Google it.
Sec 401 "Tax on individuals without acceptable Healthcare coverage"
Sec 441 "Surcharge on Higher Income Individuals"
Sec 1173(a) references the "HITECH Act of 2009" and requires Electronic Medical Records
Sec 122(a) "Essential Benefits"
Sec 442 "worldwide interests" ?????
Sec 114 "substance abuse disorder?
Even the title is a lie. If you have ever been across the US border, stating "America" as a declaration of citizenship to get back in is an unacceptabl answer. The Correct answer is "United States of America". So my question is who is this garbage legislation intended for? America encompasses a large section of the continent and is not United States exclusive. There are provisions in there for Puerto Rico and terretories.
Dingle,Rangle, Waxman, Stark, Pallone, Andrews and Miller all made sure their name was put on the header of this bill. Rangle-sits on weighs and means which is the guy in charge of tax code and he can't even stay out of trouble with the IRS. Good thing Dems are investing him. He donated 2 million dollars to the DNC, so they should have enough money to do a real thourough investigation. Isn't he the same moron who stated that they didn't read the laws they voted on because they needed a team of lawyers and more time to read the bills? I don't think they know what this thing really is- just a tax on the poor disguised as fee for the wealthy.
I only read through the document until I got PO'd at some of the crap I saw. There's a so-called Grandfather clause. Basically, Insurance can't change your coverage after after the law is inacted if you have a policy in force 1 year prior to day 1 of year 1, but if you have a policy older than that they can still have the exclusions (drop condititions they already have) which is exactly what BHO is saying what is wrong with the insurers and why he is urgently trying to get this passed.
Also it looks like the hr3200 is only going be be good for 5k for individuals and 10k for families per year, at least that's the most sense I could make of it. The is going to be a commitee headed by the SG and then 8 Pres. appointees to preside over it. A trust set up with a 10 billion dollar start. Oh, and JOE WILSON was right about illegals, the medicare/medicaid provisions cover them (not to mention the very title of the document), also the Social Security Act. The only way illegal Immigrants wouldn't be covered under this is if they are specifically excluded from the benefits and they are not.
AZ has passed a resolution that is going to public vote that will not require AZ residents to participate in Federal HC. MN,NM,IN,ND, and WY are working on similiar legislation.( article by Fred Lucas; cnsnews.com/news/article/50304) Maybe we an send enough emails to MO to get something akin tothose pieces of state legislation. We already have bills introduced to exercise state sovreignty.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Why Government run healthcare is a bad idea-besides the obvious
There are so many reasons, that I don't know where to start. I was once told that the only successful government program was the eradication of the Indians....hmmmm, kind of looks like the government is real good at destroying.
I do believe something DOES need to be done,but this program is not it. Maybe just simply banning no drop and no pre-existing exclusions is the simple answer. Just more funding to medicare and the VA would accomplish the objective of insuring the "5%" that have no healthcare insurance.
Make those programs easier to qualify for. Right now, if you make more than Minimum wage at a part time job, it overqualifies you for the benefits that the 'hardcore unemployed' can recieve. If you make enough money to pay your own rent, then you make to much to qualify for the government run medicare. Maybe there should be incentives to work without loosing the government benefits that we have extended to the destitute.
US Government run healthcare, even if its from the public option on insurance completetly undermines "The American Way", and here is how:
1)- Folks who can't afford healthcare now probably won't take the option either until they become sick and need a Doctor. This will circumvent money generated by premiums and our tax dollars will pay for their treatment, thus putting the US Gov. Healthcare Company in need of a bailout in really short order. ( Sen. Baucus' plan to fine persons for failing to carry health insurance is illegal, the government cannot force us into a contract-its in the constitution; auto-insurance is different because driving is voluntary) We already have devices(laws) in place and laws to enforce these devices (other laws) for Emergency treatments.
Sen. Baucus plan will penalize the folks who can't afford health insurance. These fines will be imposed on people effectively for no other reason than for being poor. Congress has stopped talking about the 'public option' because it is not an option, Baucus' bill will get sneaked through,probably on a revenue bill in October.
The folks who will bear the brunt of this dispicable legislation will be the very folks congress is claiming to help, and these folks lack the income to pay an Attorney that is competent enough to challenge the matter all the way up to the US Supreme Court. We will get stuck with Government Healthcare if we don't al least bring it up in conversation, that's how the word spreads-through our normal interactions with our fellow citizens.
Medicaid and medicare, the VA are all government sponsored and they are going broke and are working on deficits. The only solutions to try to reverse the trend is to try to cut spending on these programs. Cutting spending in these programs means cutting treatments, dropping care for particuliar diseases, closing facilities, downsizing medical staffs-including MDs, cutting salaries of administrators, and putting ceilings on what the government will pay for certian conditions(required surgeries, dialysis,etc) or drugs.
Lessening the payroll of competent people to save bucks deminishes the quality of performance at those levels, whatever levels they may be. Why would you work for for the Government if you were competent and skilled enough to work in the private sector for triple wages and only have to deal with 1/2 the beaucracy and associated paperwork.
Saving money also means foregoing the latest technologies in healthcare at these facilities. Some early detection and scanning equipment costs can run into the hundres of thousands of dollars and then there are the associated payrolls of the certified technicians to operate that equipment, so whatever Technology is available at the facility will be doomed to obselescence because it will not be replaced with the latest and greatest.
2)- "Salary Caps" in healthcare is not a good idea. There is nothing directly in the several heathcare bills that cap pay levels of medical proffessionals, but, by setting maximums on the cost paid by the government (in already existing policies) leaves no choice other than to deminish the Dr.s' fees that constitute as part of the treatment.
Recently I read where they tried(or are trying) this with banks. The article referenced Kenneth Fienberg as Obama's 'pay czar'. He was setting max pay and bonus for the TARP banks and was bragging about being able to "claw back" bonuses that were paid before TARP took effect. (Article is by Michelle Malkin, just google "pay czar" and you can read it yourself)
The problem is that many of the banks have already replaced their incompetent leaders with folks that can fix the problems, make the banks profitable and get out of the TARP debt. These competent people do fetch the very high salaries and because of the Revenue Reconcilliation Act of 1993, salaries over a certian amount have to be made in the form of "bonus".
The attack on the word bonus makes it sound like these CEOs are getting extra rewards for failing, but in reality, the bonus is part of their salary, and that is what the 'pay czar' is clawing back.
Because of this, the competent CEOs will work for other banks, even banks in other countries like the RBS(Royal Bank of Scotland) that do a lot of business in the US. These highly competent and qualified people will be working against the very banks that our tax dollars bailed out on loan because the task with the TARP banks is now worth more than the job pays. I think this type of pay schedule will drive potential Doctors into the other high paying proffesion of Lawyer. Lord knows we don't have enough of those.
3)- Quality of care will deminish because there is no incentive to improve treatments and no real way to compensate for that.
The original idea behind healthcare costs was to implement maximums that could be charged to everybody- remember when the healthcare mantra was "the same cost for the same treatment"?
That notion will be implemented eventually because (see reasons 1) we'll want to stop the green hemmoridge of money spent on healthcare, and a fixed cost will seem like a good idea.
If there is ever an implemented fixed cost or maximum per dose charge, what would be the incentive to spend millions of dollars to research and develop new drugs and treatments if there is a potential that the maximum revenue generated over time may be less than the cost of development? I think the prudent thing for business to do in such a situation would be to save the R and D money and apply it to advertising. Doncha already want that little purple pill?
Obama made a speech prior to his vacation and in it he stated that he wanted to shorten the patent expirations so that these new drugs could be available through the generic and discount suppliers sooner. If you couple that with maximum per-dose charge, there is no incentive to produce anything new because manufactures will be competing with their own product and sooner. If there is a counter to make the original maker the lifetime patent holder, then there is no incentitive to improve that drug.
4)- Regulation of Doctor's fees. If MD becomes a government job (and basically that's what it looks like) Then there will be fixed costs on treatment and office visits, covered by the 'public option'. This also means that a person who suffers a minor ailment (sniffles, Jammed finger, minor sunburn) that would not ordinarily seek medical treatment for such 'nuisance' maladies will begin going to the local hospitals. We already have a problem with certian demographics using the Emergency room doors as a substitute for the general practitioner (which is why medicaid is broke).
These nontreatment maladies will certianly take up more of the MD's time. A serious ailment could be overlooked or mis-diagnosed, because there are many other patients to tend to. There are no good solutions for this scenario.
The MD could delegate minor symptoms to be handled by lesser qualifed members of his staff. (I have already experienced this 1st hand with a treatment for bloodclots stemming from a surgery. The staff looked at bi-monthly bloodtest results and told the Dr. what she saw,the Dr. then advised her what to tell me on the phone. After a few months it was discovered she was giving him the the readings from the wrong part of the test results).Would you want a CNA examining you for a headache symptom that could be a bloodclot or tumor or a child's exposure to a poison? Mmmmm...Aspirin.
Right now we have some of the best MDs in the world working right here in the US. If they become overwhelmed with patients the other 2 solutions would be to a) make more DRs or B) set quotas on the minimum number of patients a Doctor has to see in a day.
Making more Doctors would require lowering the bar to make it easier for people to become Doctors. I really don't think I want the D student treating me, if I have a choice.That is another way quality of care will be deminished (but it be affordable).
Seting quotas will probably be imposed by Hospital administrators so that they don't lose funding qualifications by Uncle Sam. This won't be good either if you read the third paragraph up from this one. I don't like the idea of being examined by a doctor who is in a tremendous hurry and I really dont like the potential of a lessor qualified aid trying to tell a doctor what they think my prognosis is, and have the trusting Doctor make a diagnosis and treatment based on that.
If you don't think Doctors offices will be overrun with minor ailments, consider this: We all know of atleast 1 person who runs to the Dr every time their kid sneezes. Imagine how many more will be able to do that if the care is cheap.
Look at how much we are spending on medicaid. If you know anybody who has kids that are on it, pay attention to how often they take their kids to the doctor verses how many times you take yours. It will really make you mad when you compare their cost for treatment to yours.
Imagine the whole country doing that.
As a parent, you have probably told your young son to "shake it off" or Had Mommy kiss it and make it better. Maybe the cost of treating your kids for injuries will drop in the short term, but remember that you get what you pay for. Would you rather see a splint on a broken arm that needed surgery or an arm not deformed because the Doctor was astute enough to recognise that it needed surgery?
Some people don't have the sense to recognise non-scarring, non-permanent, and non life-threatening injuries. These people will begin pouring out of the woodwork if there is a government option. Doctors will end up conditioned to the fact that most of their office visits are by over concerned parents or hypochondriacs believing the sneeze 2 days ago was either caused by swine flu or toxic mold. It'll be so bad that a Doctor will miss the compound fracture and slap a band-aid over the hole in the skin caused by the bone that poked through, because the skills and abilities will be deminished because of..see above paragraphs.
5)- Because of reason 3 (efforts to stop hemmoridging money to this prgram), Government WILL eventually dictate what kind of treatments will be administered, and to whom.
If you know a smoker, do you think it is fair that they are going to pay the same for a smoking related heart and lung transplant as say a peson who has never smoked. What if a 20 year old non-smoker and a 79 year old lifelong smoker need the same treatments, is it fair that both should pay the same? One has paid a lot more into the system than the other, but also, that same smoker has already outlived his life expectancy. Is it fair for the tax payer to foot the same amount of money for both? Even Obama made a comment about how truly unnecessary were hip replacements for our nations elderly. (I can't remember what exactly he said but it was around the same buzz of Sara Palin's death panel comments).
If we are to be fair, then there will have to be some kind of incentive to take care of ourselves, but that is a broad and subjective task.
Running everyday is hard on joints, why should a non-jogger be forced to pay for orthopedic surgeries of wannabe athletes? Why should a smoker be forced to pay for that, they don't even have a life expectancy long enough to wear out joints. What about paying for the long term care of motorcycle or mountian climbing accident victims who are now paralized?
If you choose to eat fatty food and have a heart attack, well that's not the tax payer's fault. Do you have a high stress proffession? Stress causes everthing from heart disease to cancer, Government should not fund the treatment because the causes were the voluntary actions of the sufferers of the ailments. Ironically, MD is a high stress job, so who'd want if their pay is going to be deminished and they become ineligible for the treatment of the associated stress-related ailments.
I hope you can see where I am going with this. There is nothing specifically addressing this now, but the current healthcare plan opens the door to all of this if it gets passed. The very lifestyle you lead involves risk and those risks lead to some kinds of health problems down the road. What will happen is you will end up paying for a system that your very lifestyle makes you ineligible for. You may not think that denying payment for the healthcare of a smoker, junk-food junkie, or stunt man is even in the realm of possibility, but there are people who will raise hell over paying for such treatments and then politicians will use that notion as the next "healthcare overhaul" platform.
6)- There are already provisions for EMR (Electronic Medical Records). Many healthcare offices are already being paid to talk their patients into going this way. That's fine if you don't care about your privacy. What if an STD at age 20 was a reason to disqualify you from a treatment at age 60? Right now these programs are funded by Government (40 bilion dollars worth) and outsourced to private companies.
I can see the bonefied convenience of this, particulairly in areas of prescription drugs, but I think that is all that should be on the EMR. I can see where it can stop abuse and fake or forged prescriptions and where it will also keep people from "shopping" doctors to get more prescriptions.
We have medic alert bracelets for allergies and diebetes, maybe that info can go on an EMR also, but I don't want anyone other than the Medical Proffessional I am doing business to know My ENTIRE medical history.
This program will need a separate and unique beaurocracy of its own pretty soon. It was proposed as a way to save money and time, but the privacy aspects and potential of abuse are too great to do without some kind of better oversight.
Can you imagine being labeled as a potential suspect of terrorism or as disgruntled postal employee crazy because the 6 hour wait in the lobby to see a doctor made you pissed-off by the time you actually spoke to one? A day like that could bound you to a no-fly list for the remainder of your days, just because of a commnt posted to your EMR by a staffer who didn't appreciate your demeanor that day.
7)- Right now they are talking like insurance companies will not be able to cancel your policy if you ever have to put it to use. There is NOTHING that will keep the insurance companies from denying to take you on as a customer in the first place. They are like any other business that has the right to refuse service to anybody. That means there may be an ailment or a condition that the Insurer will not want to take a chance on and that you, as a potential customer may not even be aware of.
Maybe that insurance questionaire from your last employer (the one where you checked "smoking" or maybe "non-smoking", but the urinalysis tested pos. for nicotine) or perhaps something in your EMR indicates that you are high risk- and you may not know what that factor is. Since those folks are deemed un-insurable in the private sector, those high risk patients will be forced to take the so-called public option, and guess who'll be stuck with even more treatments to pay for. (Hint-it won't be the private insurance compaies).
I do believe something DOES need to be done,but this program is not it. Maybe just simply banning no drop and no pre-existing exclusions is the simple answer. Just more funding to medicare and the VA would accomplish the objective of insuring the "5%" that have no healthcare insurance.
Make those programs easier to qualify for. Right now, if you make more than Minimum wage at a part time job, it overqualifies you for the benefits that the 'hardcore unemployed' can recieve. If you make enough money to pay your own rent, then you make to much to qualify for the government run medicare. Maybe there should be incentives to work without loosing the government benefits that we have extended to the destitute.
US Government run healthcare, even if its from the public option on insurance completetly undermines "The American Way", and here is how:
1)- Folks who can't afford healthcare now probably won't take the option either until they become sick and need a Doctor. This will circumvent money generated by premiums and our tax dollars will pay for their treatment, thus putting the US Gov. Healthcare Company in need of a bailout in really short order. ( Sen. Baucus' plan to fine persons for failing to carry health insurance is illegal, the government cannot force us into a contract-its in the constitution; auto-insurance is different because driving is voluntary) We already have devices(laws) in place and laws to enforce these devices (other laws) for Emergency treatments.
Sen. Baucus plan will penalize the folks who can't afford health insurance. These fines will be imposed on people effectively for no other reason than for being poor. Congress has stopped talking about the 'public option' because it is not an option, Baucus' bill will get sneaked through,probably on a revenue bill in October.
The folks who will bear the brunt of this dispicable legislation will be the very folks congress is claiming to help, and these folks lack the income to pay an Attorney that is competent enough to challenge the matter all the way up to the US Supreme Court. We will get stuck with Government Healthcare if we don't al least bring it up in conversation, that's how the word spreads-through our normal interactions with our fellow citizens.
Medicaid and medicare, the VA are all government sponsored and they are going broke and are working on deficits. The only solutions to try to reverse the trend is to try to cut spending on these programs. Cutting spending in these programs means cutting treatments, dropping care for particuliar diseases, closing facilities, downsizing medical staffs-including MDs, cutting salaries of administrators, and putting ceilings on what the government will pay for certian conditions(required surgeries, dialysis,etc) or drugs.
Lessening the payroll of competent people to save bucks deminishes the quality of performance at those levels, whatever levels they may be. Why would you work for for the Government if you were competent and skilled enough to work in the private sector for triple wages and only have to deal with 1/2 the beaucracy and associated paperwork.
Saving money also means foregoing the latest technologies in healthcare at these facilities. Some early detection and scanning equipment costs can run into the hundres of thousands of dollars and then there are the associated payrolls of the certified technicians to operate that equipment, so whatever Technology is available at the facility will be doomed to obselescence because it will not be replaced with the latest and greatest.
2)- "Salary Caps" in healthcare is not a good idea. There is nothing directly in the several heathcare bills that cap pay levels of medical proffessionals, but, by setting maximums on the cost paid by the government (in already existing policies) leaves no choice other than to deminish the Dr.s' fees that constitute as part of the treatment.
Recently I read where they tried(or are trying) this with banks. The article referenced Kenneth Fienberg as Obama's 'pay czar'. He was setting max pay and bonus for the TARP banks and was bragging about being able to "claw back" bonuses that were paid before TARP took effect. (Article is by Michelle Malkin, just google "pay czar" and you can read it yourself)
The problem is that many of the banks have already replaced their incompetent leaders with folks that can fix the problems, make the banks profitable and get out of the TARP debt. These competent people do fetch the very high salaries and because of the Revenue Reconcilliation Act of 1993, salaries over a certian amount have to be made in the form of "bonus".
The attack on the word bonus makes it sound like these CEOs are getting extra rewards for failing, but in reality, the bonus is part of their salary, and that is what the 'pay czar' is clawing back.
Because of this, the competent CEOs will work for other banks, even banks in other countries like the RBS(Royal Bank of Scotland) that do a lot of business in the US. These highly competent and qualified people will be working against the very banks that our tax dollars bailed out on loan because the task with the TARP banks is now worth more than the job pays. I think this type of pay schedule will drive potential Doctors into the other high paying proffesion of Lawyer. Lord knows we don't have enough of those.
3)- Quality of care will deminish because there is no incentive to improve treatments and no real way to compensate for that.
The original idea behind healthcare costs was to implement maximums that could be charged to everybody- remember when the healthcare mantra was "the same cost for the same treatment"?
That notion will be implemented eventually because (see reasons 1) we'll want to stop the green hemmoridge of money spent on healthcare, and a fixed cost will seem like a good idea.
If there is ever an implemented fixed cost or maximum per dose charge, what would be the incentive to spend millions of dollars to research and develop new drugs and treatments if there is a potential that the maximum revenue generated over time may be less than the cost of development? I think the prudent thing for business to do in such a situation would be to save the R and D money and apply it to advertising. Doncha already want that little purple pill?
Obama made a speech prior to his vacation and in it he stated that he wanted to shorten the patent expirations so that these new drugs could be available through the generic and discount suppliers sooner. If you couple that with maximum per-dose charge, there is no incentive to produce anything new because manufactures will be competing with their own product and sooner. If there is a counter to make the original maker the lifetime patent holder, then there is no incentitive to improve that drug.
4)- Regulation of Doctor's fees. If MD becomes a government job (and basically that's what it looks like) Then there will be fixed costs on treatment and office visits, covered by the 'public option'. This also means that a person who suffers a minor ailment (sniffles, Jammed finger, minor sunburn) that would not ordinarily seek medical treatment for such 'nuisance' maladies will begin going to the local hospitals. We already have a problem with certian demographics using the Emergency room doors as a substitute for the general practitioner (which is why medicaid is broke).
These nontreatment maladies will certianly take up more of the MD's time. A serious ailment could be overlooked or mis-diagnosed, because there are many other patients to tend to. There are no good solutions for this scenario.
The MD could delegate minor symptoms to be handled by lesser qualifed members of his staff. (I have already experienced this 1st hand with a treatment for bloodclots stemming from a surgery. The staff looked at bi-monthly bloodtest results and told the Dr. what she saw,the Dr. then advised her what to tell me on the phone. After a few months it was discovered she was giving him the the readings from the wrong part of the test results).Would you want a CNA examining you for a headache symptom that could be a bloodclot or tumor or a child's exposure to a poison? Mmmmm...Aspirin.
Right now we have some of the best MDs in the world working right here in the US. If they become overwhelmed with patients the other 2 solutions would be to a) make more DRs or B) set quotas on the minimum number of patients a Doctor has to see in a day.
Making more Doctors would require lowering the bar to make it easier for people to become Doctors. I really don't think I want the D student treating me, if I have a choice.That is another way quality of care will be deminished (but it be affordable).
Seting quotas will probably be imposed by Hospital administrators so that they don't lose funding qualifications by Uncle Sam. This won't be good either if you read the third paragraph up from this one. I don't like the idea of being examined by a doctor who is in a tremendous hurry and I really dont like the potential of a lessor qualified aid trying to tell a doctor what they think my prognosis is, and have the trusting Doctor make a diagnosis and treatment based on that.
If you don't think Doctors offices will be overrun with minor ailments, consider this: We all know of atleast 1 person who runs to the Dr every time their kid sneezes. Imagine how many more will be able to do that if the care is cheap.
Look at how much we are spending on medicaid. If you know anybody who has kids that are on it, pay attention to how often they take their kids to the doctor verses how many times you take yours. It will really make you mad when you compare their cost for treatment to yours.
Imagine the whole country doing that.
As a parent, you have probably told your young son to "shake it off" or Had Mommy kiss it and make it better. Maybe the cost of treating your kids for injuries will drop in the short term, but remember that you get what you pay for. Would you rather see a splint on a broken arm that needed surgery or an arm not deformed because the Doctor was astute enough to recognise that it needed surgery?
Some people don't have the sense to recognise non-scarring, non-permanent, and non life-threatening injuries. These people will begin pouring out of the woodwork if there is a government option. Doctors will end up conditioned to the fact that most of their office visits are by over concerned parents or hypochondriacs believing the sneeze 2 days ago was either caused by swine flu or toxic mold. It'll be so bad that a Doctor will miss the compound fracture and slap a band-aid over the hole in the skin caused by the bone that poked through, because the skills and abilities will be deminished because of..see above paragraphs.
5)- Because of reason 3 (efforts to stop hemmoridging money to this prgram), Government WILL eventually dictate what kind of treatments will be administered, and to whom.
If you know a smoker, do you think it is fair that they are going to pay the same for a smoking related heart and lung transplant as say a peson who has never smoked. What if a 20 year old non-smoker and a 79 year old lifelong smoker need the same treatments, is it fair that both should pay the same? One has paid a lot more into the system than the other, but also, that same smoker has already outlived his life expectancy. Is it fair for the tax payer to foot the same amount of money for both? Even Obama made a comment about how truly unnecessary were hip replacements for our nations elderly. (I can't remember what exactly he said but it was around the same buzz of Sara Palin's death panel comments).
If we are to be fair, then there will have to be some kind of incentive to take care of ourselves, but that is a broad and subjective task.
Running everyday is hard on joints, why should a non-jogger be forced to pay for orthopedic surgeries of wannabe athletes? Why should a smoker be forced to pay for that, they don't even have a life expectancy long enough to wear out joints. What about paying for the long term care of motorcycle or mountian climbing accident victims who are now paralized?
If you choose to eat fatty food and have a heart attack, well that's not the tax payer's fault. Do you have a high stress proffession? Stress causes everthing from heart disease to cancer, Government should not fund the treatment because the causes were the voluntary actions of the sufferers of the ailments. Ironically, MD is a high stress job, so who'd want if their pay is going to be deminished and they become ineligible for the treatment of the associated stress-related ailments.
I hope you can see where I am going with this. There is nothing specifically addressing this now, but the current healthcare plan opens the door to all of this if it gets passed. The very lifestyle you lead involves risk and those risks lead to some kinds of health problems down the road. What will happen is you will end up paying for a system that your very lifestyle makes you ineligible for. You may not think that denying payment for the healthcare of a smoker, junk-food junkie, or stunt man is even in the realm of possibility, but there are people who will raise hell over paying for such treatments and then politicians will use that notion as the next "healthcare overhaul" platform.
6)- There are already provisions for EMR (Electronic Medical Records). Many healthcare offices are already being paid to talk their patients into going this way. That's fine if you don't care about your privacy. What if an STD at age 20 was a reason to disqualify you from a treatment at age 60? Right now these programs are funded by Government (40 bilion dollars worth) and outsourced to private companies.
I can see the bonefied convenience of this, particulairly in areas of prescription drugs, but I think that is all that should be on the EMR. I can see where it can stop abuse and fake or forged prescriptions and where it will also keep people from "shopping" doctors to get more prescriptions.
We have medic alert bracelets for allergies and diebetes, maybe that info can go on an EMR also, but I don't want anyone other than the Medical Proffessional I am doing business to know My ENTIRE medical history.
This program will need a separate and unique beaurocracy of its own pretty soon. It was proposed as a way to save money and time, but the privacy aspects and potential of abuse are too great to do without some kind of better oversight.
Can you imagine being labeled as a potential suspect of terrorism or as disgruntled postal employee crazy because the 6 hour wait in the lobby to see a doctor made you pissed-off by the time you actually spoke to one? A day like that could bound you to a no-fly list for the remainder of your days, just because of a commnt posted to your EMR by a staffer who didn't appreciate your demeanor that day.
7)- Right now they are talking like insurance companies will not be able to cancel your policy if you ever have to put it to use. There is NOTHING that will keep the insurance companies from denying to take you on as a customer in the first place. They are like any other business that has the right to refuse service to anybody. That means there may be an ailment or a condition that the Insurer will not want to take a chance on and that you, as a potential customer may not even be aware of.
Maybe that insurance questionaire from your last employer (the one where you checked "smoking" or maybe "non-smoking", but the urinalysis tested pos. for nicotine) or perhaps something in your EMR indicates that you are high risk- and you may not know what that factor is. Since those folks are deemed un-insurable in the private sector, those high risk patients will be forced to take the so-called public option, and guess who'll be stuck with even more treatments to pay for. (Hint-it won't be the private insurance compaies).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
