Posted on 02/24/2009 12:03:30 PM PST by Jim Robinson
"Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system," writes Betsy McCaughey, adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. "Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.
"But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and 'guide' your doctor's decisions."
In short, rationing.
The above quote is from an excellent editorial in the Augusta Chronicle, as reported by Free Republic (hat tip to Gateway Pundit), that focuses on Senator Jim DeMint's contention that citizens are going to need to take to the streets to protest the Stimulus Bill, not only due to the uncontrolled spending but due to the nationalization of healthcare contained in the bill.
The perpetrators of the 'economic stimulus bill (which is nothing more than a spending bill for liberal projects) inserted funding for nationalizing healthcare, the result of which will be rationing, especially for senior adults.
Very little was made over the provision due to the fact that the Democratic majority rammed the bill through Congress in a hurry, leaving very little time for debate or even to read the 1000-page document.
Because the new national coordinator of healthcare will be looking over your doctor's shoulders, if you are deemed too old or sick to receive expensive treatments, then you will be out of luck. According to former Democratic Senator Tom Daschle, whose ideas form the core of this part of the bill, the elderly who are in poor health should simply be allowed to die rather than receive expensive medications and treatment.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Wasnt there a RAT governor who caused a minor ruckus some years back when he said old people have an obligation to “die and get out of the way?”
I think it was a former governor of Colorado.
His son, now 19 has been diagnosed with the same untreatable cancer. About the best that can be done is gamma knife surgery that only seems to kick the can down the road about 6 months to the inevitable. The family has money and insurance and it not a drain on the government but what and how much do you spend.
‘It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors’
Maybe a duplicate test will CATCH an error!
The legislation enacted in the last month or so is to our market economy as Reagan’s star war initiative was to the collapse of the Soviet Union. And I don’t believe it is unintentional.
A mental pic of Ted Kennedy popped in my head when I read that.
It doesn’t bode well for the elderly and disabled.
Why yes, that was our own Governor Richard Lamm. Old people have a “duty to die”.
Sometimes tests are technically flawed...and need to be repeated.
Sometimes things go wrong with "tests"..and need to be repeated.
I don't expect some frickin Federal Government bean counter to understand it...nor decide when another test is warranted or not.
Old RAT governors excepted, of course. I believe he's still with us.
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
What happened to the law where we have to sign a release before medical info can be shared?
So, will there eventually be no need to obtain a second medical opinion? Perhaps they’d still be needed for certain diagnostics in some cases, but if the government is going to restrict treatment options in the long run, it seems to me that getting the opinion of other doctors will be discouraged or dis-allowed for the elderly, disabled etc.
Another question I’ve wondered is where do the lawyers fit in with all this upcoming health care rationing? Will it be possible to sue the government if a death or worsening of a condition is later deemed to have been preventable except that treatment was withheld by the government?
Won’t there be a decrease in certain malpractice suits because the finger can be pointed at the government toadies?
I’d be surprised if the American Bar association took that lying down...
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.