Skip to comments.Despite Daschle, Health Reform To Be a ‘Central Focus’ of Obama Budget (Too old? Too bad.)
Posted on 02/09/2009 4:46:53 PM PST by Libloather
Despite Daschle, Health Reform To Be a Central Focus of Obama Budget
February 9, 2009, 9:29 am
Posted by Sarah Rubenstein
Tom Daschles recent withdrawal from the HHS nomination has some people worried about the prospects for major health reform.
Those folks may take some solace in something a senior administration official told the Treatment, the New Republics nifty health-care blog: Health care will be a central focus of Obamas first budget proposal.
The specifics are far from clear, but the comment is a signal that the administration isnt giving up on health reform. In anonymous interviews with the New Republic, administration officials have said that people shouldnt doubt the presidents commitment to the cause.
Ive been in meetings with him and its clear this guy is committed to getting health care and getting coverage to everybody, one high-ranking member of the administration told TNRs Jonathan Cohn. Theres no question in my mind.
Presidential budget proposals actually dont have a lot of legal significance, since Congress passes a budget without a presidential signature, the blog notes. But they have a lot of influence in terms of laying out the presidents priorities.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
Doctors have to join the federal community here in dolling out treatment so that it's fair and equitable. "Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity," Betsy McCaughey writes, "goes too far. Hospitals and doctors that are not 'meaningful users' of the new system will face penalties. 'Meaningful user' isn't defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose 'more stringent measures of meaningful use over time' (511, 518, 540-541). What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the 'tough' decisions elected politicians won't make. The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). 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." Now, the page numbers that I'm giving you here refer to the PDF inversion of HR1EH, the stimulus bill, not Daschle's book but the actual stimulus bill. Betsy McCaughey just read it and she's reporting what's in it. So Daschle says we need to become more like Europe. People need to accept catastrophic diagnosis and forget it. If you're told it's over, it's over. We can't keep spending money on people who want experimental treatments! We just can't do this. Now, "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." You read that right.
Daschle says senior citizens "should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age," instead of trying to have them treated. "Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost-effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464). The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle's book. 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." For example: "In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye.
"It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision. If the Obama administration's economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later." Let me translate this for you. You are a seasoned citizen. You come down with a disease that is not immediately life-threatening. You go into your doctor. The doctor consults the federal database to get your health care records. He then has to consult this new health council board. They then figure the cost of treating whatever's wrong with you, based on the statistics that tell 'em how long you're going to live -- and if the cost vastly outweighs the number of years you're going to live, they will deny you treatment.
That's what Daschle says you just need to become accepting. Seniors need to become accepting of their condition. Basically you need just go away and die. We don't have the money. I'll tell you the architect for this. I mean, she credits Daschle, but who was that governor in Colorado? It was Robert Lamm of Colorado: Old people have "a duty to die." Get out of the way because they're putting too much pressure on the health care system. Younger people, they'll get the treatment because it will be more cost effective. The statistics say they'll live longer. Now, the reason that I'm harping on this... We got the call from the nurse. I wanted to tell her what was in this bill to reflect... This is in the stimulus bill. This is national health care, essentially. It is in the "stimulus bill," and they snuck it in.
Daschle advised Obama, "Stick it in here because the way the Clintons tried it failed. They went big. They went all in. It allowed for people to oppose it and tear it apart. Do it stealthily. Do it where nobody knows it's happening," like the amnesty bill was tried. There are so many things like this in the stimulus bill that have nothing to do with stimulus but have everything to do with advancing the liberal agenda and strengthening and repairing the Democrat Party. Now, the Democrats, every campaign cycle, love to run around and accuse the Republicans of wanting to deny senior citizens Social Security, maybe kick 'em out of their houses or what have you. It is the Democrat apart which is essentially, in the stimulus bill, setting up procedures whereby the older you are, the more likely you are to have treatment denied simply because it isn't gonna be worth the money.
“The specifics are far from clear, “
That says it all.
This bill is an idealogical wish list. It increases gov’t and takes away liberties.
Some tidbits from Tiny Tom:
“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.”
“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.”
“an appointed body with vast powers to make the ‘tough’ decisions elected politicians won’t make.”
As usual, Rush is right. VERY scary stuff hidden in Porkulus.
Anybody hear Specter on Hannity this afternoon? Did he ask Specter about this?
If you’re over 60, forget about “free” healthcare. You’ll be asked to “sacrifice” yourself “for the children.” This is the Commie DemocRATS’ plan to save Social Security. Kill anyone who is eligible to receive it. How’s the “new direction” America thing going so far?
The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.
Norman Thomas, American socialist
I'm sure glad I spent those years of my youth studying, going without sleep, accruing debt, and then paying back student loans so that I could be told by a group of egotistical ill-informed jerks how to treat patients, while they pander for votes.
Sounds like the Elderly dont have but a prayer under Obama’s plan for Health care...
I’ll coin the name: Single Prayer Health Care
I’m 68 years old. Of course there is now and always will be rationing of health care, and of course younger people will receive some priority over old people.
Too much money is spent prolonging life of a very feeble old persion. Why? Because it denies money for treatment of a younger person who will live many more years of productive life for the expenditure.
As I speak of spending on health care here I’m referring to an ill person receiving money from all the rest of us for his treatment. It’s an entirely different matter if he spends his own money on his treatment or if he pays for insurance and receive what his policy provides.
The overriding problem with health care spending is that it’s become crazy-expensive. Those 8 children born recently to that lady will cost over two million dollars by the time they’re released from the hospital. Let’s guess whose dollars they will be.
We can’t afford all the health care that we would like everyone to have. Nowhere near.
An let’s be clear. There are deadbeats out there that mess themselves up and don’t deserve a penny of my money for treatment.
Today’s health care providers recommend treatments. Who are we to evaluate those recommendations. How can we say no when a life is in balance. We are big time over a barrel.
Thanks for posting that.
Unless, of course, you are one of the self-anointed elite in this country - then no expense public or private will be spared in extending life even just a few more days.
>Too much money is spent prolonging life of a very feeble old persion. Why? Because it denies money for treatment of a younger person who will live many more years of productive life for the expenditure.<
What are you talking about?? People in this country, at least for the present, pay for their own insurance, that provides healthcare. If Granddad worked all of his life and saved up enough money to pay for insurance, are you saying you think his money should be used to pay to treat some young, less productive person, who might live longer?
That said, if you want to save your estate so it will go to your heirs, refuse treatment. It’s your choice made by your own free will.
Quit thinking like a slave.
The Final Solution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.