Obamacare Advisors: Save Money By Eliminating Hippocratic Oath

red states rule

red states rule

New member
So under Obamacare, the big question will be: Is your life or the lives of your loved-ones worth being saved?

How is that hope and change going again?



The Attack On Doctors' Hippocratic Oath
By Betsy McCaughey

Patients count on their doctor to do whatever is possible to treat their illness. That is the promise doctors make by taking the Hippocratic Oath.

But President Obama's advisers are looking to save money by interfering with that oath and controlling your doctor's decisions.

Ezekiel Emanuel sees the Hippocratic Oath as one factor driving "overuse" of medical care. He is a policy adviser in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and a brother of Rahm Emanuel, the president's chief of staff.

Dr. Emanuel argues that "peer recognition goes to the most thorough and aggressive physicians." He has lamented that doctors regard the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the patient to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others."

Of course, that is what patients hope their doctor will do.

But President Barack Obama is pledging to rein in the nation's health care spending. The framework for influencing your doctor's decisions was included in the stimulus package, also known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

The legislation sets a goal that every individual's treatments will be recorded by computer, and your doctor will be guided by electronically delivered protocols on "appropriate" and "cost-effective" care.

Heading the new system is Dr. David Blumenthal, a Harvard Medical School professor, named national coordinator of health information technology. His writings show he favors limits on how much health care people can get.

"Government controls are a proven strategy for controlling health care expenditures," he argued in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in March 2001.

Blumenthal conceded there are disadvantages:

"Longer waits for elective procedures and reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices."

Yet he called it "debatable" whether the faster care Americans currently have is worth the higher cost.

Now that Blumenthal is in charge, he sees problems ahead.

"If electronic health records are to save money," he writes, doctors will have to take "advantage of embedded clinical decision support" (a euphemism for computers instructing doctors what to do).

"If requirements are set too high, many physicians and hospitals will rebel - petitioning Congress to change the law or just resigning themselves to ... accepting penalties," he wrote in NEJM early this month.

The public applauded the new requirement for electronic records, not foreseeing that it would put faceless bureaucrats in charge of your care.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...ttack_on_doctors_hippocratic_oath__96277.html
 
So far the libs have been silent. I wonder why? Do they have a problem with the facts of Oabmacare?

Or will they ignore these facts and hope they go away?
 
red states rule said:
So far the libs have been silent. I wonder why? Do they have a problem with the facts of Oabmacare?

Or will they ignore these facts and hope they go away?
Click to expand...


You have an odd concept of what "facts" are.

In any event, I suppose the fact that the AMA has come out in favor of the bill now wending its way through the House might be a tad relevant to this discussion, no?
 
Dungheap said:
You have an odd concept of what "facts" are.

In any event, I suppose the fact that the AMA has come out in favor of the bill now wending its way through the House might be a tad relevant to this discussion, no?
Click to expand...

from my op

Heading the new system is Dr. David Blumenthal, a Harvard Medical School professor, named national coordinator of health information technology. His writings show he favors limits on how much health care people can get.

"Government controls are a proven strategy for controlling health care expenditures," he argued in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in March 2001.

Blumenthal conceded there are disadvantages:

"Longer waits for elective procedures and reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices."

Yet he called it "debatable" whether the faster care Americans currently have is worth the higher cost.


and


Doctors Wage War Against Obama's Health Care Overhaul

As President Obama pushes for passage of his first major domestic policy change, some physicians are waging an all-out war against a health care reform bill they say amounts to nothing more than socialized medicine.

FOXNews.com

As President Obama pushes for passage of his first major domestic policy change, some physicians are waging an all-out war against a health care reform bill they say amounts to nothing more than socialized medicine.

America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 would create a public health insurance alternative and require coverage for most Americans and from most employers.

The American Medical Association -- the nation's largest physician organization with nearly 250,000 members -- initially opposed the president's plan, but backed the House Democrats' version of the bill last week. That has led to an internal dispute that has resulted in some physicians leaving the nation's largest doctors' association.

Some doctors charge the bill will lead to inferior patient care as physician offices around the country triple their patient lists and become forced to ration care.

"This is war," Dr. George Watson, a Kansas physician and president-elect of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, told FOXNews.com Thursday. "This is a bureaucratic boondoggle to grab control of health care. Everything that has been proposed in the 1,018 page bill will contribute to the ruination of medicine."

But congressional leaders like Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash. -- who is a psychiatrist -- say the physicians' argument is baseless and phrases like "socialized medicine" are used as a scare tactic to undermine the president's plan.

"The doctors who have responded this way exhibit a serious case of doctor greed," McDermott told FOXNews.com. "They have lost sight of the common good and the pledge they took in the Hippocratic Oath."

"These people are practicing fear without a license and they should be subject to a malpractice suit. If things are so good, why are doctors buried under an ever-increasing mountain of paperwork from insurance companies?" McDermott asked.

Watson said the president's reform bill is loaded with rules and regulations that will ultimately result in shoddy patient care and long waiting lines. He blasted the bill as "insidious" by forcing doctors contracted with Medicare into the nationalized plan -- a "trap" he described as "involuntary servitude."

The AMA -- which has long opposed government health care intervention, including the Clinton's administration's attempt to revamp the system in 1994 -- issued a statement calling the House version of the bill "a solid start to achieving health reform this year that makes a positive difference for patients and physicians."

"The status quo is unacceptable," president Dr. J. James Rohack said in July 18 video statement posted on the AMA Web site. Rohack praised the legislation for providing health coverage for 97 percent of Americans, and said the president's plain will "eliminate coverage denials based on preexisting condition" and "repeal the fatally flawed Medicare physician payment formula."

Still, Rohack said, "the debate is far from over," adding that the AMA will have a hand in drafting the final legislation, including a push for medical liability reform.

Some physicians charge the AMA is putting its business interests above the most critical issue at stake: patient care.

"The AMA is not representing patients or doctors anymore," Arizona physician Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet told FOX News. "Eighty-five percent of their revenue comes from non-membership sources. They are in the business of medicine."

While most doctors support some form of health care reform, a growing number are blasting the president's proposal and calling for a dramatically different approach -- one that calls for a system that pays for quality rather than quantity of medical procedures available to patients.

"There's no need to rush a bill through Congress," said Dr. Donald J. Palmisano, a leading surgeon and former president of the AMA who heads the physicians group Coalition to Protect Patients' Rights. "We don't get praise for getting out of the operation room quickly. We get praise for doing the right thing for the patients," he said.

Palmisano said he opposes the president's plan because patients will no longer be able to properly contract with their doctors. He is proposing a patient-centered system that will allow the patient to own the policy, which he said could be achieved by using tax credits to buy insurance.

"The government takeover of the practice of medicine will destroy the private health insurance companies, and will result in rationing, long lines, and loss of access to physicians in the patient hour of need," he said.

The Mayo Clinic, a non-profit organization and internationally renowned medical practice group, took issue with patient care quality that will result if the president's bill becomes law:

"Although there are some positive provisions in the current House Tri-Committee bill -- including insurance for all and payment reform demonstration projects -- the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher-quality, more affordable health care for patients."

"In fact, it will do the opposite," the clinic said in a July 16 statement on its Web site.

But Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., a family physician, called the claim that expanding health coverage to the uninsured will lead to poor quality "one of the most ridiculous criticisms I have ever heard."

Opponents of the bill also charge that it will deter prospective doctors from pursuing a medical degree -- adding to preexisting concerns over the current number of doctors.

While the number of doctors available to see patients has been steadily declining, the House committees on on Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce and Education and Labor have included a provision that immediately expands primary care and nurse training programs to increase the size of the workforce.

The measures include strengthening grant programs for primary care training institutions and bolstering existing preventive medicine programs. The bill also calls for improving existing student loan, scholarship and loan repayment programs in an effort to increase the number of health care professionals.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/22/doctors-wage-war-obamas-health-care-overhaul/
 
red states rule said:
from my op

Heading the new system is Dr. David Blumenthal, a Harvard Medical School professor, named national coordinator of health information technology. His writings show he favors limits on how much health care people can get.

"Government controls are a proven strategy for controlling health care expenditures," he argued in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in March 2001.

Blumenthal conceded there are disadvantages:

"Longer waits for elective procedures and reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices."

Yet he called it "debatable" whether the faster care Americans currently have is worth the higher cost.
Click to expand...

First of all, Blumenthal does not head up any new system. The Office of the National Coordinator of Health Information was established by President Bush by Executive Order back in 2004:

ONC is organizationally located within the Office of the Secretary for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). ONC is the principal Federal entity charged with coordination of nationwide efforts related to the implementation and use of electronic health information exchange. The position was established on April 27, 2004, through Executive Order (EO) 13335, Incentives for the Use of Health Information Technology and Establishing the Position of the National Health Information Technology Coordinator, which directed the National Coordinator “to provide leadership for the development and nationwide implementation of an interoperable health information technology infrastructure to improve the quality and efficiency of health care.”
Click to expand...

The quote from Blumenthal's published works appear to be non-controversial.

red states rule said:
and


Doctors Wage War Against Obama's Health Care Overhaul

As President Obama pushes for passage of his first major domestic policy change, some physicians are waging an all-out war against a health care reform bill they say amounts to nothing more than socialized medicine.

FOXNews.com

As President Obama pushes for passage of his first major domestic policy change, some physicians are waging an all-out war against a health care reform bill they say amounts to nothing more than socialized medicine.

America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 would create a public health insurance alternative and require coverage for most Americans and from most employers.

The American Medical Association -- the nation's largest physician organization with nearly 250,000 members -- initially opposed the president's plan, but backed the House Democrats' version of the bill last week. That has led to an internal dispute that has resulted in some physicians leaving the nation's largest doctors' association.

Some doctors charge the bill will lead to inferior patient care as physician offices around the country triple their patient lists and become forced to ration care.

"This is war," Dr. George Watson, a Kansas physician and president-elect of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, told FOXNews.com Thursday. "This is a bureaucratic boondoggle to grab control of health care. Everything that has been proposed in the 1,018 page bill will contribute to the ruination of medicine."

But congressional leaders like Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash. -- who is a psychiatrist -- say the physicians' argument is baseless and phrases like "socialized medicine" are used as a scare tactic to undermine the president's plan.

"The doctors who have responded this way exhibit a serious case of doctor greed," McDermott told FOXNews.com. "They have lost sight of the common good and the pledge they took in the Hippocratic Oath."

"These people are practicing fear without a license and they should be subject to a malpractice suit. If things are so good, why are doctors buried under an ever-increasing mountain of paperwork from insurance companies?" McDermott asked.

Watson said the president's reform bill is loaded with rules and regulations that will ultimately result in shoddy patient care and long waiting lines. He blasted the bill as "insidious" by forcing doctors contracted with Medicare into the nationalized plan -- a "trap" he described as "involuntary servitude."

The AMA -- which has long opposed government health care intervention, including the Clinton's administration's attempt to revamp the system in 1994 -- issued a statement calling the House version of the bill "a solid start to achieving health reform this year that makes a positive difference for patients and physicians."

"The status quo is unacceptable," president Dr. J. James Rohack said in July 18 video statement posted on the AMA Web site. Rohack praised the legislation for providing health coverage for 97 percent of Americans, and said the president's plain will "eliminate coverage denials based on preexisting condition" and "repeal the fatally flawed Medicare physician payment formula."

Still, Rohack said, "the debate is far from over," adding that the AMA will have a hand in drafting the final legislation, including a push for medical liability reform.

Some physicians charge the AMA is putting its business interests above the most critical issue at stake: patient care.

"The AMA is not representing patients or doctors anymore," Arizona physician Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet told FOX News. "Eighty-five percent of their revenue comes from non-membership sources. They are in the business of medicine."

While most doctors support some form of health care reform, a growing number are blasting the president's proposal and calling for a dramatically different approach -- one that calls for a system that pays for quality rather than quantity of medical procedures available to patients.

"There's no need to rush a bill through Congress," said Dr. Donald J. Palmisano, a leading surgeon and former president of the AMA who heads the physicians group Coalition to Protect Patients' Rights. "We don't get praise for getting out of the operation room quickly. We get praise for doing the right thing for the patients," he said.

Palmisano said he opposes the president's plan because patients will no longer be able to properly contract with their doctors. He is proposing a patient-centered system that will allow the patient to own the policy, which he said could be achieved by using tax credits to buy insurance.

"The government takeover of the practice of medicine will destroy the private health insurance companies, and will result in rationing, long lines, and loss of access to physicians in the patient hour of need," he said.

The Mayo Clinic, a non-profit organization and internationally renowned medical practice group, took issue with patient care quality that will result if the president's bill becomes law:

"Although there are some positive provisions in the current House Tri-Committee bill -- including insurance for all and payment reform demonstration projects -- the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher-quality, more affordable health care for patients."

"In fact, it will do the opposite," the clinic said in a July 16 statement on its Web site.

But Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., a family physician, called the claim that expanding health coverage to the uninsured will lead to poor quality "one of the most ridiculous criticisms I have ever heard."

Opponents of the bill also charge that it will deter prospective doctors from pursuing a medical degree -- adding to preexisting concerns over the current number of doctors.

While the number of doctors available to see patients has been steadily declining, the House committees on on Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce and Education and Labor have included a provision that immediately expands primary care and nurse training programs to increase the size of the workforce.

The measures include strengthening grant programs for primary care training institutions and bolstering existing preventive medicine programs. The bill also calls for improving existing student loan, scholarship and loan repayment programs in an effort to increase the number of health care professionals.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/22/doctors-wage-war-obamas-health-care-overhaul/
Click to expand...


The AMA supports the bill. I know.
 
If you think any of this is new, you have obviously not dealt with an HMO or most insurance companies.

I have a good health insurance plan. But my wife was forced to undergo multiple surgeries instead of a single surgery because of the insurance company's ridiculous demands.

The diagnosis made by her physician was simple. The insurance company required an exploratory surgery to verify the diagnosis. When her Dr asked if, when he verified the diagnosis, could he proceed with the main surgery he was told no.

She had a muscle growing through her uterus. Rather than a simple hystorectomy solvingthe problem, she was required to have an exploratory surgery, a D&C, and then a hystorectomy. The reason? It was diagnosed in November and we had paid our entire deductible. If they could delay the main surgery until after January 1st, we would have to pay $3,500 and they would save that amount. They also tried to put her on hormone therapy for 6 months, even though they knew that another medical problem she has triples the chance of hormone therapy causing breast cancer.

This new system may not be the answer. But if you think the current system does not have long waits for procedures and reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices, you obviously have not had to make use of your insurance.
 
Solitary1 said:
If you think any of this is new, you have obviously not dealt with an HMO or most insurance companies.

I have a good health insurance plan. But my wife was forced to undergo multiple surgeries instead of a single surgery because of the insurance company's ridiculous demands.

The diagnosis made by her physician was simple. The insurance company required an exploratory surgery to verify the diagnosis. When her Dr asked if, when he verified the diagnosis, could he proceed with the main surgery he was told no.

She had a muscle growing through her uterus. Rather than a simple hystorectomy solvingthe problem, she was required to have an exploratory surgery, a D&C, and then a hystorectomy. The reason? It was diagnosed in November and we had paid our entire deductible. If they could delay the main surgery until after January 1st, we would have to pay $3,500 and they would save that amount. They also tried to put her on hormone therapy for 6 months, even though they knew that another medical problem she has triples the chance of hormone therapy causing breast cancer.

This new system may not be the answer. But if you think the current system does not have long waits for procedures and reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices, you obviously have not had to make use of your insurance.
Click to expand...

In the current anti-reform commercials just replace the words "government bureaucrat" with "private insurance bureaucrat" for an accurate depiction of current health care system.
 
Solitary1 said:
If you think any of this is new, you have obviously not dealt with an HMO or most insurance companies.

I have a good health insurance plan. But my wife was forced to undergo multiple surgeries instead of a single surgery because of the insurance company's ridiculous demands.

The diagnosis made by her physician was simple. The insurance company required an exploratory surgery to verify the diagnosis. When her Dr asked if, when he verified the diagnosis, could he proceed with the main surgery he was told no.

She had a muscle growing through her uterus. Rather than a simple hystorectomy solvingthe problem, she was required to have an exploratory surgery, a D&C, and then a hystorectomy. The reason? It was diagnosed in November and we had paid our entire deductible. If they could delay the main surgery until after January 1st, we would have to pay $3,500 and they would save that amount. They also tried to put her on hormone therapy for 6 months, even though they knew that another medical problem she has triples the chance of hormone therapy causing breast cancer.

This new system may not be the answer. But if you think the current system does not have long waits for procedures and reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices, you obviously have not had to make use of your insurance.
Click to expand...

I went thru the treatments for Stage Three Colon Cancer. I also had major surgery to remove the cancer and a tumor

I had my gallbladder removed

I had to have a port installed in my chest for the chemo treatments

As well as weekly cemo treatments

I never had a bit of trouble with the ins company

Maybe you missed the part and threads I posted where the Feds will "approve" your treatments, of decide what is covered and what is not covered, how you will be unable to buy your own private ins, or if you decide not to take Obamacare you will be fined, or if you own your own business and do not provide Obamacare for you workers, the Feds will fine you up to8% of your TOTAL PAYROLL

Do you really think the government can provide you better, cheaper, and more effcient healthcare coverage then the private sector?
 
More scare tactics from the highly-paid anti-reform lobby, who want to deny coverage to 47 million uninsured.
 
For many people who have suffered under the current monopoly system, it only takes one multi-hundred-thousand dollar bill landing square on your shoulders (after being caught between a hospital's sky-high billing and an insurer's refusal to cover legitimate claims) to realize that the system as it stands has a chance of killing those who can pay to play just a surely as it wastes millions of uninsured lives.

I wonder why anyone would oppose extending a basic human right to their fellows....
 
DNC said:
For many people who have suffered under the current monopoly system, it only takes one multi-hundred-thousand dollar bill landing square on your shoulders (after being caught between a hospital's sky-high billing and an insurer's refusal to cover legitimate claims) to realize that the system as it stands has a chance of killing those who can pay to play just a surely as it wastes millions of uninsured lives.

I wonder why anyone would oppose extending a basic human right to their fellows....
Click to expand...

I had over $10,000 in out of pocket medical expenses. It would never occur to me to have others pay the bill. I made arrangements with the providers and they are all now piad in full

What is so hard about that concept of personal responsibility that escapes liberals and big time Dem spenders?
 
DNC said:
For many people who have suffered under the current monopoly system, it only takes one multi-hundred-thousand dollar bill landing square on your shoulders (after being caught between a hospital's sky-high billing and an insurer's refusal to cover legitimate claims) to realize that the system as it stands has a chance of killing those who can pay to play just a surely as it wastes millions of uninsured lives.

I wonder why anyone would oppose extending a basic human right to their fellows....
Click to expand...

actually, I think it's that multi-hundred-thousand dollar bill.....
 
You don't seem to have a problem with abandoning your fellow man to his/her fate if they cannot afford health care.
 
DNC said:
You don't seem to have a problem with abandoning your fellow man to his/her fate if they cannot afford health care.
Click to expand...

They have health care - they may not have health ins

Again, why are liberals so opposed to personal repsonsibility? Why should I pay for some else's health ins?
 
DNC said:
You don't seem to have a problem with abandoning your fellow man to his/her fate if they cannot afford health care.
Click to expand...

I make sacrifices to pay my bills on time.....one of those bills is health insurance.....my next premium is due in 60 days.....I take paypal....email me......
 
Why are you intent on demonizing those whose circumstances don't afford them the same opportunity?
 
DNC said:
Why are you intent on demonizing those whose circumstances don't afford them the same opportunity?
Click to expand...

Not demonizing them at all. I do not see where the government has a right to FORCE people who chose to go without coverage to take Obamacare, to FORCE US taxpayers to pay for non citizens who are in this country ILLEGALY, or to FORCE people who are eligible for existing government programs to take Obamacare

Now will you address these points or continue to be a partisan hack like MM and go off on another rant?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top