By Jennifer Graham (CP) – 2 days ago

SASKATOON — The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.

Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and she adds that physicians from across the country - who will gather in Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting - recognize that changes must be made.

"We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press.

"We know that there must be change," she said. "We're all running flat out, we're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands."

The pitch for change at the conference is to start with a presentation from Dr. Robert Ouellet, the current president of the CMA, who has said there's a critical need to make Canada's health-care system patient-centred. He will present details from his fact-finding trip to Europe in January, where he met with health groups in England, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands and France.

His thoughts on the issue are already clear. Ouellet has been saying since his return that "a health-care revolution has passed us by," that it's possible to make wait lists disappear while maintaining universal coverage and "that competition should be welcomed, not feared."

In other words, Ouellet believes there could be a role for private health-care delivery within the public system.

He has also said the Canadian system could be restructured to focus on patients if hospitals and other health-care institutions received funding based on the patients they treat, instead of an annual, lump-sum budget. This "activity-based funding" would be an incentive to provide more efficient care, he has said.

 [ send green star]

The Health Care Bill: What HR 3200, ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” Says

http://www.classicalideals.com/HR3200.htm

John David Lewis

August 6, 2009

What does the bill, HR 3200, short-titled ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” actually say about major health care issues? I here pose a few questions in no particular order, citing relevant passages and offering a brief evaluation after each set of passages.

This bill is 1017 pages long. It is knee-deep in legalese and references to other federal regulations and laws. I have only touched pieces of the bill here. For instance, I have not considered the establishment of (1) “Health Choices Commissio0ner” (Section 141); (2) a “Health Insurance Exchange,” (Section 201), basically a government run insurance scheme to coordinate all insurance activity; (3) a Public Health Insurance Option (Section 221); and similar provisions.  

This is the evaluation of someone who is neither a physician nor a legal professional. I am citizen, concerned about this bill’s effects on my freedom as an American. I would rather have used my time in other ways—but this is too important to ignore.

We may answer one question up front: How will the government will pay for all this? Higher taxes, more borrowing, printing money, cutting payments, or rationing services—there are no other options.  We will all pay for this, enrolled in the government “option” or not.

(All bold type within the text of the bill is added for emphasis.)

 [ send green star]

This is what the bill says, pages 284-288, SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS:

 ‘(ii) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN READMISSIONS.—For purposes of clause (i), with respect to a hospital, excess readmissions shall not include readmissions for an applicable condition for which there are fewer than a minimum number (as determined by the Secretary) of discharges for such applicable condition for the applicable period and such hospital.

and, under “Definitions”:

‘‘(A) APPLICABLE CONDITION.—The term ‘applicable condition’ means, subject to subparagraph (, a condition or procedure selected by the Secretary . . .

and:

‘‘(E) READMISSION.—The term ‘readmission’ means, in the case of an individual who is discharged from an applicable hospital, the admission of the individual to the same or another applicable hospital within a time period specified by the Secretary from the date of such discharge.

and:

 [ send green star]

‘‘(6) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, section 1878, or otherwise of— . . .

‘‘(C) the measures of readmissions . . .

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1.       This section amends the Social Security Act

2.      The government has the power to determine what constitutes an “applicable [medical] condition.”

3.      The government has the power to determine who is allowed readmission into a hospital.

4.      This determination will be made by statistics: when enough people have been discharged for the same condition, an individual may be readmitted.

5.      This is government rationing, pure, simple, and straight up.

6.      There can be no judicial review of decisions made here. The Secretary is above the courts.

7.      The plan also allows the government to prohibit hospitals from expanding without federal permission: page 317-318.

2.                  Will the plan punish Americans who try to opt out?

What the bill says, pages 167-168, section 401, TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE:

 [ send green star]

 ‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—

(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. . . .”

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1.      This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.

2.      Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax.

3.      The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan.

3.                  what constitutes “acceptable” coverage?

Here is what the bill says, pages 26-30, SEC. 122, ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED:

 (a) IN GENERAL.—In this division, the term ‘‘essential benefits package’’ means health benefits coverage, consistent with standards adopted under section

 [ send green star]

(b) MINIMUM SERVICES TO BE COVERED.—The items and services described in this subsection are the following:

(1) Hospitalization.

(2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic services . . .

 (3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals.

 (4) Such services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician’s or a health professional’s delivery of care . . .

(5) Prescription drugs.

(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.

(7) Mental health and substance use disorder services.

(8) Preventive services . . .

(9) Maternity care.

(10) Well baby and well child care . . .

 (c) REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO COST-SHARING AND MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE . . .

(3) MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The cost-sharing under the essential benefits package shall be designed to provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to approximately 70 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the reference benefits package described in subparagraph (.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1.      The bill defines “acceptable coverage

 [ send green star]

2.      By setting a minimum 70%  actuarial value of benefits, the bill makes health plans in which individuals pay for routine services, but carry insurance only for catastrophic events, (such as Health Savings Accounts) illegal.

4.                  Will the PLAN destroy private health insurance?

Here is what it requires, for businesses with payrolls greater than $400,000 per year. (The bill uses “contribution” to refer to mandatory payments to the government plan.)  Pages 149-150, SEC. 313, EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE

(a) IN GENERAL.—A contribution is made in accordance with this section with respect to an employee if such contribution is equal to an amount equal to 8 percent of  the average wages paid by the employer during the period of enrollment (determined by taking into account all employees of the employer and in such manner as the Commissioner provides, including rules providing for the appropriate aggregation of related employers). Any such contribution—

(1) shall be paid to the Health Choices Commissioner for deposit into the Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund, and

(2) shall not be applied against the premium of the employee under the Exchange-participating health benefits plan in which the employee is enrolled.

(The bill then includes a sliding scale of payments for business with less than $400,000 in annual payroll.)

The Bill also reserves, for the government, the power to determine an acceptable benefits plan: page 24, SEC. 115. ENSURING ADEQUACY OF PROVIDER NETWORKS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—A qualified health benefits plan that uses a provider network for items and services shall meet such standards respecting provider networks as the Commissioner may establish to assure the adequacy of such networks in ensuring enrollee access to such items and services and transparency in the cost-sharing differentials between in-network coverage and out-of-network coverage.

 [ send green star]

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1.      The bill does not prohibit a person from buying private insurance.

2.      Small businesses—with say 8-10 employees—will either have to provide insurance to federal standards, or pay an 8% payroll tax. Business costs for health care are higher than this, especially considering administrative costs. Any competitive business that tries to stay with a private plan will face a payroll disadvantage against competitors who go with the government “option.”

3.      The pressure for business owners to terminate the private plans will be enormous.

4.      With employers ending plans, millions of Americans will lose their private coverage, and fewer companies will offer it.

5.      The Commissioner (meaning, always, the bureaucrats) will determine whether a particular network of physicians, hospitals and insurance is acceptable.

6.      With private insurance starved, many people enrolled in the government “option” will have no place else to go.

5.                  Does the plan TAX successful Americans more THAN OTHERS?

Here is what the bill says, pages 197-198, SEC. 441. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS

 [ send green star]

 ‘‘SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.

‘‘(a) GENERAL RULE.—In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to—

‘‘(1) 1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000,

‘‘(2) 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and

‘‘(3) 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1.      This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code.

2.      Tax surcharges  are levied on those with the highest incomes.

3.      The plan manipulates the tax code to redistribute their wealth.

4.      Successful business owners will bear the highest cost of this plan.

6.      6.  Does THE PLAN ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO set FEES FOR SERVICES?

What it says, page 124, Sec. 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:

 [ send green star]

6.    

(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority to correct for payments that are excessive or deficient, taking into account the provisions of section 221(a) and the amounts paid for similar health care providers and services under other Exchange-participating health benefits plans.

(e) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as affecting the authority of the Secretary to establish payment rates, including payments to provide for the more efficient delivery of services, such as the initiatives provided for under section 224.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. The government’s authority to set payments is basically unlimited.
2. The official will decide what constitutes “excessive,” “deficient,” and “efficient” payments and services.

7.                  Will THE PLAN increase the power of government officials to SCRUTINIZE our private affairs?

What it says, pages 195-196, SEC. 431. DISCLOSURES TO CARRY OUT HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE SUBSIDIES.

 [ send green star]

State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, return information of any taxpayer whose income is relevant in determining any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Such return information shall be limited to—

‘‘(i) taxpayer identity information with respect to such taxpayer,

‘‘(ii) the filing status of such taxpayer,

‘‘(iii) the modified adjusted gross income of such taxpayer (as defined in section 59B(e)(5)),

‘‘(iv) the number of dependents of the taxpayer,

‘‘(v) such other information as is prescribed by the Secretary by regulation as might indicate whether the taxpayer is eligible for such affordability credits (and the amount thereof), and

‘‘(vi) the taxable year with respect to which the preceding information relates or, if applicable, the fact that such information is not available.

And, page 145, section 312, EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS EMPLOYEE AND DEPENDENT COVERAGE:

(3) PROVISION OF INFORMATION.—The employer provides the Health Choices Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury, as applicable, with such information as the Commissioner may require to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this section.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1.      This section amends the Internal Revenue Code

2.      The bill opens up income tax return information to federal officials.

 [ send green star]

3.      Any stated “limits” to such information are circumvented by item (v), which allows federal officials to decide what information is needed.

4.      Employers are required to report whatever information the government says it needs to enforce the plan.

What it says, page 102, Section 205, Outreach and enrollment of Exchange-eligible individuals and employers in Exchange-participating health benefits plan:

(3) AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT OF MEDICAID ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS INTO MEDICAID.—The Commissioner shall provide for a process under which an individual who is described in section 202(d)(3) and has not elected to enroll in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan is automatically enrolled under Medicaid.

And, page 145, section 312:

(4) AUTOENROLLMENT OF EMPLOYEES.—The employer provides for autoenrollment of the employee in accordance with subsection (c).

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1.       Do nothing and you are in.

2.      Employers are responsible for automatically enrolling people who still work.

 [ send green star]

9.      9.  Does THE PLAN exempt federal OFFICIALS from COURT REVIEW?

What it says, page 124, Section 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:

(f) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review of a payment rate or methodology established under this section or under section 224.

And, page 256, SEC. 1123. PAYMENTS FOR EFFICIENT AREAS.

‘‘(C) LIMITATION ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, 1878, or otherwise, respecting—

‘‘(i) the identification of a county or other area under subparagraph (A); or

‘‘(ii) the assignment of a postal ZIP Code to a county or other area under subparagraph (.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1.      Sec. 1123 amends the Social Security Act, to allow the Secretary to identify areas of the country that underutilize the government’s plan “based on per capita spending.”

2.      Parts of the plan are set above the review of the courts.

 [ send green star]

“The public health insurance option will be empowered to implement innovative delivery reform initiatives so that it is a nimble purchaser of health care and gets more value for each health care dollar,” the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s summary says about the bill.

Medical homes are tied to “comparative effectivness research” via something called “evidence-based medicine.”

“It will expand upon the experiments put forth in Medicare and be provided the flexibility to implement value-based purchasing, accountable care organizations, medical homes, and bundled payments. These features will ensure the public option is a leader in efficient delivery of quality care, spurring competition with private plans,” the committee’s summary also said.

A statement by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) said that the effectiveness of the medical home model should be carefully evaluated before applying the model far and wide.

“There should be more research to demonstrate the benefits and continuing costs associated with implementation of the full (patient-centered medical home) model,” the ACEP statement said.

“Demonstration projects being conducted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services must be carefully evaluated. There should be proven value in healthcare outcomes for patients and reduced costs to the healthcare system before there is widespread implementation of this model.”

The proposal, meanwhile, specifically allows for facilities to be run by staff who do not possess medical degrees – including nurses and nurse practitioners.

 [ send green star]

Posted on Thursday, July 30, 2009 6:34:15 AM by Man50D

The House health-care reform bill proposes to decrease hospital visits by establishing a “medical home pilot program” for elderly and disabled Americans.

Such a medical home would not require a physician to be on the staff, and therefore could be run solely by nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Medical homes also would practice “evidence-based” medicine, which advocates only the use of medical treatments that are supported by effectiveness research.

But physicians’ groups say the legislation could lead to restrictions on which treatments may be used for certain conditions, despite the fact that some patients might require a unique or unconventional approach. It also may lead to dumping Medicare/Medicaid patients in facilities that are not required to have physicians on staff.

The Center for Medicine in the Public Interest (CMPI) expressed its concerns in a report that explains why statistical evidence does not always reflect reality of effective medicine.

“‘One size fits all’ rarely does,” the report said. “From clothes to shoes to hats, few people find that items carrying that label work with their individual bodies. So why do we entrust the health of our bodies -- one of the most important assets we have -- to a one-size-fits-all mentality?”

According to CMPI and individual physicians, however, this one-size-fits-all mentality is just what congressional health-care reform suggests.

“Unfortunately, policies being advanced under the guise of ‘evidence-based medicine’ (EBM) could do just that,” the CMPI report said. “The idea behind EBM, empowering physicians with sound evidence to incorporate into their treatment decisions for individual patients, is a good one.

“Unfortunately, EBM now is being distorted by government bureaucrats and HMOs in ways that impose top-down, one-size-fits-all restrictions on patients and their healthcare providers.”

Rather than enforcing a formulaic approach to medicine based on statistical and clinical research, CMPI says health-care reform should preserve physicians’ autonomy to use the research in conjunction with their experience and knowledge of the patient.

”It is so critically important for the physician to maintain his or her ability to combine study findings with their expertise and knowledge of the individual in order to make the optimal treatment decisions. Evidence-based medicine in its present, distorted form emphasizes just one aspect of the clinical pie over all the others,” the report found.

Kathryn Serkes of the American Association for Physicians and Surgeons echoed the observation.

“There is no typical patient,” Serkes told CNSNews.com. “Every patient is different from a medical perspective. If we have evidence-based medicine that basically says ‘well, we start at treatment one, which leads you to treatment two, to treatment three to treatment four. In practice, that doesn’t work for the patient. That’s the ‘art’ part of the art and science of medicine. That’s what we still need doctors to do, is to figure out what’s right for the patient.”

In the long run, according to CMPI, evidence-based medicine may not even cut costs as Congress suggests it would.

“Evidence-based medicine may provide transitory savings in the short term, but the same patient who takes the cheapest available statin today may very well be the patient costing you -- the taxpayer, the policymaker, the thought-leader, the sister, the spouse -- big bucks when that patient ends up in the hospital because of improperly treated cardiovascular disease,” .

“The repercussions of choosing short-term thinking over long-term results and cost-based medicine over patient-based are pernicious to both the public purse and the public health,” the CMPI report said.

Provisions for the medical home pilot program are an amendment to the Social Security Act, which governs the administration of Medicare and Medicaid services.

The medical home is an approach to medical practice that “facilitates partnerships” between patients and physicians, according to the proposed bill.

The pilot program targets Medicare beneficiaries who have a high medical “risk score” or who require regular monitoring, advising or treatment. This currently applies to more than 22 million Americans, according to Kaiser Family Foundation statistics.

At least $1.5 billion would be redirected from the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund to fund the medical homes, “in addition to funds otherwise available,” according to the bill.

The Senate health-care reform bill also includes provisions for medical homes, although to lesser detail than the House bill.

If this portion of the legislation passes through Congress, medical homes will be part of the greater health-care reform experiment known as "the public (health insurance) option."

According to the committee, the provisions for medical homes will make the public option a stronger competitor against private health insurance companies.

“The public health insurance option will be empowered to implement innovative delivery reform initiatives so that it is a nimble purchaser of health care and gets more value for each hea

 [ send green star]

ELDERLY LEAD OPPOSITION ON OBAMA HEALTHCARE

By DICK MORRIS

Published on TheHill.com on July 28, 2009

In 1993-94, when the Clintons tried to pass healthcare reform, the opposition to their proposals was concentrated among middle-aged voters, galvanized by the "Harry and Louise" ads. But opposition to the Obama proposals centers among the elderly, who suspect that it will mean a sharp curtailment of their medical care.

The Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll of July 21-24 found that voters over 65 opposed the Obama plan by 35-47. They oppose a government-run insurance plan to compete with private plans by 31-56 and believe that the Obama plan will "cost me money" rather than "save me money" by 57-20! Only 24 percent of the elderly feel that the Obama plan will lead to better healthcare for "you and your family," while 45 percent believe the quality of care will be worse.

http://www.vote.com/mmp_printerfriendly.php?id=1567

 [ send green star]

There is no question that America’s $2.4 trillion health care system needs to be reformed. But it should not be done on the backs of America’s seniors. Conservatives have a better vision for health care reform that cuts health care costs by reforming the tax system, enabling true health care competition, and giving families control of their health care dollars.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/28/morning-bell-obamacares-effect-on-seniors/

 [ send green star]

Published on National Legal and Policy Center (http://www.nlpc.org)

AARP Sells Out Seniors to Support Obama Health Care

AARP Sells Out Seniors to Support Obama Health Care

By Peter Flaherty

Created 07/23/2009 - 06:57

[1]In today’s Wall Street Journal, Betsy McCaughey writes [2]:

The Congressional majority wants to pay for its $1 trillion to $1.6 trillion health bills with new taxes and a $500 billion cut to Medicare. This cut will come just as baby boomers turn 65 and increase Medicare enrollment by 30%. Less money and more patients will necessitate rationing.

You would think that AARP would be up in arms. Nope. As Barack Obama proudly pointed out last night, AARP supports his plan.

What Obama didn’t say is that AARP receives millions in federal funds, and hopes to get even more by becoming a vendor under his plan. In January 2007, NLPC published Special Report documenting taxpayer support for AARP [1]. The study found that federal funding accounted for $83 million, or about 10 percent, of AARP’s then-annual revenue of $878 million.

McCaughey explains [2] what is really at stake for seniors:

The assault against seniors began with the stimulus package in February. Slipped into the bill was substantial funding for comparative effectiveness research, which is generally code for limiting care based on the patient’s age. Economists are familiar with the formula, where the cost of a treatment is divided by the number of years (called QALYs, or quality-adjusted life years) that the patient is likely to benefit. In Britain, the formula leads to denying treatments for older patients who have fewer years to benefit from care than younger patients.

n other words, the government is going to start deciding who lives and who dies, based on age. Scary stuff. AARP is showing its true colors. It does not represent seniors but Big Government.

 [ send green star]

The outlook is worse for the second group. It encompasses employees who aren't under ERISA but get actual insurance either on their own or through small businesses. After the legislation passes, all insurers that offer a wide range of plans to these employees will be forced to offer only "qualified" plans to new customers, via the exchanges.

The employees who got their coverage before the law goes into effect can keep their plans, but once again, there's a catch. If the plan changes in any way -- by altering co-pays, deductibles, or even switching coverage for this or that drug -- the employee must drop out and shop through the exchange. Since these plans generally change their policies every year, it's likely that millions of employees will lose their plans in 12 months.

5. Freedom to choose your doctors

The Senate bill requires that Americans buying through the exchanges -- and as we've seen, that will soon be most Americans -- must get their care through something called "medical home." Medical home is similar to an HMO. You're assigned a primary care doctor, and the doctor controls your access to specialists. The primary care physicians will decide which services, like MRIs and other diagnostic scans, are best for you, and will decide when you really need to see a cardiologists or orthopedists.

Under the proposals, the gatekeepers would theoretically guide patients to tests and treatments that have proved most cost-effective. The danger is that doctors will be financially rewarded for denying care, as were HMO physicians more than a decade ago. It was consumer outrage over despotic gatekeepers that made the HMOs so unpopular, and killed what was billed as the solution to America's health-care cost explosion.

The bills do not specifically rule out fee-for-service plans as options to be offered through the exchanges. But remember, those plans -- if they exist -- would be barred from charging sick or elderly patients more than young and healthy ones. So patients would be inclined to game the system, staying in the HMO while they're healthy and switching to fee-for-service when they become seriously ill. "That would kill fee-for-service in a hurry," says Goodman.

In reality, the flexible, employer-based plans that now dominate the landscape, and that Americans so cherish, could disappear far faster than the 5 year "grace period" that's barely being discussed.

Companies would have the option of paying an 8% payroll tax into a fund that pays for coverage for Americans who aren't covered by their employers. It won't happen right away -- large companies must wait a couple of years before they opt out. But it will happen, since it's likely that the tax will rise a lot more slowly than corporate health-care costs, especially since they'll be lobbying Washington to keep the tax under control in the righteous name of job creation.

The best solution is to move to a let-freedom-ring regime of high deductibles, no community rating, no standard benefits, and cross-state shopping for bargains (another market-based reform that's strictly taboo in the bills). I'll propose my own solution in another piece soon on Fortune.com. For now, we suffer with a flawed health-care system, but we still have our Five Freedoms. Call them the Five Endangered Freedoms. 

 [ send green star]

The bills in both houses require that Americans purchase insurance through "qualified" plans offered by health-care "exchanges" that would be set up in each state. The rub is that the plans can't really compete based on what they offer. The reason: The federal government will impose a minimum list of benefits that each plan is required to offer.

Today, many states require these "standard benefits packages" -- and they're a major cause for the rise in health-care costs. Every group, from chiropractors to alcohol-abuse counselors, do lobbying to get included. Connecticut, for example, requires reimbursement for hair transplants, hearing aids, and in vitro fertilization.

The Senate bill would require coverage for prescription drugs, mental-health benefits, and substance-abuse services. It also requires policies to insure "children" until the age of 26. That's just the starting list. The bills would allow the Department of Health and Human Services to add to the list of required benefits, based on recommendations from a committee of experts. Americans, therefore, wouldn't even know what's in their plans and what they're required to pay for, directly or indirectly, until after the bills become law.

2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs

As with the previous example, the Obama plan enshrines into federal law one of the worst features of state legislation: community rating. Eleven states, ranging from New York to Oregon, have some form of community rating. In its purest form, community rating requires that all patients pay the same rates for their level of coverage regardless of their age or medical condition.

Americans with pre-existing conditions need subsidies under any plan, but community rating is a dubious way to bring fairness to health care. The reason is twofold: First, it forces young people, who typically have lower incomes than older workers, to pay far more than their actual cost, and gives older workers, who can afford to pay more, a big discount. The state laws gouging the young are a major reason so many of them have joined the ranks of uninsured.

Under the Senate plan, insurers would be barred from charging any more than twice as much for one patient vs. any other patient with the same coverage. So if a 20-year-old who costs just $800 a year to insure is forced to pay $2,500, a 62-year-old who costs $7,500 would pay no more than $5,000.

Second, the bills would ban insurers from charging differing premiums based on the health of their customers. Again, that's understandable for folks with diabetes or cancer. But the bills would bar rewarding people who pursue a healthy lifestyle of exercise or a cholesterol-conscious diet. That's hardly a formula for lower costs. It's as if car insurers had to charge the same rates to safe drivers as to chronic speeders with a history of accidents.

3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage

The bills threaten to eliminate the one part of the market truly driven by consumers spending their own money. That's what makes a market, and health care needs more of it, not less.

Hundreds of companies now offer Health Savings Accounts to about 5 million employees. Those workers deposit tax-free money in the accounts and get a matching contribution from their employer. They can use the funds to buy a high-deductible plan -- say for major medical costs over $12,000. Preventive care is reimbursed, but patients pay all other routine doctor visits and tests with their own money from the HSA account. As a result, HSA users are far more cost-conscious than customers who are reimbursed for the majority of their care.

The bills seriously endanger the trend toward consumer-driven care in general. By requiring minimum packages, they would prevent patients from choosing stripped-down plans that cover only major medical expenses. "The government could set extremely low deductibles that would eliminate HSAs," says John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a free-market research group. "And they could do it after the bills are passed."

4. Freedom to keep your existing plan

This is the freedom that the President keeps emphasizing. Yet the bills appear to say otherwise. It's worth diving into the weeds -- the territory where most pundits and politicians don't seem to have ventured.

The legislation divides the insured into two main groups, and those two groups are treated differently with respect to their current plans. The first are employees covered by the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974. ERISA regulates companies that are self-insured, meaning they pay claims out of their cash flow, and don't have real insurance. Those are the GEs  and Time Warners and most other big companies.

The House bill states that employees covered by ERISA plans are "grandfathered." Under ERISA, the plans can do pretty much what they want -- they're exempt from standard packages and community rating and can reward employees for healthy lifestyles even in restrictive states.

But read on.

The bill gives ERISA employers a five-year grace period when they can keep offering plans free from the restrictions of the "qualified" policies offered on the exchanges. But after five years, they would have to offer only approved plans, with the myriad rules we've already discussed. So for Americans in large corporations, "keeping your own plan" has a strict deadline. In five years, like it or not, you'll get dumped into the exchange. As we'll see, it could happen a lot earlier.

 [ send green star]

By BETSY MCCAUGHEY

 [ send green star]

The law also allows preferences that treatment levels set up by patients "may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all … interventions."

McCaughey also said the Obama administration is suggesting that medical care be withheld from seniors based on the expected years they have left to live. Such a program already is in effect in the United Kingdom, where patients losing their eyesight to age-related macular degeneration cannot be given an eyesight-saving medication until they lose sight in one eye.

 [ send green star]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=104719

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

DOCTOR'S ORDERS
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Obamacare for old folks: Just 'cut your life short'
Health plan provision demands 'end-of-life' counseling

Posted: July 22, 2009
8:21 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh

WorldNetDaily

The version of President Obama's universal health care plan pending in the U.S. House would require "end-of-life" counseling for senior citizens, and the former lieutenant governor for the state of New York is warning people to "protect their parents" from the measure.

At issue is section 1233 of the legislative proposal that deals with a government requirement for an "Advance Care Planning Consultation."

Betsy McCaughey, the former New York state officer, told former president candidate Fred Thompson during an interview on his radio program the "consultation" is no more or less than an attempt to convince seniors to die.

"One of the most shocking things is page 425, where the Congress would make it mandatory absolutely that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session," she said. "They will tell [them] how to end their life sooner."

The proposal specifically calls for the consultation to recommend "palliative care and hospice" for seniors in their mandatory counseling sessions. Palliative care and hospice generally focus only on pain relief until death.

The measure requires "an explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title."

Excerpt from health care plan

It also recommends a  method for death: "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."

Another excerpt from the Obamacare plan

Then there's a third reference that sets out reporting requirements for doctors to monitor how such end-of-life orders are followed.

Under "QUALITY REPORTING INITIATIVE," the bill says, "For purposes of reporting data on quality measures for covered professional services furnished during 2011 and any subsequent year, to the extent that measures are available, the Secretary shall include quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that have been adopted or endorsed by a consensus-based organization, if appropriate. Such measures shall measure both the creation of and adherence to orders for life-sustaining treatment."

A third excerpt from Obamacare

McCaughey said she was stunned.

"As a patient advocate I am so shocked at the vicious assault on elderly people and the boomer generation," she told Thompson. "I hope people listening will protect their parents from what is intended under this bill."

She cited the federal provision that such counseling sessions must be administered every five years. If there's a significant change in the person's health or status during that time, such as an ordinary move to a nursing home because of declining physical abilities, the counseling must be administered again.

The message, she said, is "to do what's in society's best interests, and cut your life short."

"Can you imagine the response of the American people (when they find out)?" Thompson asked..

McCaughey is a health policy expert who founded HospitalInfection.org to stop hospital-acquired infections as well as DefendYourHealthCare.us concerning the proposed nationalization of health care.

 [ send green star]

Glenn Beck: Universal Health helps kill UK man

July 22, 2009 - 12:46 ET

VOICE: The Glenn Beck program presents more truth behind America's March to Socialism.

GLENN: Well, here we are standing on the precipice of government‑run healthcare. Finally all of the 80 bajillion people, which is an accurate number, 80 bajillion. We counted last time. Well, we had ACORN count for us. They are uninsured in America and they are all going to be covered. Critics will say, where are you going to get the money for all this? We can't afford this. Oh, isn't it just like those people? Sure, it's costly, $1.5 trillion even after Nancy Pelosi's millionaire tax. They are not even going to miss the money being gone. But there's still a one before the point that we have to come up with somehow, some way. Riddle me this, Batman, what's more costly? Mortgaging a trillion dollars we don't have or leaving innocent, cute, cuddly children without eyelids uninsured? I don't know about you, but I lose sleep at night knowing that there are a gazillions of ‑‑ we had ACORN count, gazillions of children in this world who lie in bed with their eyes wide open, dust particles and lint just falling there on their eyelidless eyes as they dream of getting healthcare to be able to pay for new eyelids. But no. No, the big rich industrialist doesn't want them to have eyelids. If only kids like these had government healthcare, you know, like they do in the U.K. Do you see any eyeless children in the U.K.? No. Sweden? Have you seen Abba? They have got eyelids, you bet. Don't look directly at any of our American bands, no. No lids. And if they do have lids, it's because they made enough money to go over to Sweden and get an eyelid transplant.

Same kind of thing happened to 22‑year‑old Gary Reinbach. He didn't have lids ‑‑ well, he had lids, but he drank too many adult beverages and he was in dire need of a liver transplant. Okay, so he had some adult beverages. He was making a choice. Unfortunately for Gary under his universal healthcare plan, he didn't qualify for a liver donor under the strict national healthcare service rules. "We've got to be strict. We've got to be able to have enough money for those eyeless kids ‑‑ well, not eyeless. They get eyes if they are eyeless, but they get eyes and eyelids."

Anyway, Gary was an alcoholic. Those bums. According to his family, he was desperately trying to get better, and a few weeks earlier he had checked into Alcoholics Anonymous. Unfortunately that wasn't proof enough for the powers that be, you know, the people that Charlie Rangel talks to in the elevator. They refused treatment for Gary and he died. He was 22 years old. 22. He had an addiction. He died. Now we can take his eyelids off of his dead body and give them to children in this grand universal healthcare scheme. I don't know about you, but I can't wait for government healthcare. All the caring, all the loving that's going on. They just want to give you healthcare coverage. That's all. It has nothing to do with power, control over people.

No, no, no, no. It's about you. They love you. They loved Gary. The doctors, it's said by me, that they held him and they wept with him as he died. They just, they couldn't understand why some wouldn't let him die, why some would say, "Hey, he was 22." Okay, maybe I don't want to give him my liver, but is there anybody else out there that wants to give him liver? You know what I mean? How about a cow? Can we try to stitch in a cow liver for the guy? What do you say we give him a roll? He's 22 years old. What do you say? No? How is it that we just don't care? He started drinking when he was 13. You don't want to give him a liver? Do you know what he went through as a child? Do you know what his childhood was like? Oh, my gosh. Do you know what his parents were like? "No, I have no idea what his parents were like, either, and I don't really care." Isn't that what we're all supposed to do? We're supposed to talk like this? He had a bad childhood, and his whole childhood he laid awake at night because dust was coming from the ceiling. He didn't have any eyelids. They love you. It's about you. It's about your healthcare... unless you are the main cause of your health problem and you can't prove that you're going to get better. Like me, I'm an alcoholic. All alcoholics will tell you, once you hit recovery, you'll never, ever drink again. You're done. I could work at a ‑‑ I could be a taste tester at Jack Daniels. I could prove it today. In fact, I might. Oh, and this administration might make me want to. If you can't prove you are going to get better, well, they have to kill you. But hey, at least you didn't have to make a copay for that last hospital visit.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/28243/?ck=1

 [ send green star]

July 22, 2009

Rich Hrebic
Isn't the point of the Democrats' push to reform the health care system based on establishing health care as a right?  That's what the politicians say of course.  But in reality the result will be the exact opposite. 

 [ send green star]

5 Questions for President's Health Care Press Conference 07/22/2009 - 05:18:22 PM

Tonight, President Barack Obama will address the nation in a press conference about his proposal for the federal government to takeover America’s health care system. Below are five questions Sen. DeMint has put forward that he hopes President Obama will finally answer tonight.

“We would all like to believe the president’s grand promises about health care. Unfortunately, we keep finding that his policies don’t match his promises," said Sen. DeMint. "Tonight, I hope we hear more than just rhetoric and straw man arguments, because Americans deserve real answers to the troubling facts we are learning about his plan to take over health care. Independent studies of his actual plan conclude that it would raise costs, increase the deficit, ration care, force more than 80 million Americans out of their current plans and force pro-life Americans to fund abortions with their tax dollars.”

Below are the top five questions Sen. DeMint would like the president to address:

1. If the major provisions of the health care bills will not kick in until 2013, four years from now, why the rush to pass a thousand-page bill before the August recess, a bill you admit that you haven’t fully read yourself?

2. You have said your health care bill will cut costs and not increase the deficit. But, independent analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office contradicts both claims, saying it will raise costs and increase the deficit by $240 billion in the first ten years. What independent analysis will you provide that supports your claims and refutes CBO’s?

3. You have repeatedly said that your health care bill allows any American who likes their current employer-based plan to keep it. But the most comprehensive independent analysis available, by the Lewin Group, contradicts your claim and found your bill will force over 80 million Americans to lose their current coverage. Will you provide independent analysis to refute this study?

4. Your own record in the Senate reveals you spent years voting against nearly every reform to make health care more affordable and accessible, but this week you said that opponents of your plan are “content to perpetuate the status quo, [and] are, in fact, fighting reform on behalf of powerful special interests.” Which specific elected officials will you cite that have proposed to keep the status quo, and is that how you characterize the opposition of the 52 Blue Dog Democrats in the House and the moderate Democrats in the Senate?

5. Yes or no question: Will you guarantee pro-life Americans that, under your plan, they will not be forced to subsidize elective abortions?

http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=JimsJournal.Detail&Blog_ID=a2b860eb-b299-d480-69fb-001e005cb3d5

 [ send green star]

Glimpse of Obamacare future: 83 million would lose private coverage http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/20/glimpse-of-obamacare-future-83-million-would-lose-private-coverage/

 [ send green star]

O'S BROKEN PROMISES

By BETSY MCCAUGHEY

PRESIDENT Obama promises that "if you like your health plan, you can keep it," even after he reforms our health-care system. That's untrue. The bills now before Congress would force you to switch to a managed-care plan with limits on your access to specialists and tests

Two main bills are being rushed through Congress with the goal of combining them into a finished product by August. Under either, a new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these "qualified plans." If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year "grace period" to switch you into a qualified plan. If you buy your own insurance, you'll have less time.

And as soon as anything changes in your contract -- such as a change in copays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year -- you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead (House bill, p. 16-17).

When you file your taxes, if you can't prove to the IRS that you are in a qualified plan, you'll be fined thousands of dollars -- as much as the average cost of a health plan for your family size -- and then automatically enrolled in a randomly selected plan (House bill, p. 167-168).

t's one thing to require that people getting government assistance tolerate managed care, but the legislation limits you to a managed-care plan even if you and your employer are footing the bill (Senate bill, p. 57-58). The goal is to reduce everyone's consumption of health care and to ensure that people have the same health-care experience, regardless of ability to pay.

Nowhere does the legislation say how much health plans will cost, but a family of four is eligible for some government assistance until their household income reaches $88,000 (House bill, p. 137). If you earn more than that, you'll have to pay the cost no matter how high it goes.

The price tag for this legislation is a whopping $1.04 trillion to $1.6 trillion (Congressional Budget Office estimates). Half of the tab comes from tax increases on individuals earning $280,000 or more, and these new taxes will double in 2012 unless savings exceed predicted costs (House bill, p. 199). The rest of the cost is paid for by cutting seniors' health benefits under Medicare.

There's plenty of waste in Medicare, but the Congressional Budget Office estimates only 1 percent of the savings under the legislation will be from curbing waste, fraud and abuse. That means the rest will likely come from reducing what patients get.

One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."

This mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care. Do we really want government involved in such deeply personal issues?

Shockingly, only a portion of the money accumulated from slashing senior benefits and raising taxes goes to pay for covering the uninsured. The Senate bill allocates huge sums to "community transformation grants," home visits for expectant families, services for migrant workers -- and the creation of dozens of new government councils, programs and advisory boards slipped into the last 500 pages.

The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (June 21) finds that 83 percent of Americans are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their health care, and 81 percent are similarly satisfied with their health insurance.

They have good reason to be. If you're diagnosed with cancer, you have a better chance of surviving it in the United States than anywhere else, according to the Concord Five Continent Study. And the World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors.

Congress should pursue less radical ways to cover the uninsured. We have too much to lose with this legislation.

Betsy McCaughey is founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant governor.

 [ send green star]

CNSNews.com Health Care Bill Will Fund State Vaccine Teams to Conduct ‘Interventions’ in Private Homes

President Barack Obama announces Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, left, as his nominee for Health & Human Services Secretary, Monday, March 2, 2009, in the East Room at the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)(CNSNews.com) - There is a knock at the front door. Peeking through the window, a mother sees a man and a woman, both in uniform. They are agents of health-care reform.

“Excuse me, ma’am,” says the man. “Our records show that your eleven-year-old daughter has not been immunized for genital warts.”

“And your four-year-old still needs the chicken-pox vaccine,” says the woman.

“He will not be allowed to start kindergarten unless he gets that shot, you know,” says the man—smiling from ear to ear.

“So, can we please come in?” asks the woman. “We have the vaccines right here,” she says, lifting up a black medical bag. “We can give your kids the shots right now.”

“We are from the government,” says the man, “and we’re here to help.”

Is this a scene from the over-heated imagination of an addlepated conspiracy theorist? Or is it something akin to what is actually envisioned by the health-care reform bill approved this week by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee.

The committee’s official summary of the bill says: “Authorizes a demonstration program to improve immunization coverage. Under this program, CDC will provide grants to states to improve immunization coverage of children, adolescents, and adults through the use of evidence-based interventions. States may use funds to implement interventions that are recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force, such as reminders or recalls for patients or providers, or home visits.”

Home visits? What exactly is the state going to do when it sends people to “implement interventions” in private homes designed “to improve immunization coverage of children”?

The draft of the bill posted on the committee Web site provides more details.

Title III of the bill is entitled, “Improving the Health of the American People.” It includes four subtitles. They are: “Subtitle A: Modernizing Disease Prevention of Public Health Systems,” “Subtitle B: Increasing Access to Clinical Preventive Services,” “Subtitle C: Creating Healthier Communities,” and “Subtitle D: Support for Prevention and Public Health Information.”

The program authorizing home “interventions” to promote immunizations falls under “Subtitle C: Creating Healthier Communities.” This subtitle directs the secretary of health and human services to “establish a demonstration program to award grants to states to improve the provision of recommended immunizations for children, adolescents, and adults through the use of evidence-based, population-based interventions for high-risk populations.”

The bill lists eight specific ways that states may use federal grant money to carry out immunization-promoting “interventions.” Method “E” calls for “home visits” which can include “rovision of immunizations.”

Says the draft bill: “Funds received under a grant under this subsection shall be used to implement interventions that are recommended by the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (as established by the secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) or other evidence-based interventions, including—“(A) providing immunization reminders or recalls for target populations of clients, patients, and consumers; ( educating targeted populations and health care providers concerning immunizations in combination with one or more other interventions; (C) reducing out-of-pocket costs for families for vaccines and their administration; (D) carrying out immunization-promoting strategies for participants or clients of public programs, including assessments of immunization status, referrals to health care providers, education, provision of on-site immunizations, or incentives for immunization;(E) providing for home visits that promote immunization through education, assessments of need, referrals, provision of immunizations, or other services; (F) providing reminders or recalls for immunization providers;(G) conducting assessments of, and providing feedback to, immunization providers; or (H) any combination of one or more interventions described in this paragraph.”

Many vaccines routinely administered to children in the United States are utterly uncontroversial. But in recent years there have been controversies about the chicken pox vaccine and the vaccine for HPV, which causes genital warts, which can cause cervical cancer.

On March 15, 2007, Bloomberg news summarized a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which discovered that the chicken pox vaccine does not provide permanent protection against chicken pox, leaving children who have been immunized vulnerable to getting ill with the virus later in life when it can cause a more serious bout of the disease.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51115

 [ send green star]

Since she never has been covered by either Medicare or Medicaid, her doctors were selected by her and paid either directly by her or in combination with private health insurance she maintained.

"Under the Hippocratic Oath, state law and federal law while the medical records are the property of the plaintiff’s health care providers, the information contained in the records remains property of the plaintiff and the health care providers are required by law to maintain that information in strict confidentiality."

But the new law, the lawsuit said, "attempts to render the privacy provided under federal law, state law, the Hippocratic Oath and HIPAA null and void."

 [ send green star]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=103419

Friday, July 10, 2009

WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Obama's plan to save money: Deny you medical treatment
Lawsuit challenges government 'guidance' to doctors

Posted: July 09, 2009
11:50 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh

WorldNetDaily

A nurse has filed a lawsuit against the medical records provisions of President Obama's stimulus bill alleging it not only gives government officials access to personal health records, it opens the door for bureaucrats to make health care decisions.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court for the Southern District of New York by Beatrice Heghmann, a nurse from Durham, N.H. It targets the health sections of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that demand all health care records be put into an electronic format.

The recently filed claim cites the authorization of the "Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology."

The lawsuit explains the federal law specifies, "The National Coordinator shall perform the duties under subsection (c) in a manner consistent with the development of a nationwide health information technology infrastructure that allows for the electronic use and exchange of information and that among other functions provides appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care."

Using the personal information, the lawsuit claims, "the National Coordinator will monitor treatments to make sure the plaintiff's doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective."

The lawsuit said the federal plan's goal "is to reduce costs and 'guide' plaintiff's doctor's decisions."

The language is virtually identical to what former Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., prescribed in his 2008 book "Critical, What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis" after voters in his state refused to return him to Washington.

"According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and 'learn to operate less like solo practitioners,'" the lawsuit said. "The National Coordinator will be able to enforce his decision as to what is appropriate treatment through sanctions against health care providers. Health care providers that are not 'meaningful users' of the new system will face penalties. 'Meaningful user' is not defined in the Stimulus Act. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose 'more stringent measures of meaningful use over time.'"

The result is that penalties that could be imposed against doctors that would "deter the plaintiff's health care providers from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols should (a medical) condition become atypical," the lawsuit said.

Further, the demand that all health records be kept electronically would put the plaintiff's personal information "a mouse-click away from being accessible to [strangers]."

That amounts to an unconstitutional release of her personal and private health information, the lawsuit says.

Named as defendants are Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and other Obama administration officials.

Twila Brase, president of the Citizens' Council on Health Care, has been working on privacy issues related to health care records for years. She's seen some success in Minnesota, where health officials have been taking DNA from newborns and archiving it for eventual research use.

She said while the wording of the stimulus law is convoluted, it appears to set up a requirement for all medical records to be posted online so that government administrators in Washington could review a diagnosis as well as a prescription and apply pressure to the doctor if they felt the treatment was more expensive than they wanted.

Brase said the federal law calls for a single electronic medical record for every U.S. resident by 2014 and providing access to those records to "providers, health plans, the government, and other interested parties."

Worst of all, she said, it appears to eliminate a state's right to impose stricter privacy standards as provided by the current federal law, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

Brase said in a nextgov report that the bottom line is that privacy would be in the hands of a Washington bureaucrat instead of a physician.

Analysts said they believe there will be similar lawsuits over the privacy of medical records.

The lawsuit seeks class-action status, and explained that the plaintiff, as a patient, "was required [on several occasions] and in the future will be required to reveal intimate aspects of her life to the health care provider during the course of consultation and treatment."

Since she never has been covered by either Medicare or Medicaid, her doctors were selected by her and paid either directly by her or in combination with private health insurance she main

 [ send green star]

OBAMA WILL REPEAL MEDICARE

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published on DickMorris.com on July 9, 2009

Obama's health care proposal is, in effect, the repeal of the Medicare program as we know it. The elderly will go from being the group with the most access to free medical care to the one with the least access. Indeed, the principal impact of the Obama health care program will be to reduce sharply the medical services the elderly can use. No longer will their every medical need be met, their every medication prescribed, their every need to improve their quality of life answered.

http://www.vote.com/mmp_printerfriendly.php?id=1541

 [ send green star]

A Natural Health Line article by Peter Chowka reads:

“… we have a date for the official end of alternative medicine, and for the medical freedom on which alternative medicine is based: October 2009.

On June 12, 2009, the U.S. press reported that President Obama wants a universal health care bill on his desk by next October. The Democrats in Congress are promising to give it to him. Not only will such legislation unalterably change the practice of medicine (including exponentially expanding the role of the anti-alt med federal government), it will force all Americans to carry conventional allopathic medical insurance, whether they want it or not.

Now, consider that alternative medicine has been able to grow and thrive in recent decades because people have had the ability and choice to pay for it themselves, almost exclusively out of their own pockets. Many people who are of independent mind and who are better educated have chosen not to invest in conventional medicine, including bloated insurance for medical care they don’t want.

Instead, they often direct their personal resources to healthy lifestyles and primary prevention (such as organic food, nutritional supplements, etc.) and to non-toxic, traditional, unconventional, or alternative treatments.

When all Americans (except those who can prove poverty to a government apparatchik) will be required to pay thousands of dollars annually for allopathic insurance, the ability to choose alternatives will be severely if not totally impaired.”

This scenario may become the unfortunate reality for many, and makes universal health care coverage part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I agree with Congressman Ron Paul in that health insurance should be for major emergencies only. It doesn’t need to be the sole route for every problem, which is turning out to be a financial catastrophe.

If You Demand It, They Will Follow

Doctors, that is.

It’s very easy to cast blame on doctors. After all, medical errors are the leading cause of death in the U.S.

However, whether or not doctors succeed in upholding the Hippocratic Oath – the promise to Do No Harm – is not always entirely in their own hands.

The conventional medical system is simply not designed to give them that freedom. It’s VITAL that you understand that regardless of their personal opinions, many times they’re simply not allowed to offer you any other alternatives than what the “standard protocol” demands.

Unfortunately, that does place a certain amount of responsibility onto you, the patient. Because although there may be much safer means to help with your ailment, if you go to a conventional physician, he or she is likely not going to tell you about them unless you ask, and ask in an appropriate way. This previous article highlights this issue and offers guidance on how you can best work WITH your doctor to get the best care.

Medical Doctors are Leaving the Profession in Droves

The fact that many American doctors are as fed up with (and victims of) the system as you are, is evident by the fact that:

• One U.S. physician commits suicide each day. On the average, death by suicide is about 70 percent more likely among male physicians than among other professionals, and 250 percent to 400 percent higher among female physicians
• Half of all physicians want to quit practicing three years after receiving their degrees

Why do so many doctors want out?

One major factor is “factory medicine” and the subsequent loss of autonomy to make the best decisions for each patient on a case-by-case basis, as discussed by Dr. Pamela Wible in the July issue of Spirituality & Health Magazine.

Based on her own frustration with the system, followed by depression and wanting to quit, she developed a brand new community-based health care clinic that includes what her community said they wanted from “the clinic of their dreams.” (To read more about this pioneering doctor, who took matters into her own hands rather than giving up, please see her website.)

She believes many doctors are literally dying to be allowed to truly care for their patients in a space of cooperation and trust.

Nearly every available index shows that the current multitrillion dollar investment in disease-care is a miserable failure.

Isn’t it time to realize that some of the best ways to improve your health are very inexpensive? Some are even free. And leave major medical insurance for actual emergencies.

 [ send green star]

A recent article on the WIP.net web site points out numerous reasons why health care costs have run amok. One major problem that is inflating costs is the staggering number of medically unwarranted surgeries being performed each year.

Topping the list of the most over-utilized surgeries in the U.S. are cesarean sections and hysterectomies.

According to the National Center for Health Statistics, more than 31 percent of the 4.3 million births in 2006 were surgical, at a price tag of anywhere between $2,000 and $200,000 each. Planned cesarean births cost an average 76 percent more than a vaginal birth, according to a 2007 report published in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.

And the rate of hysterectomies in America is nothing short of appalling.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than one-third of American women have had their female organs removed by the age of 60.

By the age of 65, HALF of all women have had a hysterectomy!

But that’s not the most shocking part of the statistics. In her WIP article, Nora Coffey states:

“Findings from more than 850,000 counseling sessions at the HERS Foundation in Philadelphia puts the percentage of hysterectomies that could be avoided with conservative treatment (or no treatment at all) at about 98 percent.”

More than $17 billion a year is spent on direct doctor and hospital charges for hysterectomies – most of which are completely unnecessary!

Clearly, unwarranted surgical interventions are costing tax payers billions of dollars each year, in the form of Medicare/Medicaid payouts or higher insurance premiums.

Who benefits?

Doctors and hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies, of course.

Are YOU Ready to Root Out the Driving Force Behind Skyrocketing Costs and Falling Health Statistics?

The truth is that the terrible health statistics of the U.S. are primarily caused by the drug cartel and the food industry. Worse yet, it’s not by accident, nor by ignorant oversight, which is why no politician will likely ever be able to fix it.

The drug industry has been able to manipulate and control the U.S. Congress to pass just about any and every law they need to increase their profits. Once you understand how they control the government, you realize how they are diverting hundreds of billions of dollars for their hyperinflated drug prices. This money goes into their own pockets and has nothing to do with making you healthier.

There is NO PILL that can make you healthier! They can only mask symptoms, and more often than not cause additional health problems.

It is this diversion of funding that is the primary reason why American health is so poor. If these funds were spent wisely and not used for products that don’t work and that aren’t safe, there is no doubt in my mind the United States would lead the world in health stats.

So, the question I ask myself when I watch this ongoing drama with politicians squabbling over private- versus government-funded health care insurance plans is:

Will Any Of The Options On The Table Fix The Underlying Problem?

Will a government-sponsored health plan reduce the number of unnecessary prescriptions? Will there be fewer unwarranted surgeries? Will it reduce costs by focusing on prevention, and offering less dangerous and more inexpensive alternatives?

I believe the answer is no.

The focus is still on allopathic medicine; the ability for everyone to afford its conventional therapies and treatment protocols.

So whether a public health care plan is a good idea or not is almost beside the point, because what we REALLY need is a radical change in consciousness about what health and health care really is.

As long as the focus of our health care is on drugs and surgical interventions, we will never see the fundamental changes that are so desperately needed.

No politician will be able to accomplish this feat, so sitting around waiting for it is futile. It can only be done by YOU changing how you think about health care and your health.

It can only be accomplished one person at a time, until so many people refuse the unnecessarily dangerous and counterproductive solutions currently offered by conventional medicine that there will be no option left but for the system to change to your will.

But we cannot dawdle too long.

Some are already blowing their warning trumpets, showing why, when it comes to demanding health care insurance coverage for all, you should be careful what you ask for.

A Natural Health Line article by Peter Chowka reads:

“… we have a date for the official end of alternative medicine, and for the medical freedom on which alternative medicine is based: October 2009.

On June 12, 2009, the U.S. press reported that President Obama wants a universal health care bill on his desk by next October. The Democrats in Congress are promising to give it to him. Not only will such legislation unalterably change the practice of medicine (including expo

 [ send green star]

after a pit bull tore off his upper lip. Mrs. Obama’s hospital gave the boy a tetanus shot, antibiotics, and Tylenol and shoved him out the door. The mother and son took an hour-long bus ride to another hospital for surgery.

I’ll guarantee you this: You’ll never see the Adams family featured at an Obama policy summit or seated next to the First Lady at a joint session of Congress to illustrate the failures of the health care system.

Following the Adams incident, the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) blasted Mrs. Obama and Mr. Axelrod’s grand plan. The group released a statement expressing “grave concerns that the University of Chicago’s policy toward emergency patients is dangerously close to ‘atient dumping,’ a practice made illegal by the Emergency Medical Labor and Treatment Act (EMTALA)” – signed by President Reagan, by the way – “and reflected an effort to ‘cherry pick’ wealthy patients over poor.”

Rewarding political cronies at the expense of the poor while posing as guardians of the downtrodden? Welcome to Obamacare.

***

You can pre-order Culture of Corruption now at Amazon.

***

Related reading: David Catron on Michelle O’s “Urban Health Initiative” (now run by Obama longtime crony Dr. Eric Whitaker) and see also registered nurse Carol Peracchio on ACORN General Hospital.

Posted in: Health care, Michelle Obama

 [ send green star]

Dear Readers:

Medicare is up to it again, again trying to put dangerous restrictions on Vitamin D testing. Although the proposed guidelines for reimbursement are not as restrictive as Medicare's recent proposal, this proposal is restrictive none the less and, within a few months, will be adopted by your insurance company and every major insurance company in the country.  Here is Medicare's new proposal:

http://www.highmarkmedicareservices.com/policy/mac-ab/dl30273.html

Measurement of vitamin D levels would only be indicated for patients with:

• chronic kidney disease stage III or greater
• cancer
• cirrhosis
• diabetes
• fibromyalgia
• granuloma forming diseases
• hypocalcemia
• hypercalcemia
• hypovitaminosis D
• long term use of anticonvulsants or glucocorticoids
• malabsorption states
• obstructive jaundice
• osteoporosis (unresponsive to therapy)
• osteomalacia
• osteosclerosis
• psoriasis
• rickets
• vitamin D deficiency on replacement therapy; to monitor the efficacy of treatment

It would forbid screening, the most important use of the test.  That is, hypovitaminosis D is covered but your doctor can't order the test to find out if you suffer from low Vitamin D in the first place.

You can send your comments via the Internet using the link below.  For using the link below for your comments, this proposal's LCD number is DL30273.  The name of the proposal is "Vitamin D Assay Testing."

http://www.highmarkmedicareservices.com/policy/form-comments.html

If you'd rather send a letter, which is better, sent it to:

Ms. Anna Gene Risoldi
Senior Research Analyst
Highmark Medicare Services
1800 Center Street, 1AL3
Camp Hill, PA 17089
 
May I also ask that you send an email with your comments to Dr. Daniel B. Kimball, Jr., drdankimball@gmail.com>  He's on the AMA board that reviews this policy.  

John Cannell, MD

The Vitamin D Council585 Leff StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401

 [ send green star]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451570546396929.html

Congressional Democrats will soon put forward their legislative proposals for reforming health care. Should they succeed, tens of millions of Americans will potentially be joining a new public insurance program and the federal government will increasingly be involved in treatment decisions.

Not long ago, I would have applauded this type of government expansion. Born and raised in Canada, I once believed that government health care is compassionate and equitable. It is neither.

My views changed in medical school. Yes, everyone in Canada is covered by a "single payer" -- the government. But Canadians wait for practically any procedure or diagnostic test or specialist consultation in the public system.

Martin Kozlowski

The problems were brought home when a relative had difficulty walking. He was in chronic pain. His doctor suggested a referral to a neurologist; an MRI would need to be done, then possibly a referral to another specialist. The wait would have stretched to roughly a year. If surgery was needed, the wait would be months more. Not wanting to stay confined to his house, he had the surgery done in the U.S., at the Mayo Clinic, and paid for it himself.

Such stories are common. For example, Sylvia de Vries, an Ontario woman, had a 40-pound fluid-filled tumor removed from her abdomen by an American surgeon in 2006. Her Michigan doctor estimated that she was within weeks of dying, but she was still on a wait list for a Canadian specialist.

Indeed, Canada's provincial governments themselves rely on American medicine. Between 2006 and 2008, Ontario sent more than 160 patients to New York and Michigan for emergency neurosurgery -- described by the Globe and Mail newspaper as "broken necks, burst aneurysms and other types of bleeding in or around the brain."

Only half of ER patients are treated in a timely manner by national and international standards, according to a government study. The physician shortage is so severe that some towns hold lotteries, with the winners gaining access to the local doc.

Overall, according to a study published in Lancet Oncology last year, five-year cancer survival rates are higher in the U.S. than those in Canada. Based on data from the Joint Canada/U.S. Survey of Health (done by Statistics Canada and the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics), Americans have greater access to preventive screening tests and have higher treatment rates for chronic illnesses. No wonder: To limit the growth in health spending, governments restrict the supply of health care by rationing it through waiting. The same survey data show, as June and Paul O'Neill note in a paper published in 2007 in the Forum for Health Economics & Policy, that the poor under socialized medicine seem to be less healthy relative to the nonpoor than their American counterparts.

Ironically, as the U.S. is on the verge of rushing toward government health care, Canada is reforming its system in the opposite direction. In 2005, Canada's supreme court struck down key laws in Quebec that established a government monopoly of health services. Claude Castonguay, who headed the Quebec government commission that recommended the creation of its public health-care system in the 1960s, also has second thoughts. Last year, after completing another review, he declared the system in "crisis" and suggested a massive expansion of private services -- even advocating that public hospitals rent facilities to physicians in off-hours.

And the medical establishment? Dr. Brian Day, an orthopedic surgeon, grew increasingly frustrated by government cutbacks that reduced his access to an operating room and increased the number of patients on his hospital waiting list. He built a private hospital in Vancouver in the 1990s. Last year, he completed a term as the president of the Canadian Medical Association and was succeeded by a Quebec radiologist who owns several private clinics.

In Canada, private-sector health care is growing. Dr. Day estimates that 50,000 people are seen at private clinics every year in British Columbia. According to the New York Times, a private clinic opens at a rate of about one a week across the country. Public-private partnerships, once a taboo topic, are embraced by provincial governments.

In the United Kingdom, where socialized medicine was established after World War II through the National Health Service, the present Labour government has introduced a choice in surgeries by allowing patients to choose among facilities, often including private ones. Even in Sweden, the government has turned over services to the private sector.

Americans need to ask a basic question: Why are they rushing into a system of government-dominated health care when the very countries that have experienced it for so long are backing away?

Dr. Gratzer, a physician, is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

 [ send green star]

Those with Chronic Lyme who need antibiotics won't get them. Those who need pain meds, forgetaboautit.

http://www.vote.com/mmp_printerfriendly.php?id=1491

 [ send green star]

not worth doing these things. Don't waste the money on old people. They're not going to live long anyway. Spend it on someone who meets the requirements of our cost benefit analysis. So old people, thanks for all the contributions you made to society during your better years but now we're sorry to say it's time to send you to a better place, heaven.

 [ send green star]

Yesterday Glenn presented the horrible story from the UK of the last survivor of the Titanic. She is a 97 year old woman who is going broke because she can't pay healthcare costs after breaking her hip. At the Senate hearings on health care reform, experts giving testimony are already trying to figure out ways to prepare for the inevitable health rationing that will have to take place. What's the easiest way to cut costs? Let the old people die. Tell the older beloved relatives in your family you love them and give them a hug because once Obama gets his 'cost benefit' healthcare plan in place -- there won't be a place for old people. ( Transcript, Insider Audio)

Universal Health and Old peopleAudio Available: 

May 13, 2009 - 12:07 ET

Voice: The Glenn Beck program presents more truth behind America's march to socialism.

Glenn: Yesterday, I told how you how the socialized health system in the UK was letting the last survivor of the Titanic go bankrupt because they weren't covering her health costs. Mark my words, they're going to start selling us universal healthcare as a solution to our Social Security and Medicare costs, Medicaid, it's all going under. They're going to revamp it. This is really dangerous. Why is it dangerous?

Because look how it's happening and how it's working so wonderfully anywhere it's being tried. Hollywood, it kills me. Hollywood actually had step in. Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet bailed this 97 year old woman out to save her from healthcare despite endless examples of healthcare rationing in the healthcare system, Obama still full speed ahead on pursuing universal healthcare. He actually said that, you know, we all got to have the top flight medical care. It's not good enough that some people in our country have the best medical care. Excuse me?

How are you going to be able to afford everyone having top flight medical care?

You won't. You'll level the playing field which means we'll all have crappy healthcare. Don't worry, old people, though, it's going to be great. You're going to love it. When I say you're going to love it, I don't mean healthcare. I mean, heaven. You should see it especially this time of year. You can't get there fast enough. Let me tell you universal healthcare will help you do it. Why?

Because of the cost benefit analysis. At the Senate finance committee hearings on healthcare reform, Professor Stuart Altman of Brandeis University said that resources get wasted in the American healthcare system. Wasted. Well, what does that mean?

He means that it gets wasted specifically in one segment of the population. Old people, if you think I'm hyping it, his tonight to his words himself. Here's the audio record.

Voice: Remember, our population is aging and at the very, very elderly, the costs go down so that percentage should be falling and it's not. Second, the cost of care is growing by so much so at the same percentage it's worth a lot more. So let's go back to the issue of comparative effectiveness which we're supporting. That's where that can have a big impact. It's not the only place. But that's where the waste is. That's where people are using technologies that really either don't work at all or keep people alive for very limited and very high costs. Hospice is one option, but we do need to take account of the?? you know, I hate to say it, the cost benefit of some of the things we do and either we can do it directly or we can do it by bundling payments and let the delivery system deal with it. So it's a combination of the delivery system dealing with it or?? and/or you providing more information for people that make the right decisions, both for themselves and for their care.

Glenn: Do you understand what he just said?

What he said?? this should terrify people. He's saying you can either let the delivery system do it, in other words, the healthcare system can just say, yeah, you're not going to get that. You're too old. You're a drain on society. I'm sorry, no kidney dialysis for people over 70. What is it in the UK?

60. Some the things they cut off once you outlived your usefulness.

This is Nazi Germany stuff.

This is the kind of stuff that is progressive in its nature. It is eugenics. It is survival of the fittist. It is the reason why the abortion argument makes so much difference. You can't devalue life at either end because these people are waiting to swoop in and say it's just

 [ send green star]

Glenn Beck: March to Socialism - Titanic

Audio Available: 

May 12, 2009 - 12:26 ET

 America's March to Socialism: Why we're one step closer to giant missile parades
is now available as an audio book...

VOICE: The Glenn Beck program presents more truth behind America's March to Socialism.

GLENN: Oh, that's right, my friends. From behind my cardboard microphone, the March to Socialism which is in bookstores now, the audio book. Dateline: London. Titanic stars Leonardo diCaprio and Kate Winslet have pledged now to help the last survivor of the sinking of the ocean liner Titanic, Millvina Dean. She was just a couple of months old when the ship sank. She's 97 years old now, the last survivor. Dean has been living in the English city of Southampton since she broke her hip about three years ago. Gee, I wonder what happened. Did she get robbed or something? Stars say that they have thrown their support behind a fund which would subsidize Millvina Dean's nursing home fees. Wait a minute. Why is ‑‑ I have to ‑‑ Stu, is this in San Diego? Are you sure there is not in America? It's not in ‑‑ huh. I can't imagine why Leonardo diCaprio and Kate Winslet are being forced to step in and help pay for healthcare. I mean, it's nice and everything but it's socialized healthcare. There's no need. It's the greatest system on God's green Earth. There's nobody that wants for anything!

According to the report, Dean had to sell several Titanic mementos in order to raise cash as she struggles to keep up with nursing home fees.

There's no nursing home fees. Stu, this is wrong. This is universal. Everybody gets ‑‑ and she gets a lollipop at the end of the day every day.

STU: I bet the report comes from some capitalist journalism newspaper.

GLENN: Oh, I bet it's from Big Doctor. She's 97 years old. She's been paying into the system for at least 50 years. I'm sure she's feeling now like those taxes were well spent. Hey, thanks for the contribution; we normally save your life but you're kind of old now. I mean, wouldn't it make sense to spend money, you know, on somebody younger than you? You've led a good life. Maybe you can kick the bucket tomorrow. Our bad. Got to run. DiCaprio and Winslet started the Millvina Fund and launched it in Belfast, Northern Ireland. Interesting story about Northern Ireland, especially when it comes to healthcare. I mean, do they have enough? Sure. In Northern Ireland they have four health boards. Wow. One, no. Two, uh‑uh. Three can't even cover it. They have four health boards, and they have 19 health and social services trusts and 15 local health and social care groups and four health and social services councils which are all involved in the commissioning and provision of health and social services and yet all of those can't help the poor little old lady just try to stay in the nursing home. "Just let me breathe one more day." An iceberg couldn't kill this woman... but universal healthcare is about to.

 [ send green star]

"The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept 'hopeless diagnoses' and 'forgo experimental treatments,' and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system," she said.

She said the plan simply needs more review.

"The bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn," McCaughey said.

She said doctors would end up with no choice about treatments.

"Hospitals and doctors that are not 'meaningful users' of the new system will face penalties," she warned.

The Institute for Health Freedom today also renewed its warning because the system is scheduled to be mandatory for everyone.

"IHF calls on Americans who care about health privacy to contact their members of Congress and President Obama to voice their own opinions about the need for opt-out and patient consent provisions, to ensure true patient privacy rights," the organization said.

Blevins' organization, one of the few raising the alarm at this point, said the stimulus plan would impose an electronic health records system on every person in the U.S. without any provision for seeking patient consent or allowing them not to participate.

"Without those protections, Americans' electronic health records could be shared – without their consent – with over 600,000 covered entities through the forthcoming nationally linked electronic health-records network," Blevins said.

"Nobody wants to stop the proper use of good technology," Blevins said, "and for some people privacy is not an issue."

But she said the bottom line is that patients "would end up losing control of his or her personal health information."

WND previously has reported on attempts in Minnesota by state lawmakers to authorize the collection and warehousing of newborns' DNA without parental consent.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty has been successful in stopping the action there so far.

The Citizens' Council on Health Care has worked to publicize the issue in Minnesota. The group raised opposition when the state Department of Health continued to warehouse DNA without parental consent in violation of the genetic privacy and DNA property rights of parents and children.

 [ send green star]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=88457

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

By Bob Unruh

The former lieutenant governor of New York is warning that the $50 billion that President Obama expects to spend in the next few years on a nationwide digital health records system for every individual easily could, and probably will, result in rationed medical care.

WND recently reported on a little-discussed provision in Obama's plan that would demand every American submit to a government program for electronic medical records without a choice to opt out, raising alarms for privacy advocates.

Privacy advocates said patients might be startled to discover personal information could be shared electronically with, perhaps, millions of people, including documentation on abortions, mental health problems, patient non-compliance, lawsuits against doctors and sexual problems.

Sue A. Blevins, president of the Institute for Health Freedom, said unless people have the right to decide "if and when" their health information is shared, there is no real privacy.

Now Betsy McCaughey, former lieutenant governor of New York and an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, has released a commentary warning about the likelihood of rationed care – or a health care system that simply provides treatment when it determines the cost-benefit ratio for the treatment and the patient meets its guidelines.

Obama plans to spend $50 billion "over five years" to create a system of electronic health records for every person who sees a doctor.

"Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion," wrote McCaughey. "These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department."

"If the Obama administration's economic stimulus bill passes … in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face … rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later."

Other nations that utilize such programs typically deny costly treatments to patients who are senior citizens, and McCaughey warns that would be the case in the United States, too.

"Daschle says health-care reform 'will not be pain free.' Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt," she warned.

"Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost-effectiveness standard," she said.

McCaughey noted Daschle has written of such plans, modeled after the United Kingdom, which include a national board to make necessary decisions.

"This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis," she wrote.

She cited a 2006 ruling in the U.K. that determined elderly patients with macular degeneration must go blind in one eye before getting treatment with a costly drug to save their other eye, a decision that outraged taxpayers who eventually forced a change.

"Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition," McCaughey said.

The stimulus plan calls its board the "Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research."

 [ send green star]