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: Lane3 who wrote (11472)	11/18/2009 10:12:45 AM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Republicans Say Cancer Screening Guidelines Portend Medical Rationing By KEVIN SACK Call it death panel redux. It did not take long for Republicans in Congress to start arguing on Tuesday that a federal task force’s new recommendations on breast cancer screening had confirmed the worst fears of people who oppose a government role in medical decision making. “I mean, let the rationing begin,” said Representative Dave Camp of Michigan, the ranking Republican on the Ways and Means Committee. “This is what happens when bureaucrats make your health care decisions.” prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (11472)	11/18/2009 11:15:44 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

>> We won't get there unless we start. If we don't start now, then when? There are, no doubt, many people working on this. But the problem is the documents come from many different sources with little in the way of standards. I'm not advocating we NEVER do electronic records. And there are elements of it that are productive even now. But using taxpayer funds to force it just doesn't seem to me to be productive. Right now, if you did a cost/benefit analysis that included discounting the savings from EMR, I think it wouldn't pay. Five years from now that COULD be different. Or even sooner, I'll admit I don't know when. There IS a certain advantage to having a lot of eyes trained on the problem. But the cost, up front and continuing, is massive and it is very hard to pinpoint where actual savings are going come from. We know the costs are high, but where do you find the savings? Right now, the big advantage cited is "we don't lose charts anymore". It takes a whole lotta lost charts to cover the cost. The technology will come and I don't oppose it. I just think the government spending $20 Billion or whatever to force it to happen now, before it is ready for prime time, is a mistake.