The problem is not the computerization of medical records. There are good arguments for having them computerized (e.g., less time to get info needed to make life-saving decisions, error reduction, etc.).
The problem is the language in the bill, which appears to lay the framework for the Federal government interfering with our own doctors’ decisions with regard to our health care somewhere in the future, and possibly even health care rationing. The bill’s language is even more sinister when taken in conjunction with a book (”Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisi”) by former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota), who came thisclose to being our Health and Human Services Secretary. Obama was going to give him the task of developing a national health care system.
Have you read this article? It outlines some of the language in the bill, gives page numbers, and ties it in with statements that Daschle made in his book. It shows the dangers inherent in the language of this bill:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs
Proponents argue that these are just “scare tactics”. My question is, if this language is so innocuous, why was it stuck in a so-called “stimulus” bill, at the beginning of President Obama’s term, with NO debate? Most members of Congress, when asked about it, didn’t even know it was there.
As McCaughey noted in her article:
“Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. ‘If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,’ he said. ‘The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.’”
Thanks for the clarification....