Obama's Health Care plan

[ErikHolmes]

So I was looking up stuff on Obama's Health Care plan and came across this article. I thought it was 'interesting' and thought I might share. Flame me if you must . . .


THE ONE WORD TO DESCRIBE OBAMACARE
Written by Dr. Dave Janda
Thursday, 23 July 2009

As a physician who has authored books on Preventative Health Care and Health Care Cost Containment, I was recently given the opportunity to be the keynote speaker at a Congressional Dinner at The Capitol Building in Washington D.C... The presentation, entitled Health Care Reform; The Power & Profit of Prevention was well received.

In preparation for the presentation, I read the latest version of "reform" as authored by The Obama Administration and supported by Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reed. It is important to realize that The Obama Health Care Plan is comprised of two parts ... that's right, not one but two parts.

The first part of The Obama Health Care Plan was buried in The Stimulus Bill which was signed into law by the President in February (see http://www.readthestimulus.org/ ). It is the second part of The Health Care Plan which is now being debated in Congress. Below is the link to the over 1000 page document.....

http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

Let me summarize just a few salient points of the two part Obama Health Care Plan. Warning.......They need to put the same warning on The Obama Health Care Plan as they do a pack of cigarettes.....Consuming this product WILL be hazardous to your health.

The underlying method of cutting costs throughout the plan is based on rationing and denying care, NOT PREVENTING health care need. The plan's method is the most inhumane and unethical approach in cutting costs. The rationing of care is implemented through a Council, equivalent to the National Health Care Board in the British Health Care System. The name given to this panel is The Federal Coordinating Council For Comparative Effectiveness Research ("Federal Council"). (Section 9201 H.R. 1 Version of the Stimulus Bill.)

President Obama has already appointed the fifteen member Federal Council. According to the Stimulus Bill, p. 152, all members of the Council must be "senior federal officers or employees." Thus, medical treatment will be dispensed by a group of bureaucrats from their ivory towers, not by the hands-on practitioners in the presence of the patients. The council was funded with $1.1 BILLION from The Stimulus Bill. (http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/os/cerbios.html )

"Comparative Effectiveness Research" is based on the formula of the approval or rejection of treatment for patients based upon the cost per treatment divided by the number of years the patient will benefit from the treatment.

According to former New York Lieutenant Governor and Health Policy Analyst Dr. Betsy McCaughey, the Federal Council will set a cost effectiveness standard for treatment. (Stimulus Bill p. 464) Translation.....if you are over 65 or have been recently diagnosed as having an advanced form of cardiac disease or aggressive cancer, dream on if you think you will get treated.....pick out your box. Oh, you say...this could never happen. Sorry....this is the same model they use in Britain.

The plan also empowers the Federal Council to create another level of bureaucracy, The Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research. (Health Care Bill, Section 1181, p. 502). The effect of this extra level of bureaucracy is to slow the development of new medications and technologies in order to reduce costs. How special is that!

The plan also outlines that doctors and hospitals will be overseen and reviewed by The National Coordinator of Health Information Technology. This "Coordinator" will be responsible for monitoring treatments to make sure doctors and hospitals are strictly following what the government deems appropriate and cost effective, and to "guide medical decisions at the time and place of care." (Stimulus Bill, p. 116; see also pp. 442, 446).

The Stimulus Bill goes on to say that hospitals and doctors that are NOT "meaningful users" of the new systems will face penalties. The Secretary of Health and Human Services will be empowered to impose "more stringent measures of meaningful use over time." (Stimulus Bill pp. 366, 478, 511, 518, 540, 541.) According to those in Congress, penalties could include large six figure financial fines and possible imprisonment. According to the Obama Plan, if your doctor saves your life but breaks government protocol, you might have to go to the prison to see your doctor for follow -up appointments. I believe this is the same model Stalin used in the former Soviet Union.

In Section 102 of the Health Care Plan has the Orwellian title: "Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage." What this section really mandates is that it is ILLEGAL for you to keep your private insurance if your status changes, e.g., if you lose or change your job, become a senior citizen, graduate from college and land their first job. Yes, illegal. When President Obama was asked about this portion of his plan recently, his response was, "I am not familiar with that part of the plan."

Obama hosted a conference call with bloggers urging them to pressure Congress to pass his health plan as soon as possible.

During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: "Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?" President Obama replied: "You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about."

Then there is Section 1233 of the Health Care Bill, devoted to "Advanced Care Planning." After each American turns 65 years of age they have to go to a mandated counseling program that is designed to end life sooner. This session is to occur every 5 years unless the person has developed a chronic illness then it must be done every year. The topics in this government run session will include how to decline hydration, nutrition and how to initiate hospice care. It is no wonder the Obama Administration does NOT like my emphasis on Prevention. Under the Health Care Plan for cost containment, Prevention is the "enemy," since people would live longer.

I rest my case....The Health Care Plan authored by Obama / Pelosi / Reed is hazardous to the health of every American.

In the question/answer session following my Capitol Hill presentation, a Congressman asked: "I am doing a number of network interviews next week on the Obama Health Care Plan. If I am asked what is the one word to describe the plan, what should I answer?"

The answer is simple, honest, direct, analytical, and sad, but truthful. The word is FASCIST.

[Frog]

I rest my case....The Health Care Plan authored by Obama / Pelosi / Reed is hazardous to the health of every American.

Well, duh. 

Quick thoughts from the nursing department. When I was doing my surgical rotation, I was chatting with the surgeon and being annoying (I'm sure no one here could picture that ) and he was talking about how he was going to have to leave off his retirement because they weren't getting many new surgeons. Med schools that used to competitively turn away lots of potential students were now having trouble filling all their slots. The reason for this is that with medicare always having there hand in it, surgeons can't  set their prices with the market so those that might be interested in medicine opt for something like dentistry instead, smaller: less inessential practices that can set their own prices with the market and it's a lot less schooling. And that was over a year ago, before any national system was suggested.

Also with the new shiny thing called the internet, hypochondriacs abound. I've worked in family practice and experience this constantly with people running in with every cough and sniffle sure that it is cancer or some rare foreign virus. It is a little annoying, but understandable and workable, but imagine if it were 'free?' They'd fill up the system and it would be very easy for things to be missed.

Going purely off my own experience, it is no wonder there are shortages and long waits in a nationalized system. As much as I enjoy the service aspect of my job, I think it is scary how people want the government to baby them in the most important matter of their own health.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

The part about section 102 is taking it out of context. It's only talking about grandfathered plans—the kinds of plans that currently exist which have exceptions for preexisting conditions and the like. Private insurance will still exist, but must not have exceptions for preexisting conditions. That is explained in other sections of the bill. You can't sign up new people for the grandfathered plans but can continue to serve the people who have those plans. That's the very definition of grandfathering. And you can't go changing their rates willy-nilly. Makes sense to me.

When we were in Montreal for Worldcon we talked to Canadians about their healthcare. They think it's great. I'm an American and I think my healthcare system sucks. Some of the proposed changes aren't so hot but almost anything would be better than the current system.

[Skar]

The current healthcare system in the US does suck.  It sucks because it's ridiculously expensive, time consuming, and confusing.  Ever tried to get your insurance company to correct a mistake they made?  You know what I'm talking about.

From my, admittedly limited, research and experience, the current healthcare system is all those bad things because the government started sticking its fingers in. 

For example, in the early days of medicare, in order to reduce costs, medicare informed the doctors on its rolls that it would pay only a percentage of any fee they charged.  The doctors, faced with getting only $50 dollars of a $100 dollar fee and $80 dollars of operating cost, simply upped their stated fee schedule until 50% (what medicare would pay) equaled $100 dollars.  Thus those patients who were not on medicare ended up paying $200 fees for $100 dollar procedures. Thank you government. 

Something similar happened when I sprained-maybe broke-my ankle during a military exercise earlier this year.  Because the bureaucrats screwed the military health insurance process up I ended up having to get deeply involved in who paid whom when and how much.  Long story short, the insurance company dictated every step I made during treatment (had to go to an emergency room instead of an instacare or simply waiting 'til my GP opened on Monday among other things) then screwed up the payment.  After the literally 10+ hours I had to spend on the phone with different entities, things finally got sorted out.  For an $800+ bill, the government run health insurance paid everyone involved a little over $170 dollars total and told them they'd like it or stop treating soldiers.  I honestly don't know how the doctors and hospitals make any money on that deal.

Which is, of course, the heart of the matter.  When the government gets into the game and insists on paying $170 for $800 bills and has the all encompassing power to say 'you'll accept it as payment in full or go to jail' we'll have broken the system forever. 

When there is no monetary incentive to build a better mousetrap (that being better, smarter, cheaper care in this case) people will stop fiddling with mousetraps.  And all we'll be left with is a committee of bureaucrats deciding whether or not to let you have that tried and true operation you're in desperate need of.  And when the government forces those evil pharmaceutical companies to operate at a loss on every new wonder drug in the name of fairness no more wonder drugs will be developed.

And when it gets so bad you'd like to take your business elsewhere, you won't be able to. You'll either pay or go to jail for evasion of taxes.

**********************
I caught Jon Stewart on the Daily Show peddling the idea that publicly funded healthcare would not adversely effect private healthcare and his laughtrack approved.  Silly morons, look at all the private universities that are 'doing just fine' in competition with public universities!

He didn't mention, if he even realized, that there is no such thing anymore.  Even 'private' universities today could not exist without federal funding.  Funding for their operating costs as well as their student's tuition.

And now the White house is asking us to inform on those who hold the opinion, and dare to speak it, that their healthcare reform is not a good idea. Yikes, Stalin anyone?

[Comfortable Madness]

This administra...regime?...gets scarier as time goes on. Stalin indeed. How many Czars do we have these days? Well we didn't elect any of them but we sure the hell pay for them. Insanity.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

The government isn't perfect, but it's at least trying. I find it much easier to blame the greedy insurance company execs and their shareholders, who are trying only to make money. Sure, it's great to make money, but when you do it by denying medical care to people who need it most, you are evil and deserve to have your cash cow taken away from you by the government.

[Skar]

...but when you do it by denying medical care to people who need it most

I see this as a symptom of the problem.  How exactly do you define those "...who need it most"? Are they the rich old cancer patients who won't be able to get cutting-edge treatment under Obamacare or the poor students who can't get it now? They're both citizens right?

It also implies a belief that Healthcare is some sort of inalienable right. It's not and it never has been. 

As I pointed out earlier, the government itself drove the cost of healthcare into the stratosphere and its further, ever more pervasive, involvement will only make that worse.  The only difference will be that universally inefficient and sub-standard care will be subsidized by taxes and totally divorced from any need to respond to things like customers or results.

...you are evil and deserve to have your cash cow taken away from you by the government

The same line of reasoning was used to legally force banks to give housing loans to people who could not afford them.  The result is the collapse of the housing market and the vast financial woes of the present day.  It won't work in this case either.  And, frankly, I find the idea that people who are not breaking the law 'deserve to have their cash cow taken from them'  disturbing. Do we really want the government to get into the practice of taking money from people who 'deserve' to have it taken from them irrespective of the law?  Really?

As for the government 'trying' to fix healthcare, when the man smashing away at your car's engine with a hammer claims fervently that he's trying to fix it you don't compare him to the mechanic across the street and say, 'well, at least hammer guy is trying to fix it,' and   encourage him to continue.  You make him stop and find the right way to do things.

I find it much easier to blame the greedy insurance company execs and their shareholders, who are trying only to make money. Sure, it's great to make money, but when you do it by denying medical care...

Those rich execs would absolutely love to field an insurance plan to every single person in the country. The more the merrier.  The more people they get on some kind of payment plan the more money they make.  Unfortunately, the kind of bare bones plan the kind of people I think you're talking about could afford is functionally prohibited by federal regulation.  The regulations insist that every plan (including those offered to 22 year old Mormon male students, ask me how I know) must offer breast cancer exams and prostate exams and phsychological counseling and substance abuse counseling and so forth ad nauseum, whether the purchaser thinks they need them or not.  It is federal law that requires silly things like this in the name of fairness. I find it to be foolish optimism in the extreme to suppose that getting the government more involved will improve matters.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

I do believe Healthcare should be an inalienable right. I think technology and society have progressed to the point where that's possible and practical. Many countries are making it work.

I define "who need it most" as whoever's denied coverage because they are sick. It would be best for everyone to be required to have coverage.

It's laughable to blame the current healthcare woes on government intervention when executives and stockholders are making enormous amounts of cash. People are getting hurt, but no one's breaking the law, so we should leave the law the way it is and not change it? No. The law must be changed.

I am not entirely confident in the government's ability to make it work, but the free-market healthcare system has FAILED. Leaving it the way it is is not the answer. Thinking that shareholders and corporate execs will make life better for everyone if left to their own devices is foolishness beyond the extreme.

I'm not saying the execs and shareholders should be "punished." They won't go to jail or get fined. But they need to find another source of income. They are not providing healthcare; they are running a business or owning stock. Those skills are widely applicable in all sorts of companies that I'm sure will be happy to hire them.

Even if there is no government-run plan, we need to ban making a profit on health insurance. Everyone should be forced to buy coverage, and insurance companies should return all excess profits beyond a reasonable buffer to their policyholders at the end of the year.

My daughter was denied coverage by two insurance companies even though she has had uninterrupted coverage since she was born and the doctors have said her heart murmur is nothing to worry about. Outright denied, not even offered coverage at an expensive rate. We eventually got her covered under a state-run plan that I am happy to pay for.

[Eerongal]

I define "who need it most" as whoever's denied coverage because they are sick. It would be best for everyone to be required to have coverage.

^ This ^

I have my own personal reasons for hating the current healthcare system. No one should be denied healthcare

It *NEEDS* to be reformed, the current system is broke, no doubt about it.

Now, as far as what the article is talking about, a lot of it seems like it's jumping to conclusions.

for example, the part that states:

Then there is Section 1233 of the Health Care Bill, devoted to "Advanced Care Planning." After each American turns 65 years of age they have to go to a mandated counseling program that is designed to end life sooner. This session is to occur every 5 years unless the person has developed a chronic illness then it must be done every year. The topics in this government run session will include how to decline hydration, nutrition and how to initiate hospice care. It is no wonder the Obama Administration does NOT like my emphasis on Prevention. Under the Health Care Plan for cost containment, Prevention is the "enemy," since people would live longer.

I looked at the mentioned link, at section 1233, and it doesn't seem to say anything about what this says. Maybe my legal-nese is terrible, but to me it sounds like its saying that you go to a counseling to inform you of your options for healthcare, life choices, and the keeping up to date of your will, and plans for if you end up in a vegetative state, so that these things will always be current and correct. I fail to see how this is "designed to end life sooner", and is more along the lines of "making sure your family is covered in the event of the unexpected"

[darxbane]

You can't ignore the repeated examples of government screwing up whatever they touch.  It is an undeniable fact that government run plans are less efficient and more prone to problems than private industry (this is with everything, not just healthcare).  Also, there are studies that show that while Canadians have more access to health care, they give lower marks than the U.S. for the quality of their care.  Canada also has 1/10th the population of the U.S, and is far less diverse (which means less need for specialists in certain genetic disorders).  It is naive to believe we can do anything remotely related to Canada's system (not without doubling our tax rate, anyway).  Besides, whenever a Canadien gets a serious illness, where do you think they go for treatment?  That's right, the U.S.A.  Cancer, multiple-birth pregnancies, Amyloidosis, etc.  People come from around the world to seek treatment here.  Why?  Because we have the best doctors and facilities.  This will not remain true if National Healthcare is put in place.  Finally, remove the restrictions that cause a complete lack of competition with health insurance.  Auto insurance was the same way until the Feds allowed you to choose whatever plan you wanted.  If the restrictions on your choice of coverage was lifted, prices would drop, just like they did with auto insurance premiums.  Ironically, our "private" healthcare system is not all that private at all.  It is heavily regulated already.

I agree that no one should be denied care, but I am confident the government will screw it up even more.  They've proven it already.
Earongal, the first clause of your statement is the kicker: the counseling session gives you your OPTIONS for HEALTHCARE.  These options could very well include denial of coverage to due negative overall outcomes. 

[Eerongal]

Earongal, the first clause of your statement is the kicker: the counseling session gives you your OPTIONS for HEALTHCARE.  These options could very well include denial of coverage to due negative overall outcomes. 

(4) ANTIDISCRIMINATION LIMITATION.—The Secretary shall not enter into an agreement with an entity to provide health care items or services under the pilot program, or with an entity to administer the program, unless such entity guarantees that it will not deny, limit, or condition the coverage or provision of benefits under the program, for individuals eligible to be enrolled under such program, based on any health status-related factor described in section 2702(a)(1) of the Public Health Service Act

(A) Health status.
(B) Medical condition (including both physical and
mental illnesses).
(C) Claims experience.
(D) Receipt of health care.
(E) Medical history.
(F) Genetic information.
(G) Evidence of insurability (including conditions aris-
ing out of acts of domestic violence).
(H) Disability.

This appears to apply the former to all policies under this plan, where as with the public health service act, it appears to only apply to group health plans. To me this says that less people will be turned down, regardless of the overall negatives.

Edit: Also, I'm always unsure how we get off pointing at canada and bashing their healthcare system. Their healthcare is ranked 30th worldwide. We're ranked 37th. (their average life expectancy is also higher than ours) France and italy are number 1 and 2 respectively, which both have government subsidized healtcare systems. France, however, has the "both of best worlds" so to speak, they have a government subsidized plan, augmented by private health care plans.

[sortitus]

Who ranks these things? US News & World Report?

[Eerongal]

Who ranks these things? US News & World Report?

the world health organization, a part of the UN

[Skar]

I am not entirely confident in the government's ability to make it work, but the free-market healthcare system has FAILED.

As I have said more than once in this thread, with examples, we haven't had a truly free-market healthcare system in DECADES.

It's laughable to blame the current healthcare woes on government intervention when executives and stockholders are making enormous amounts of cash.

Can't quite see the connection here.  Sounds more like class envy/warfare than anything else.  People are making enormous amounts of cash therefore those people are evil?

People are getting hurt, but no one's breaking the law, so we should leave the law the way it is and not change it? No. The law must be changed.

Agreed.  The law should be changed.  In fact, I couldn't agree more.  Several thousand federal regulations on healthcare should be stricken from the books. Take it back to an actual free market system and you will see prices for medical procedures as well as insurance plans drop and the range of care and types of insurance plans available multiply a thousandfold.

Thinking that shareholders and corporate execs will make life better for everyone if left to their own devices is foolishness beyond the extreme.

Agreed. Fortunately for me, that's not exactly the point I'm trying to make.  That point is this:  If you connect covering everyone directly to making money, which is the very definition of a true free-market system, then everyone gets covered. In the current state of things the government has made it expensive and in many cases illegal to offer plans tailored to high-risk or special cases.

I do believe Healthcare should be an inalienable right.

We'll have to agree to disagree here I suppose.  I simply can't in good conscience insist that my neighbor pay for my healthcare.

I think technology and society have progressed to the point where that's possible and practical. Many countries are making it work.

They're not actually.  Every case I've looked up, Canada, England, France, etc... are unsustainable financially.  Why they are unsustainable is wide open to debate, and they aren't actually working.

The underlying problem with giving everyone something for free is that nothing is actually free.  Everything costs something.  Putting the government in charge of a 'healthcare for everyone' system simply means that you're extracting the money for the system from private citizens at the point of a gun and then filtering that money through the government and lying about it being free.  Insisting that the government is the only entity that can run an intelligent healthcare system flies in the face of every single bit of my life experience.

Even if there is no government-run plan, we need to ban making a profit on health insurance. Everyone should be forced to buy coverage, and insurance companies should return all excess profits beyond a reasonable buffer to their policyholders at the end of the year.

Wow.  Just, wow.  This philosophy didn't work in communist russia, it didn't work in china, it hasn't worked anywhere. But I suppose we could try again with starry eyes and hearts full of hope.

Conclusion:  Yes, it would be possible to create a state-run health insurance/health care system that paid for itself and encouraged innovation, efficiency, and customer service.  The nature of government and bureaucracies themselves work against it though.  And the current plan on the table does none of the above.

Who ranks...? the world health organization, a part of the UN

First, keep in mind that places like Oman and Colombia rank above the US.  That says something about how they run those rankings does it not?  And have a look at this.

[Comfortable Madness]

I am not entirely confident in the government's ability to make it work, but the free-market healthcare system has FAILED.

As I have said more than once in this thread, with examples, we haven't had a truly free-market healthcare system in DECADES.

It's laughable to blame the current healthcare woes on government intervention when executives and stockholders are making enormous amounts of cash.

Can't quite see the connection here.  Sounds more like class envy/warfare than anything else.  People are making enormous amounts of cash therefore those people are evil?

People are getting hurt, but no one's breaking the law, so we should leave the law the way it is and not change it? No. The law must be changed.

Agreed.  The law should be changed.  In fact, I couldn't agree more.  Several thousand federal regulations on healthcare should be stricken from the books. Take it back to an actual free market system and you will see prices for medical procedures as well as insurance plans drop and the range of care and types of insurance plans available multiply a thousandfold.

Thinking that shareholders and corporate execs will make life better for everyone if left to their own devices is foolishness beyond the extreme.

Agreed. Fortunately for me, that's not exactly the point I'm trying to make.  That point is this:  If you connect covering everyone directly to making money, which is the very definition of a true free-market system, then everyone gets covered. In the current state of things the government has made it expensive and in many cases illegal to offer plans tailored to high-risk or special cases.

I do believe Healthcare should be an inalienable right.

We'll have to agree to disagree here I suppose.  I simply can't in good conscience insist that my neighbor pay for my healthcare.

I think technology and society have progressed to the point where that's possible and practical. Many countries are making it work.

They're not actually.  Every case I've looked up, Canada, England, France, etc... are unsustainable financially.  Why they are unsustainable is wide open to debate, and they aren't actually working.

The underlying problem with giving everyone something for free is that nothing is actually free.  Everything costs something.  Putting the government in charge of a 'healthcare for everyone' system simply means that you're extracting the money for the system from private citizens at the point of a gun and then filtering that money through the government and lying about it being free.  Insisting that the government is the only entity that can run an intelligent healthcare system flies in the face of every single bit of my life experience.

Even if there is no government-run plan, we need to ban making a profit on health insurance. Everyone should be forced to buy coverage, and insurance companies should return all excess profits beyond a reasonable buffer to their policyholders at the end of the year.

Wow.  Just, wow.  This philosophy didn't work in communist russia, it didn't work in china, it hasn't worked anywhere. But I suppose we could try again with starry eyes and hearts full of hope.

Conclusion:  Yes, it would be possible to create a state-run health insurance/health care system that paid for itself and encouraged innovation, efficiency, and customer service.  The nature of government and bureaucracies themselves work against it though.  And the current plan on the table does none of the above.

Who ranks...? the world health organization, a part of the UN

First, keep in mind that places like Oman and Colombia rank above the US.  That says something about how they run those rankings does it not?  And have a look at this.

Skar, You. Are.My.Hero. I was going to respond in similiar fashion but you beat me to the punch and said much better than they way I had it down.