to move forward." Dartmouth's idea of "moving forward" is to level down healthcare spending in areas where there is high investment in medical care per patient or per medical professional -- which Dartmouth defines as "unnecessary" -- down to those areas where there is much less; and Dr. Berwick is one of models. For 20 years Berwick's Harvard Institute for Healthcare Improvement has organized for "bundled" payments (i.e., capitation payments as HMOs used to call them), for "paying for outcomes, not for quantity of care," and for large reductions in U.S. national spending on medical care. But he also led the 1999 Institute of Medicine Study which spotlighted medical errors as the cause of 45-100,000 deaths a year. Steven Findlay of Consumers Union told {New York Times} "Berwick helped forge many ideas incorporated in the new health-care law," and Berwick would not accept the nomination from Obama as head of CMS for months, insisting the Obamacare legislation had to pass first. CMS has during the past two years made issued some of the more draconian regulations to cut payments to doctors, labs, and hospitals for for specific treatments; many of these regulations have been changed or overturned by Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now