Health Provisions Slipped into Stimulus Package

Published

Specializes in Mixed Level-1 ICU.

My god, as so often happens, too many of you are getting steamed over what..did you take the time to check the source of this article??

Did anyone look up The Hudson Institute? It's a conservative think tank...know what that means.

It's giving you a one-sided view.

The whole damn thing is a commentary, opinion, not fact...no different than what is daily spewed by any number of neo-con entertainers.

If you're trying to form an intelligent opinion based upon biased publications then you're wasting your time.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Who voted this joker into the white house?!

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Mixed Level-1 ICU.
Who voted this joker into the white house?!

Read the previous post.

When you're done, come back and create a balanced opinion, not inflammatory nonsense.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

i never said that nothing would go wrong with my health, i already have a few problems and have had to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket for care. that's a lot compared to most ppl my age. but what i am saying is that i dont want the gov in my life anymore than they have to be. i want to make my own choices about my life, i dont want someone who doesnt have the average joe problems to make decisions about things that are important for me. and about sharing the wealth.....im not talking about not helping anyone, but i dont believe in helping those who dont even try (single mom 14 kids, no job and on welfare!)to do anything for themselves. im sorry thats just the way i feel. i dont believe in denying care to someone who smokes, who is overweight or someone who "caused" their own problems. im not "god" so who am i to deny anyone treatment?

Up Vote Up Vote ×

For all those posting the charts...interesting, but I will share something I learned a long time ago....statistics can be meant to show anything the creator wishes. The charts are not useful when we do not have full access to criterion.

BTW, There is a very easy way to stop the escalating costs of healthcare!!!!! Follow Australia's lead! Yep. It's free down there. (1) you cannot sue the doctor or hospital (2) when my DH was married to his ex-W he paid the government of Aus 75% of his income in TAXES. (Now I don't know if that was because he was an American married to an Aussie or whatever....

Canada also pays exhorbitant taxes to fund their system. I have read articles pertaining to the fact that the government dictates the care....old folks don't qualify for certian treatments because they are old. Any Canadian can feel free to correct me.

So what we need is not government medical. We need to prevent everyone from suing the docs and hospitals. THEN the docs, nurses and hospitals will not have to pay ever increasing . The COST of medical care will return to reasonable. When that happens, healthcare premiums will drop accordingly and make insurance affordable for the masses.

:up::twocents:

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Maternal - Child Health.

When you're done, come back and create a balanced opinion

Wanting to keep the government out of personal physician-patient healthcare decision making, especially among those who fund their own care is a balanced opinion.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in L & D; Postpartum.
For all those posting the charts...interesting, but I will share something I learned a long time ago....statistics can be meant to show anything the creator wishes. The charts are not useful when we do not have full access to criterion.

BTW, There is a very easy way to stop the escalating costs of healthcare!!!!! Follow Australia's lead! Yep. It's free down there. (1) you cannot sue the doctor or hospital (2) when my DH was married to his ex-W he paid the government of Aus 75% of his income in TAXES. (Now I don't know if that was because he was an American married to an Aussie or whatever....

Canada also pays exhorbitant taxes to fund their system. I have read articles pertaining to the fact that the government dictates the care....old folks don't qualify for certian treatments because they are old. Any Canadian can feel free to correct me.

So what we need is not government medical. We need to prevent everyone from suing the docs and hospitals. THEN the docs, nurses and hospitals will not have to pay ever increasing malpractice insurance. The COST of medical care will return to reasonable. When that happens, healthcare premiums will drop accordingly and make insurance affordable for the masses.

:up::twocents:

Thank you on the charts and graphs. The only thing I remember from my statistics class is that you can prove anything you want using a poll and graph, just depends on how you word it or group it or arrange it.

I just skim over them because they don't mean anything to me.

In England, our dear friends carry private health insurance. Hmmmm! Want to know why? Because they don't, as in DO NOT, think their government-paid health care is the best or quickest or state of the art.

And one last note: if we were to ban medical lawsuits. where would all the attorneys go? They'd need another bailout program:D

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in L & D; Postpartum.

This thought too: I am adamantly opposed to the government having access to my medical records. Yes, our insurance company has access to them, but we have a contract with that entity, and have given permission, when necessary, for them to access the records. I see nothing good coming from the government have a big (electronic) file cabinet of all Americans' records...nothing. More loss of freedoms.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Conservatives have been misinforming the public about the health IT provisions of the stimulus package by falsely claiming that it would lead to the government telling the doctors what they can and cannot treat, and on whom they can and cannot treat. The Hudson Institute fellow, Betsy McCaughey, claimed that the legislation will have the government monitor treatments in order to guide your doctor's decisions.

The new language in the bill tasks the (already existing) National Coordinator of Health Information Technology (NCHIT) with providing appropriate information so that doctors can make better informed decisions. The NCHIT provides counsel to the Secretary of HHS and Departmental leadership for the development and nationwide implementation of health information technology.

Contrary to Ms. McCaughey's statements, the language in the House bill does not establish authority to monitor treatments or restrict what your doctor is doing with regard to patient care. It addresses establishing an electronic records system so that doctors can have complete, accurate information about their patients.

The funding for health information technology in the recovery package is projected to create over 200,000 jobs and a down-payment on broader health care reform. Converting an antiquated paper system to a computer system by making the health care system more efficient.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that one-third of $2 trillion spent annually on health care in America may be unnecessary due to inefficiencies in the old system such as exessive paperwork. Investing in infrastructure like health IT would help improve the quality of America's health care.

Currently, fewer than 25% of hospitals and fewer than 20% of doctor's offices employ health information technology systems. Researchers have 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.

Investing in health IT would also help primary care physicians who often bear the brunt of tech implementation without seeing immediate benefits, affording the infrastructure for expanison. Some PCPs are ahead of the IT curve but cannot afford the richness of its expansion. They need this important infrastructure.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
For all those posting the charts...interesting, but I will share something I learned a long time ago....statistics can be meant to show anything the creator wishes. The charts are not useful when we do not have full access to criterion.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/

I believe that I posted internet links to the sources. All of the information I shared is available from the Commonwealth Fund. Feel free to post any academically sourced information to the contrary that meets academic publication standards.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

the world health report 2008, published by the world health organization, singles out the united states for its exceptionalism - a system with “singularly high additional private expenditure” that persistently underperforms “across domains of health outcomes, quality, access, efficiency and equity.” everyone should read this report. very brief excerpts and a link to the full report can be found at:

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/october/the_world_health_rep.php
Up Vote Up Vote ×

Currently, about 60% of our health care system is financed by public money: federal and state taxes, property taxes and tax subsidies. These funds pay for Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, coverage for public employees (including police and teachers), elected officials, military personnel, etc. There are also hefty tax subsidies to employers to help pay for their employees’ health insurance. About 20% of health care is financed by all of us individually through out-of-pocket payments, such as co-pays, deductibles, the uninsured paying directly for care, people paying privately for premiums, etc. Private employers only pay 21% of health care costs. In all, it is a very “regressive” way to finance health care, in that the poor pay a much higher percentage of their income for health care than higher income individuals do.

A universal public system would be financed in the following way: The public funds already funneled to Medicare and Medicaid would be retained. The difference, or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health care system, would be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7%) and an income tax on individuals (about 2%). The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees’ health care, which would be eliminated. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket payments. For the vast majority of people, a 2% income tax is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly if a family member has a serious illness. It is also a fair and sustainable contribution.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#40percent
Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion