Posted on 12/31/2011 12:26:30 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
There are quite a few problems with Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar's December 28 coverage ("New fee coming for medical effectiveness research") concerning a new fee (i.e., tax) which will imposed on health insurance companies for each person they cover starting tomorrow.
Several times (twice in the body and once as seen above in the headline), the story refers to the assessment as a "medical effectiveness research" fee (without quotes). Just once, in the eleventh paragraph, does Alonso-Zaldivar call it by its far more widely-known name (written as indicated): "comparative effectiveness" research. But the item which stuck out like a sore thumb with me, and should also do so for anyone else who closely followed how the stimulus bill got enacted into law as well as the Obamacare discussions later that year,, was the following paragraph (bolds are mine):
The 2009 economic stimulus bill included $1.1 billion for medical effectiveness research, mainly through the National Institutes of Health. It was not considered particularly controversial. But things changed during the congressional health care debate, after former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin made the claim, now widely debunked, that Obama and the Democrats were setting up "death panels" to ration care. First of all, the idea was described as "comparative effectiveness" in the actual stimulus bill -- 17 times.
Second, Alonso-Zaldivar is wrong in contending that the idea of comparative effectiveness "was not considered particularly controversial."
Of course it wasn't controversial in the run-up to the stimulus bill's passage because, as House Republican Leader John Boehner emphatically pointed out on the day of the vote, no one was given time to read the 1,100-page, 186,000-word bill before they voted on it.
Once the provision was discovered and vetted, it became quite controversial, as AP's weak-sister brethren at UPI pointed out on February 24, 2009, just over a week after President Obama signed the bill (presented in full because of its brevity):
Obscure healthcare measure ignites furor
An obscure healthcare provision tucked into the $787 billion economic stimulus bill has caused a firestorm of controversy, analysts say.
U.S. President Barack Obama's bill included $1.1 billion for "comparative effectiveness," which backers contend would establish a better system for tracking the performances of drugs, medical devices and surgical procedures. They say it would improve quality of care and ultimately save billions of dollars, the Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday.
But conservatives and healthcare industry supporters quickly pounced by saying the effort promotes socialized medicine -- providing a sobering preview of fierce ideological battles to come should Obama move forcefully to reform the healthcare system, analysts said.
Congressional Republicans began labeling the comparative-effectiveness research provision as a step toward "government-run healthcare." And liberals fought back, with left-wing bloggers excoriating what they called inaccurate and misleading comments from conservative healthcare commentator Betsy McCaughey, the Times said.
The LA Times article to which the UPI report refers is incredibly biased, claiming that McCaughey's efforts to call out the statist and patient preference-ignoring aspects of HillaryCare in the early 1990s were "largely discredited" (they weren't, which is largely why HIllaryCare never became law).
The Times article mentions (without linking) McCaughey's February 9, 2009 Bloomberg op-ed, where she authoritatively raised the specter of what Sarah Palin in August 2009 figuratively (by using quote marks around the words in her Facebook post) characterized (correctly, Ricardo, despite what the propagandists at Politifact think) as "death panels" (bolded words justify Palin's characterization):
Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan
Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.
Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health.
... One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective.
... 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.”
... 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 (“Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis” -- Ed.), Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.
... 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.
... This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy.
Sarah Palin's figurative claim (which never had the words "setting up" in it) was never "widely debunked" on substance, except in the fevered minds of leftists and the press apparatchiks like Ricardo Alonso-Zalidivar. In fact, subsequent events and other things we have learned about how Obamacare will really operate show that "Sarah Palin is Owed a Huge Apology" and is turning out to be literally correct.
AP once claimed to be a news organization — but this claim has been widely debunked and everyone now acknowledges the fact that AP is a propaganda arm of the Democrat Party.
The Associated Depressed is nothing more then mouth pieces for Obama and his cronies. Everyone knows that “Death Panels” are real..for God’s sake they had to take it out of the damn bill before it was passed.
There is stuff in this bill that has nothing to do with healthcare that is law and we have no idea what it is. This bill needs to be killed in it’s entirety imediately without delay.
Total bunk. It’s been Twittered...
.
Although sad she isn’t running, I’m glad she’s comfortable and with her family.
What a frikking nightmare this is. I’ve been unemployed for over 2 yrs.
"AP lies bald-faced yet again".
no one was given time to read the 1,100-page, 186,000-word bill before they voted on it.
And yet they voted anyway. Those voting with the president sold their souls, voting for they knew not what. Those voting against ought to have refused to vote at all. The law is illegitimate. A congress that votes for a law they didn't write and didn't read is itself illegitimate and deserving of impeachment if there were anyone left with the moral authority to impeach them.
A president who rules by decree, issuing laws that get passed unread, is a dime-store Hugo Chavez. As others have said, he isn't the problem though. The people who voted for him and the lawmakers who laid down for him are the problem. We can survive a usurper in the White House. We can't survive if people just roll over.
As Obama is fond of saying "Let's be clear": "units" over 70 will be told to take a pain pill.
Lies, Damned Lies, and ‘Fact Checking’: The liberal media’s latest attempt to control the discourse.
The subtitle says a lot. These "Fact Checks" treat questions of interpretation, opinion, or prediction as if they were open-and-shut cases of truth or lie, and most of the "fact checks" are directed against Republicans, rather than Democrats.
There’s healthcare related stuff in other bills, such as the comprehensive student data base to be administered by Arne Duncan, Dept. of Education. Children’s health records and parents’ voting status will be included in the data base.
Congresscritters of any party should vote no if they haven’t had time to read the bills.
The Death panels were not in the health care bill because they were already created and funded by the stimulus bill.
The panel already exists and you can look up and see pictures of the people who are on it.
Betsy McCougney originated the term “death panels”, in her NY race and debate, and appeared using the term on FOX, and was bashed for it by Jon Stewart on his show.
Sarah smartly picked up the dead-on phrase, twittered it as her own, attributed it to no one, and has gotten by with owning it ever since, thanks partly to her fans, who from the get-go required nothing original from Sarah at any point after the sparkling speech at the convention. Given her utilitarian purpose to McCain where she dutifully served, Palin was properly perched to garner broad exposure to Betsy’s remark, pull it off as her own, and keep the accolades.
But...
But...
But...
In the Obamacare bill, aren’t people over the age of seventy referred to as ‘units’?
And...
And...
And...
Isn’t medical care denied to people in the Obamacare bill, I mean, UNITS, over the age of 70?
And didn’t Obama say that granny might just need to take a pill instead of getting treatment?
yeah, some Facebook slime tried to tell me that Reaganomics has been well debunked.. I said, ‘Gee, guess I missed that Salon article.’
Prettier than you, is she?
Poor Rita is just upset that her boy Perry as been exposed as an incompetent moron.
We shouldn’t rub it in.
They are going to ration care if this bill does not get repealed in entirety.
Older folks are going to pay more than they can afford for lousier care than they have now.
This is the left’s answer to SS. Just make sure all the old folks get denied care.
Then they die.
” Prettier than you, is she? “ <<<<
Definitely, prettier than me. And, more manipulative.
Some of you can’t ever argue the issue for staring at the package. Her beauty, nor mine, has nothing even remotely to do with the fact I posted but much to do with superficiality. I think I get it, now.
Perry, when you check those JOBS figures, is not exactly incompetent. There are some brilliant folks out there who can’t touch those numbers, btw. Rub that in.
Keep telling yourself that looks is why the majority of her supporters back her. I backed Reagan, Thompson, Haig, Forbes and Barbour. Must’ve been their looks there, too, huh?
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.