But the bill [H.R. 1 EH AKA "stimulus"] 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.”

Glen beck interviews Dr. Rand Paul about potential rationing boards based on what is in Britain.

Spathi on August 14, 2009 at 8:26 PM

Hold on, Britain spends 50% less on health care than the US (in terms of % GDP)- and at that lower price point, covers the entire populace. So obviously there’s going to be a difference in quality (although almost all Brits are adamant about the virtues of their system).

See the numbers from the WSJ
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124958049241511735.html

But no one has talked about reducing our nation’s health bill by 50% (relative to GDP). So you does your point make any sense?

No, theaddora, we need to kill this bill, elect some conservatives in 2010 and write a bill that

1. Has serious tort reform.

2. Removes the link between health insurance and employment.

3. Allows consumers to choose which features they want in their policy, i.e., prevents states from mandating coverage for all the policies sold in that state.

We’ve got to change course in this country. Half measures have only brought us to where we are now.

I don’t think so. The reason is this was the provision that would saved the most, since it deals with the largest share of the health care costs. (As Obama himself says, about 80%.) There is now no way this bill can be deficit neutral (not that there was before, but I digress) short of dramatically increasing taxes. I have a feeling a tax increase on the middle class will not reduce the anger or distrust among the electorate. I’m hoping Elmendorf (sp?) will have a field day with the bill now…

Do you think this does more harm or good in the long run?

NextGen on August 14, 2009 at 9:50 AM

It does harm when you incentivize/require doctors to perform this activity as agents of the same government which proposes to limit access to healthcare based on age.

Palin’s proclamation, which you also placed into your comments, just tells citizens to consider doing this activity themselves. No government mandate, no legal tying to cost containment.

That’s the difference, and it’s a pretty big one.

I will try to persuade Senator Grassley that the availability of counseling is appropriate and should be included in health care reform.
about 1 hour ago from web SenArlenSpecter
Sen. Arlen Specter

Maybe at his age he’s starting to think of that old “end-of-life” issue.

Caribou Barbie will never be president. “Palinistas” are complete morons.

hottieinthehouse on August 14, 2009 at 5:01 PM

This is so stupid, I had to post it again…I think I may post this on every blog where Sarah is mentioned…just to help you out.

right2bright on August 14, 2009 at 5:09 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caNVWoHLejE

Let’s go to the bill text, shall we? “The covered services are: evaluating the beneficiary’s need for pain and symptom management, including the individual’s need for hospice care; counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning.” The only difference between the 2003 provision and the infamous Section 1233 that threatens the very future and moral sanctity of the Republic is that the first applied only to terminally ill patients. Section 1233 would expand funding so that people could voluntarily receive counseling before they become terminally ill.

Do you think this does more harm or good in the long run?

NextGen on August 14, 2009 at 9:50 AM

No, another BIG difference is that 1233 wanted every elderly American told about the beauty of hospice and do-not-resuscitate every five years AND as health changed significantly.
Grandma turns 60, she’s to hear about hospice and DNR.
Grandma does a living will.
When she turns 65, she’s to hear about options she rejected five years ago.
She breaks a toe and goes in for a day, she’s to hear about hospice and DNR.
She gets the flu. She’s to hear about hospice and DNR.

When we mandate counseling on all available options for abortion clinics, it’s banned as chilling interference with a private medical decision. Why impose it on the old at their most vulnerable: EVERY hospitalization? Why?

If you say it wasn’t to promote more old farts to die quietly, then why suggest it?

And you all know, I’m for public option Statist control over every aspect of everyon’e life.

AnninCA on August 14, 2009 at 1:36 PM