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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (8235)	8/13/2009 12:12:50 PM
From: longnshort	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Amputate this POWERLINE By Scott At his Portsmouth townhall dog-and-pony show yesterday, President Obama unleashed a number of whoppers, from AARP support for the health care bill Obama is touting to the innocuous budgetary impact of his plan, whatever it is. Despite what you may have been led to believe, it will save money. How? To those of us with experience as patients or caretakers of patients, this should be obvious, but we'd somehow missed it: >>> On the doctors' front, one of the things we can do is to reimburse doctors who are providing preventive care and not just the surgeon who provides care after somebody is sick. (Applause.) Nothing against surgeons. I want surgeons -- I don't want to be getting a bunch of letters from surgeons now. I'm not dissing surgeons here. (Laughter.) All I'm saying is let's take the example of something like diabetes, one of --- a disease that's skyrocketing, partly because of obesity, partly because it's not treated as effectively as it could be. Right now if we paid a family -- if a family care physician works with his or her patient to help them lose weight, modify diet, monitors whether they're taking their medications in a timely fashion, they might get reimbursed a pittance. But if that same diabetic ends up getting their foot amputated, that's $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 -- immediately the surgeon is reimbursed. Well, why not make sure that we're also reimbursing the care that prevents the amputation, right? That will save us money. (Applause.)<<< For those who detect something fishy, don't forget to apprise Linda Douglass at the official flag@whitehouse.gov email address. For those who take special pleasure in observing a b.s. artist recklessly slinging it, here is the video. UPDATE: A reader writes in the comments: I'm a neurosurgeon and my wife is a primary care doctor. In southwest Florida, the maximum allowable surgical fee for an amputation, under Medicare, is several hundred dollars. The hospital may be reimbursed $5,000-10,000, but $30,000-50,000 is a fantasy. Primary care doctors spend all day trying to get their patients to live healthier lifestyles. Recently, the President confessed he has not fully kicked the cigarette habit, which is a condition far more unhealthy than obesity. Surely the President is aware of the dangers of smoking, or does he believe his habit is the physician's failure? But for a few medical conditions, preventive medicine does not save money. This is not debatable, it has been proven repeatedly for most disorders studied. The President's ignorance in these matters is breathtaking. Heaven help us if he controls our health care choices.

To: Road Walker who wrote (8235)	8/13/2009 12:15:54 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 42652

1. WILL THE PLAN RATION MEDICAL CARE? This is what the bill says, pages 284-288, SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS: ‘(ii) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN READMISSIONS.—For purposes of clause (i), with respect to a hospital, excess readmissions shall not include readmissions for an applicable condition for which there are fewer than a minimum number (as determined by the Secretary) of discharges for such applicable condition for the applicable period and such hospital. and, under “Definitions”: ‘‘(A) APPLICABLE CONDITION.—The term ‘applicable condition’ means, subject to subparagraph (B), a condition or procedure selected by the Secretary . . . and: ‘‘(E) READMISSION.—The term ‘readmission’ means, in the case of an individual who is discharged from an applicable hospital, the admission of the individual to the same or another applicable hospital within a time period specified by the Secretary from the date of such discharge. and: ‘‘(6) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, section 1878, or otherwise of— . . . ‘‘(C) the measures of readmissions . . . EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES: 1. This section amends the Social Security Act 2. The government has the power to determine what constitutes an “applicable [medical] condition.” 3. The government has the power to determine who is allowed readmission into a hospital. 4. This determination will be made by statistics: when enough people have been discharged for the same condition, an individual may be readmitted. 5. This is government rationing, pure, simple, and straight up. 6. There can be no judicial review of decisions made here. The Secretary is above the courts. 7. The plan also allows the government to prohibit hospitals from expanding without federal permission: page 317-318. classicalideals.com