A solid health insurance

[BlueT]

I read the news that an economist named Jacob S. Hacker, makes a tightly argued case that an all-out push toward universal health insurance is at once the best investment Obama can make. I must say that I'm agree with him. In this recession era, a solid health insurance will be a big help.

[Larry]

As a physician for the past 30 years, I have seen an incredible change in our healthcare system. I am steadfastly in favor of getting a bigger bang for our buck; since we spend more per capita on healthcare than any other nation on earth, and are not even in the top 10 countries when we look at a variety of health statistics.
However, there has been a flurry of e-mails that i have recieved suggesting that the Obama stimulus plan is attempting to ration healthcare to the elderly in an effort to save money. Although I find this hard to believe on the face of it, I would like to see a few questions addressed directly. Below is a direct quote:
"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.”

The blog goes on to say:
"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."

Although many of the proposed changes including most notably electronic medical records are being lauted, the above allegatios are a little scary. The truth is that technology does drive up the cost of healthcare, but it also allows people to live longer, more productive lives. The piece by Betsy McCaughey concludes with the following:
"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."

It goes on to conclude that more scrutiny is needed before this should pass.
If the above allegations are true, it should be honestly stated to the American people, who should have a voice in how to best control healthcare costs.
I have been studying this for the past 5-6 years, and I believe that healthcare costs can be brought down without severely rationing care to our seniors. Will someone please inform us if the piece by McCaughey is accurate. Thank you.

[Larry]

As a physician for the past 30 years, I have seen an incredible change in our healthcare system. I am steadfastly in favor of getting a bigger bang for our buck; since we spend more per capita on healthcare than any other nation on earth, and are not even in the top 10 countries when we look at a variety of health statistics.
However, there has been a flurry of e-mails that I have received suggesting that the Obama stimulus plan is attempting to ration healthcare to the elderly in an effort to save money. Although I find this hard to believe on the face of it, I would like to see a few questions addressed directly. Below is a direct quote:
"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.”

The blog goes on to say:
"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."

Although many of the proposed changes including most notably electronic medical records are being lauted, the above allegations are a little scary. The truth is that technology does drive up the cost of healthcare, but it also allows people to live longer, more productive lives. The piece by Betsy McCaughey concludes with the following:
"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."

It goes on to conclude that more scrutiny is needed before this should pass.
If the above allegations are true, it should be honestly stated to the American people, who should have a voice in how to best control healthcare costs.
I have been studying this for the past 5-6 years, and I believe that healthcare costs can be brought down without severely rationing care to our seniors. Will someone please inform us if the piece by McCaughey is accurate. Thank you.

[Bama Nation]

I would say that a solid health care plan is what we need in this country with everything costing us so much money.

[Larry Law]

I would have to say that we as a nation do need to find a way to have a solid health insurance that everyone can have as well.