I think it's sad that the truth is so easily lost in this country. While Obama is professing to have the most transparent administration ever, Besty McCaughey and those like her have to chase Obama and the Democrats around like a mother wondering what her kid is getting into next. Ms. McCaughey writes an excellent piece here. The upshot of the article being that the Democrats are slipping little provisions into the "stimulus" bill.
Obama assured us last night that this bill is desperately needed to create (or sustain??) 4 million jobs and that without it we would spiral deeper into crisis. And indeed, the opening line of the bill is "Making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes." But it's that last little tag ("and for other purposes") that has apparently given Congress the green light to "establish[ed] 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’)." I'll leave it to both you (my educated reader) and Ms. McCaughey to hash out the details, but here are two big ticket items the new Coordinator will handle.
"...provide appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care.."
"...[create] specific objectives, milestones, and metrics with respect to the following: The utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014."
Let's parse that out. The government is going to "guide" your doctor in medical decisions and is going to place your health record into an electronic government file. Two questions:
#1) When was the last time the government used the word "guide" and didn't really mean "tell"?
...and...
#2) Do you really want the same type of people that run the DMV having an accessible database of every time you got treated for...(insert one of a multitude of embarrassing conditions here)?
(Side note: All you smokers out there better beware, it's a short jump from a nationalized "health file" to your insurance agents desk.)
Furthermore, can someone tell me how creating a National Coordinator for Health Information Technology is going to pull this country out of this "unprecedented crisis"? It makes you wonder how many other "desperate" measures are tucked away in this 680 page monstrosity.
It does however shed some light as to why Obama is so quick to shove this thing through...he doesn't want you to have enough time to read it.
4 comments:
I agree with you that medical records should not be computerized. In fact, I don't even like them being on paper, since they could be copied and distributed to, well, anyone. I would like to go back to a time when doctors were forced to simply remember a patient's medical history rather than memorialize treatments. Sure, a lot of people died at a young age back then, but at least a person's privacy was intact.
Do you have any suggestions of your own to control the rising cost of health care? Or, since you have the luxury of employer-provided health insurance (through your spouse, presumably), is this simply a problem that you don't have to worry about? I recognize your concern about socialized medicine - I'm sure you don't like the idea of social security or medicare or welfare, either - but what is your solution to the crisis faced by the uninsured and underinsured?
To lower costs...
#1) Allow (real) free-market competition between insurance companies.
#2) "Menu" pricing for doctors rates and procedural costs.
#3) "Menu" pricing for insurance companies.
#4) HSA's for EVERYBODY!
Also, you totally missed the point of the piece, which was, why the hell was this in the "stimulus" bill? Riddle me that one my dear O.H. We've been promised transparency, why was this tucked away on page 441 of 680?
As far as the uninsured and underinsured, lower corporate and income taxes so that more jobs and better jobs get created (hopefully offering better free market health care subsidies) and more people can keep their money and shop around for better packages with it. Nothing lowers prices like competition. Just ask Wal-Mart.
In eight years of Bush, I was never as rabid to defend his idiocy as you are to defend your guy. I love you, but dude, take off the blinders.
Finally, I don't think you bringing up the failed policy of social security is helping your argument. I mean, honestly, are you counting on your social security or might you have a little 401k tucked away somewhere, just in case? Hmmm?
Your original post seemingly had two basic points - 1 - you don't want a bureaucrat telling a doctor how to treat you and 2 - you don't want a modernizing centralization of medical records. I'm with you on number 1, although I feel the same way about an insurance company telling a doctor how to treat me. Your paranoia as to number 2 simply amuses me, and so I highlighted that point.
I guess I appreciate your characterizing me as rabid, although, in all fairness, this is your blog, and all I'm doing with disagreeing with your skewed perspective - the counterpoint to what you're saying is that over eight years under the worst president in our nation's history, I never took it upon myself to start blogging about how much I disagreed with his policy and certainly did not start less than a month into his presidency. I love that, of the two of us, I'm the only one wearing blinders. You disagree with Obama because you have a dogmatic approach to everything that leaves no room for an alternative argument, and you disagree with me for the same reason.
Health care in this country is not in its present state because of government interference. The free market depends on social classes, and health care is simply too important to excuse the neglect of the lower class.
My original post had only one real point, "Why was this measure stuck in the middle of a bill that is supposed to be about stimulating the economy?"
I said you had blinders on, mainly for the reason that you refused to address the issues I brought up in the post...
Obama promised transparency and is not delivering. His entire campaign was about hope and change and yet I see none in terms of his actual presidency.
And if you feel offended somehow that I am putting Obama to the test too early, perhaps you should recall that he made some lofty promises to get himself elected. Promises that you and people like you believed in and voted for. His rhetoric doesn't match his actions. If he couldn't perform/produce the promises and commitments he made, he should be called out on them. I am surprised that you would take argument with me doing so, seeing as how it was your side (Really, the WORST president in our nations history? You don't think that's a little exaggerated? What is your criterion?) that was very upset with Bush for not coming through in his promises about the war and all.
I hope I leave no doubt that this blog is severely wary of any and all forms of government. Any actions by government to move toward taking away the freedoms and rights outlined by our Constitution should be met loudly and forcefully. This is my attempt to do so, regardless of political party.
Post a Comment