Posted on 06/10/2017 12:36:42 PM PDT by Lorianne
Edited on 06/10/2017 12:59:59 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
More than a decade ago the media were excited that Hillary Clinton and Newt Gingrich had formed an alliance about reforming health care. In 2005 Dana Milbank wrote in gushing terms in the Washington Post about a joint appearance.
Of course, they were not alone. President Bush had already embraced the idea in his State of the Union speech to Congress. He envisioned a new era of
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
It’s not called the uniparty fer nuttin’...
As a side note to this thread, please consider the following previous posted material.
”President Bush had already embraced the idea in his State of the Union speech to Congress. He envisioned a new era of “improved information technology to prevent medical error and needless costs [emphasis added].”"
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Unconstitutional, post-17th Amendment ratification federal regulation of the INTRAstate medical profession, evidenced by Supreme Court opinion excerpts below, is a bucket of worms imo.
For example, if Pres. Bush 43 was so concerned about questionable healthcare costs, then why did he seemingly ignore unconstitutional federal regulation of health insurance, evidenced by the fifth entry in the list below from Paul v. Virginia.
After all, corrupt politicians possibly unconstitutionally regulated health insurance to front-end wealth redistribution in order to win votes.
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the care of our persons [emphasis added], our property, our reputation and religious freedom.” —Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801.
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” —Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
"4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract [emphases added] of indemnity against loss.” —Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
"Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress.” —Linder v. United States
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. …” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!
Remember in November ’18 !
Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.
Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.
In fact, if Justice Gorsuch turns out to be a liberal Trojan Horse then we will need 67 patriot senators to remove a House-impeached Gorsuch from office.
Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.
While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.
Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed above.
I have my meds and history in Microsoft Word (not so bad off I need a spreadsheet!) but my experience is the opposite of yours, I've never had someone force me to read off my printed records, they all have thanked me to have the courtesy to provide them a printed record. Just my observation.
Bttt.
5.56mm
There is a wonderful term for the whole phenomenon. It is called "managerialism."
Managerialism combines management knowledge and ideology to establish itself systemically in organisations and society while depriving owners, employees (organisational-economical) and civil society (social-political) of all decision-making powers. Managerialism justifies the application of managerial techniques to all areas of society on the grounds of superior ideology, expert training, and the exclusive possession of managerial knowledge necessary to efficiently run corporations and societies.
BTW, docs cannot send one another your electronic medical records. They do it all by paper or fax. Some of them charge 50 cents a sheet of paper.
Don’t forget Therbligs!
I’m an internist and I’m good at emr. Still it’s cut my productivity by 25% And hasn’t improved healthcare except in peripheral ways. It’s ridiculous. Emr’s are the perfect storm of government, crony capitalism, healthcare corporations and academic medicine. Actual practicing docs had no say.
Yep.
Been helping a good friend and everything has to be repeated every time- and the doctors never seem to look at the info.
Must say the VA does very good with records in my experience though. Doc quickly goes through the record and gets down to business.
Politicians promising the EMR is a great way to solicit $$$ from the big software companies.
So when someone transfers to me from the ED I have forty five pages of what happened to the poor soul in real time. I have to page through it all to find out what is important.
Meds given
Meds last given
VS
Behavioral Status
labs
procedures.
Admitting and discharge narrative
Half a dead tree for one page of information.
My SO goes through the same kind of thing - repeatedly asked about the drugs he’s currently taking. And interestingly, even though he’s told them time & again what he is NO LONGER taking, it always ends up as a ‘current’ drug on his records.
My BIL is cardiologist. Said he never read EMRs from other doctors. The nature of the questions makes them useless. “Have you had a cough”. Patient answers yes but he doesn’t know if allergy or cold related or something serious. And they are not standardized from dr to dr. Cost his practice over $300,000 to implement their use. Only entity benefiting is software industry.
That sounds spot on and explains a recent handoff of medical info between two of my wife’s providers.
I have a Swiss employer and the workplace theme is John Calvin never met a management tool he didn’t like. Our campus is management tool heaven always and foremost.
Yep that happens to me too with my mother.
So at the end of my drug spreadsheet I keep a list of the drugs no longer taking but I put a strikemark through them and keep the date that the medication was discontinued (and why). This helps me remember what drugs were taking that didn’t work or had some other problem so when they are suggested again I can say “she was taking that before and it didn’t work or had xyz problem” etc
I have another list of medications that the dosage changed and the date the dosage changed (and why).
I have another list of medications that are not taken regularly, but taken on an as needed basis.
I don’t see how anyone without an advocate that keeps track of all this can survive in the medical system.
I’m also often the only one that keeps track of possible drug interactions which many doctors don’t think to ask about when prescribing. Or the only one that thinks to ask whether or drug will affect another organ (or body part) that the prescribing doctor doesn’t remember ... such as the heart doctor not asking about what a drug will be tolerated by her kidneys.
To be fair, my mother has multiple problems and it is complicated. But most doctors only want to treat one problem and not think about the whole situation.
Thankfully she now has a GP who is really sharp and thinks about the whole picture and explains things really well.
I honestly do not know how people get along if they can’t keep track of all this on their own, or are in hospital and too sick or drugged to make decisions. It is really scary.
Isn’t progress wonderful.
/S
ie; Progressivism
Improvement in care was NOT the reason for the computerization of records. Total control of medicine and of the population was the raison d'être. Centralized record keeping wipes out any confidentiality and is another method of knowing where everyone is and of determining whether the government is served by allowing this person or that one to get treatment. Electronically controlled are also, of course, eminently hackable and someone it is going to occur to someone that the system can be used to give out false information and get someone or some group killed.
Recently ran into cataracts in my right eye. Find out that 15 months ago the regular eye doctor didn’t tell me about them, but recorded cataracts in the files they kept.
Seems that a patient is more likely to buy eyeglasses if you don’t tell them they got cataracts. If they seek out surgery they will wait until after that to assess glasses.
Also a case of learning this later that its now a pre-existing condition even though the patient was not advised at the time and date.
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.