Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cage Rattler who wrote (16432)	7/30/2009 3:55:04 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 103300

U.S. House panel limits comparative medical studies Thu Jul 30, 2009 3:13pm EDT By Kim Dixon reuters.com WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A panel of U.S. lawmakers voted on Thursday to prohibit the federal government from "denying or rationing" medical care based on studies comparing medical drugs and devices. The U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee passed the Republican-sponsored amendment, despite objections from Democrats. It is a potential win for drug and medical device makers, which argue that such comparison studies could favor cheaper treatments. The panel is debating its version of legislation winding its way through Congress to overhaul the $2.5 trillion healthcare system, aimed at expanding coverage and cutting costs. The current House bill sets up a federal center for comparative effectiveness research. "Alarmingly the bill has no restrictions on how the federal government can use this research," said Republican Michael Rogers of Michigan, the amendment's sponsor. "Comparative effectiveness research is about general average assumptions," not about individuals seeking unique treatment, he said. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman and several other Democrats objected to the amendment, but then let the amendment pass on a voice vote without taking roll-call. Democrats hold a majority on the panel. Backers of comparative effectiveness, which include insurers and large employers, say the government-funded research is crucial for learning which treatments work best because manufacturers have little incentive to compare their products with those of competitors. Currently, drugmakers must only test their new products against a sugar-pill placebo to win U.S. approval. Drug companies, devicemakers and others also do not have to compare their treatments with other options, such as surgery. The medical product industry contends that comparative effectiveness research will favor older, cheaper therapies and that the results could be used to deny insurance coverage for newer, more expensive treatments. The Senate is expected to include comparative effectiveness language in its healthcare reform bill. One key senator, Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, backs establishment of a nonprofit corporation for the research, but it would be barred from issuing medical practice guidelines or coverage recommendations for insurers. Later today, the House panel will consider a highly watched amendment that would give biotech drugmakers 12 years of marketing exclusivity, free of generic competition. (Additional reporting by Lisa Richwine and Susan Heavey; Editing by Steve Orlofsky) © Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved

To: Cage Rattler who wrote (16432)	7/30/2009 4:11:50 PM
From: GROUND ZERO™	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

Creeping euthanasia, but people would rather close their eyes than to believe it's coming... Do you have a link to that article, I'd like to email it to Bill and Sean... TIA GZ

To: Cage Rattler who wrote (16432)	7/30/2009 4:51:28 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

Re: "forced euthanasia" July 30, 2009 Republicans Looking Crazy on Health Care By Froma Harrop realclearpolitics.com Some attacks on health care reform are so ludicrous that you don't think they need answering. A recent example invokes an evil plot to save money by knocking off the elderly. Though nuts, the charges have gotten so much attention that someone has to actually say, "No, they're not killing Grandma." The fake claim is being peddled by "conservatives" who condemn both spiraling Medicare costs and any effort to contain them. Their goal is to stop proposed health care reform by spooking beneficiaries and those approaching retirement. I'll tell you what ought to really scare the elderly and the soon-to-be: the prospect that health care reform could fail. More on that later. Headlining the looney-tunes campaign is Betsy McCaughey, the Sarah Palin of health care. A Senate bill would "pressure the elderly to end their lives prematurely," she wrote. Her contention, amazingly, has become a Republican talking point. "Congress would make it mandatory, absolutely require, that every five years, people in Medicare would have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner," McCaughey said on Fred Thompson's talk radio show. If you were to fall ill during those five years, you would "have to go through that session again." A pack of lies. The bill would have Medicare pay for counseling on end-of-life care with your doctor only if you wanted it. This is a new benefit. Should you wish that every last gadget and procedure in the arsenal be deployed, the counseling helps you make that preference clear to family and doctors. Others may want to "end their life sooner," if sooner means before that last agonizing week of being kept alive in a tangle of wires and tubes through the nose. I know I would want to skip that week. About McCaughey: She was briefly lieutenant governor of New York. Republican Gov. George Pataki dropped her from his re-election ticket, at which point she became a Democrat and tried to run against him. Sixteen years ago, she helped sink health care reform by circulating untruths about the Clinton plan. She now sits on the board of a medical devices company that feasts off Medicare. The AARP felt forced to jump into the fray and condemn McCaughey's misinformation campaign as "rife with gross -- and even cruel -- distortions." The elder lobbying group has long pushed to have Medicare pay doctors for time spent talking to patients about "difficult end-of-life care decisions." Suppose you're a baby boomer who's counting on Medicare to provide health coverage for perhaps 20 years or more starting in your not-too-distant future. Is it in your interests to kill reform that would control some of the program's enormous waste and would guarantee health care security for younger workers? It is not. Even under the best of circumstances, younger Americans are going to grow testy as they are compelled to support surging numbers of retirees. Now imagine these workers having to struggle for their own coverage while paying ever-higher taxes to give older people whatever care they want regardless of cost or efficacy. From the boomer's point of view, better that Medicare be fixed today. Republicans should also stand warned. This carnival to discredit adult end-of-life care consultations brings them back into dangerous Terri Schiavo territory. Recall how the Republican leadership accused Schiavo's husband of trying to murder Terri by taking her off life support after she had spent 15 years in a vegetative state, hooked up to tubes. The public was appalled, and Republican fortunes started their slide. Eventually, the truth will emerge on the proposed end-of-life counseling benefit. One can appreciate the sport in shooting at Democratic-inspired reforms, but Republicans do pay a price for looking crazy. fharrop@projo.com Copyright 2009, Creators Syndicate Inc.

To: Cage Rattler who wrote (16432)	7/30/2009 5:00:21 PM
From: Wayners	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

>i>The underlying method of cutting costs throughout the plan is based on rationing and denying care. The rationing of care is implemented through The National Health Care Board, according to the plan. This illustrious Board "will approve or reject treatment for patients based on the cost per treatment divided by the number of years the patient will benefit from the treatment. This is what Eugenicists have called for under different brand names for over a hundred years! The National Health Care Board gets to be God and decide who lives and dies! See the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute! I told everybody again and again that Obama is either a National Socialist/Fascist/or Marxist or some kind of mix. Nobody would listen, just like nobody took Mein Kampf seriously, in that Obama went to a Black Liberation Theology/Marxist Church for 20 years....