Stimulus Bill Forces Doctors To...

UNTflyer · February 10, 2009

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.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aLzfDxfbwhzs

=================================================

Well, there you go, folks. Congress and the President are hell-bent on logjamming (I'm here to fix the cable) this bill without so much as a cursory glance at what they are voting for. And this is just one item buried in the bill.

meangreendork · February 10, 2009

One more item that needs to be cast off in this thing. I mean, I can see the good that can be done by a national records system, but imposing penalties is a bit much and having federal oversight on treatments is way over the boundaries. Hey, I'm still behind the stimulus bill, but this is one of those things that's been attached to it that needs to be dropped. It's not a tax cut or a jobs program or anything really beneficial like an education spending bill.

NT Drummer · February 10, 2009

"Where's the money, Lebowski?"

Funny you should use the term logjamming - foxnews.com currently has the following headline:

$1 Trillion Full-Court Press To Break Credit Logjam

:blink:

February 10, 2009

Having a wife doctor, let me tell you, if records were electronic and transferable between hospitals, it would free her up to do actual work... Just saying.

Maybe this isn't the big bad government wanting to control people. Maybe it is the same government that invented the "internet" for easy communication for researchers.

yyz28 · February 10, 2009

Having a wife doctor, let me tell you, if records were electronic and transferable between hospitals, it would free her up to do actual work... Just saying.
Maybe this isn't the big bad government wanting to control people. Maybe it is the same government that invented the "internet" for easy communication for researchers.

I have a question...

...why are some people worried that wiretapping might expose phone sex they are having with their wife to eavesdroppers at the CIA or NSA, but they are OK with turning over their most private information to the Government?

...Just looking for a little consistancy.

meangreendork · February 10, 2009

The penalties and the federal treatment tracking thing are what really bug me. A national info center is all fine and good, and that makes patient record data easy to access for doctors and the right medical folks. But, I don't think this item needs to be looked at when lumped in with the stimulus plan.

February 10, 2009

I have a question...
...why are some people worried that wiretapping might expose phone sex they are having with their wife to eavesdroppers at the CIA or NSA, but they are OK with turning over their most private information to the Government?
...Just looking for a little consistancy.

You will never find consistency from anyone, ever.

However, creating a network/protocol for federally funded hospitals to transfer patient information is far from "turning over your most private information." Having the government wiretapping this newly created network, or nosing around the database for prosecutions, *is* the same thing. The existence of a new network isn't the problem... There is no doubt the "the government" can already get any health data they want on a person. The lack of a network just causes patients more cost, more hassle and time spent getting health care. It also creates log jams for doctors and staff..

Sounds like the justification for not having a common network is that in making it easier for doctors to communicate, it would allow the fed easier access as well. Therefore, we should revert to donkey data transfer of patient information. If the government want it, they need to go knife the donkey and take the paper.

UNTflyer · February 10, 2009

Having a wife doctor, let me tell you, if records were electronic and transferable between hospitals, it would free her up to do actual work... Just saying.
Maybe this isn't the big bad government wanting to control people. Maybe it is the same government that invented the "internet" for easy communication for researchers.

Interesting... the Internet was pretty useless until it was opened up for commercial use. There has been more advancement of Internet technology in the past 10 years than the previous 30.

yyz28 · February 10, 2009

You will never find consistency from anyone, ever.
However, creating a network/protocol for federally funded hospitals to transfer patient information is far from "turning over your most private information." Having the government wiretapping this newly created network, or nosing around the database for prosecutions, *is* the same thing. The existence of a new network isn't the problem... There is no doubt the "the government" can already get any health data they want on a person. The lack of a network just causes patients more cost, more hassle and time spent getting health care. It also creates log jams for doctors and staff..

Well, if it is a government owned network... ...I'm just trying to figure it out.

...I can see anything or information on the network I own. ...it wouldn't be wiretapping for the Government to look at the network they already own.

If all the benefits you say are true, then create the network and allow doctors and patients to join it or not... ...if the benefits outweigh the risks, the free market will gravitate to the solution.

All that being said - WHY THE #$%^ IS THIS IN THE STIMULUS PACKAGE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Edited February 10, 2009 by yyz28

February 10, 2009

Interesting... the Internet was pretty useless until it was opened up for commercial use. There has been more advancement of Internet technology in the past 10 years than the previous 30.

You don't say?! Once it was "turned over?" That is a way of twisting information...

I mean, damn, everything has come a long way in the last 10 years, compared to the previous 30. That is pretty obvious.

Point is, if it weren't for government funding, that network may have not been created to be "turned over." Which, it wasn't "turned over." Other networks were created for public use... Then private companies took over.

UNTflyer · February 10, 2009

Sounds like the justification for not having a common network is that in making it easier for doctors to communicate, it would allow the fed easier access as well. Therefore, we should revert to donkey data transfer of patient information. If the government want it, they need to go knife the donkey and take the paper.

"...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"

I don't like this at all.

February 10, 2009

Well, if it is a government owned network... ...I'm just trying to figure it out.
...I can see anything or information on the network I own. ...it wouldn't be wiretapping for the Government to look at the network they already own.
If all the benefits you say are true, then create the network and allow doctors and patients to join it or not... ...if the benefits outweigh the risks, the free market will gravitate to the solution.
All that being said - WHY THE #$%^ IS THIS IN THE STIMULUS PACKAGE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

There are already government agencies (aka, networks) the are government owned by "the government", but they can't go mine data at their pleasure. They need court orders and such... Medicare, Medicaid, etc, etc, etc.

February 10, 2009

"...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"
I don't like this at all.

I can put stuff in quotes and make it sound scary too. Where did this quote come from?

""...the Alien Health Information Officer, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal body of planetary systems deems appropriate. The goal is total human domination.""

February 10, 2009

But, you are right, why is this considered stimulus? No clue.

Censored by Laurie · February 10, 2009

Interesting... the Internet was pretty useless until it was opened up for commercial use. There has been more advancement of Internet technology in the past 10 years than the previous 30.

Do you have an Adam Smith nudie calender in your office?

Coffee and TV · February 10, 2009

Having a wife doctor, let me tell you, if records were electronic and transferable between hospitals, it would free her up to do actual work... Just saying.
Maybe this isn't the big bad government wanting to control people. Maybe it is the same government that invented the "internet" for easy communication for researchers.

Don't bring logic into this kind of thread, it has no place. Flyer is busy trying to scare us all shitless.

GreenMachine · February 10, 2009

here's another article on this subject with a little more detail.

Link

February 10, 2009

here's another article on this subject with a little more detail.
Link

That article is more concerned about setting up the new users of medicare/medicaid for failure when the funding expires in two years. Much like housing the Katrina people in trailers for two years, then trying to take them away. However, in the free market world, the new users of government health should have jobs in two years and will have private coverage... but then the conspiracy starts. Why would they want to get off government aid? Because private is better, obviously. But, but, but.

Also, the whole "guide" doctors language is just a quote from this lady again. I don't see actual reference in any text to where it says that in the bill...

oldguystudent · February 10, 2009

Just glanced over this, but I don't see how it's any worse than letting HMO's make my doctor's decisions. If you look at how the average HMO operates, the likelihood of them literally letting you die is much higher than it should be.

Oldguy "former insurance license holder" student

February 10, 2009

Just glanced over this, but I don't see how it's any worse than letting HMO's make my doctor's decisions. If you look at how the average HMO operates, the likelihood of them literally letting you die is much higher than it should be.
Oldguy "former insurance license holder" student

But oldguy... There is a profit to be made for letting you die. Obviously that drive makes the system better!

KingDL1 · February 10, 2009

Just glanced over this, but I don't see how it's any worse than letting HMO's make my doctor's decisions. If you look at how the average HMO operates, the likelihood of them literally letting you die is much higher than it should be.
Oldguy "former insurance license holder" student

If the HMO doesn't cover then pay for it yourself, that would go away. Plus companies have dropped HMO's that get too greedy. I don't want the government that involved with my health care period.

Nationalization of health care sucks ask any doctor from Canada or England, and this is leading us there. Old folks really get screwed in it, try being over 60 and getting a hip replacement in a National Health Care System.

oldguystudent · February 10, 2009

If the HMO doesn't cover then pay for it yourself, that would go away.

Sure. Like the time my daughter was born and they performed an emergency c-section, put the kid in NICU for a week, and placed my wife in a private room instead of a semi-private room since nothing else was available. I just wrote a check for that $44,000 bill that was composed entirely of covered events.

Censored by Laurie · February 10, 2009

Sure. Like the time my daughter was born and they performed an emergency c-section, put the kid in NICU for a week, and placed my wife in a private room instead of a semi-private room since nothing else was available. I just wrote a check for that $44,000 bill that was composed entirely of covered events.

Did you expect Obama to write that check for you?

Coffee and TV · February 10, 2009

I have a question...
...why are some people worried that wiretapping might expose phone sex they are having with their wife to eavesdroppers at the CIA or NSA, but they are OK with turning over their most private information to the Government?
...Just looking for a little consistancy.

Easy, I can't be put in a prison for an undetermined amount of time for suspicion of heart disease.