FS, you are one of the lucky ones, you have top of the line health insurance. What about compassion for the poor folks that can't afford it ? Wouldn't that be consistent with your religous philosophy too ??
what the **** is up with this?????
- Thread starter shawn
- Start date
FS, you are one of the lucky ones, you have top of the line health insurance. What about compassion for the poor folks that can't afford it ? Wouldn't that be consistent with your religous philosophy too ??
Janz
What's Amatta U
Thanks Avi for the word of encouragement. It is much better for my health to focus on the positive.
Sorry Shawn to continue this rabbit trail but I know that you are an understanding guy.
So with that in mind:
Grand Junction, Colo. could be a model for healthcare reform That's why Obama is visiting. This town on the western slope of the Rockies has some of the highest quality, lowest cost care in the country.
Politically it’s far from a stronghold for Obama, who lost Mesa County by nearly 30 points in 2008. But when it comes to healthcare reform, Grand Junction has some of the highest quality, lowest cost care in the country.
The national average for Medicare reimbursement is $8,300. But in Grand Junction it’s about $2,400 less.
Healthcare costs differ from state to state, and even within states, according to The Dartmouth Atlas of Healthcare. For example, the average Medicare reimbursement in Boulder, Colorado is over $9100. In Los Angeles, it’s nearly $11,000 and in Miami, it’s $16,000.
Healthcare experts say reform legislation is more likely to pass now than when the Clintons tried during the 1990s largely because Obama has centered the debate on cost, not access to care. And while they may not agree on various aspects of the legislation, it also appears more of the key players are on board. That’s where Grand Junction comes in.
John Hopkins, CEO of Rocky Mountain Health Plans, says communication is what makes care so affordable here. Doctors meet regularly with the HMO to talk about a variety of topics, including quality of care, pharmaceuticals, healthcare infrastructure and overall costs.
As a result, the HMO was ahead of the curve when it started using generic prescription drugs to keep costs down. The area also uses an electronic network to share patient information and is mindful of unnecessary tests and extended hospital visits.
“More care doesn’t necessarily result in better care,” says Hopkins.
The foundation for low cost, high quality care was set in the 1970s when doctors and members of the community came together to decide on a system in which physicians are paid a similar amount regardless of whether their patients have Medicare, Medicaid, or private insurance.
“Over the years we’ve always taken a look at what is the particular use of a procedure or a particular technology, and is it being used appropriately,” says Hopkins. “And that’s getting input from the practitioner, from the physician, and using that as an education opportunity.”
Kenneth Thorp is a healthcare policy expert at the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University in Atlanta. Thorpe has worked with Democrats on reform legislation, and he says the model in Grand Junction can be replicated. Vermont is working on a plan where all patients in a community health plan would have the same access to care, regardless of who’s paying the bill.
“One of the proposals in play would be to have Medicare contribute dollars to the states and then have the states create these Rocky Mountain Health Plan-type operations statewide and nationally so that more patients could avail themselves of a proven better approach of managing and treating patients,” says Thorp.
Despite the earful some members of Congress have received at town hall forums in their home districts, Professor Thorp believes healthcare reform will pass once Congress returns from the summer recess.
“I think that once members come back and hear the success stories like [Grand Junction] and understand that people with insurance are looking for models that will improve their healthcare, will improve their access to primary care services, will reduce the cost of healthcare — that there’s going to be more interest in the fall to really build on those types of models and hopefully be a little bit more aggressive with the legislation,” says Thorp.
Grand Junction, Colo. could be a model for healthcare reform | csmonitor.com
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-grand-junction14-2009aug14,0,2538746.story
citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
Hmmm... lacking any evidence to support FS's wildly speculative "facts" pulled directly from her back-side, I'd like to offer a few of my own in counter-point...
Obama's plan, in fact, will lengthen the average human life-span to 250 years. FS, your elderly friends will find themselves with renewed vigor and they will all date underwear models for at least the next century.
I think that's a plan we can all get behind... don't you?
Netscape Search
FS, the above link goes to a 8/15 piece written by a Newsweek correspondent about the facts of "Obamacare" vs. the intentional distortions which are whipping up the fears. The alternative universe you're living in is the false one created by ideologues and others dead-set against reform. 40+ years ago the fight against Medicare was just about as ugly and ideological. earl
FS, the above link goes to a 8/15 piece written by a Newsweek correspondent about the facts of "Obamacare" vs. the intentional distortions which are whipping up the fears. The alternative universe you're living in is the false one created by ideologues and others dead-set against reform. 40+ years ago the fight against Medicare was just about as ugly and ideological. earl
citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
In Sunday afternoon's headlines...
So much for Obama leading.
At least FS's elderly friends can relax. We won't be putting them out on an ice floe now.
Way to go Barack. Bravo. Well done.
White House backs away from public option in healthcare
Reporting from Washington - The Obama administration continued to back away from a government-run insurance option today, with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius saying it is "not the essential element" of healthcare overhaul.
Reporting from Washington - The Obama administration continued to back away from a government-run insurance option today, with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius saying it is "not the essential element" of healthcare overhaul.
So much for Obama leading.
At least FS's elderly friends can relax. We won't be putting them out on an ice floe now.
Way to go Barack. Bravo. Well done.
CZ, you have to read the article you linked, it explains the reason for the shift:
As President, Obama has to be pragamatic. If he loses the battle, he never gets to the war.
Public and private sharing will come, apparently now is not the time yet.
It takes time to get used to being on the right side of the argument, you are not there yet
As President, Obama has to be pragamatic. If he loses the battle, he never gets to the war.
Public and private sharing will come, apparently now is not the time yet.
It takes time to get used to being on the right side of the argument, you are not there yet
Well, you may be right, Avi, but when he was running for Prez and discussing healthcare reform the biggest thing folks supporting him associated with that is coverage of the uninsured. Real shame to think the simple and simplistic scare tactics of the radical right would scare him & congress away from such a crucial piece. Cost of healthcare, though, is a huge problem and don't see how it can be effectively reigned in. My recent healthcare scare will ultimately cost my insurer between $80-90,000. My coverage is very good. But, my out-of-pocket expenses are still hard to cover on our monthly budget. My wife already is on payment plans, (she has ongoing treatment which costs about $40,000 per year), that don't please her providers but it is all we can manage and we haven't even progressed that far with my recent bills. My employer scrambles each year shifting from insurer to insurer in his attempt to handle mounting premiums with his needing to pass along ever more costs to the employees. In the meantime, another "socialized" health plan-Medicaid-covers more than half the clientele we serve in our healthcare field which results in no out-of-pocket expenses for them, while those with private coverage struggle to handle their co-pays and deuctibles. Even those with no insurance fare better in our business since we have to apply a sliding fee scale which results in mostly write-offs with little expense to them. earl
earl
citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
If not now... when?
All that was missing was political will and a brass set of huevos.
Obama comes up short on both.
• Landslide presidential victory
• an electorate HUNGRY for change and vision
• Control of the House
• Control of the Senate
• an electorate HUNGRY for change and vision
• Control of the House
• Control of the Senate
All that was missing was political will and a brass set of huevos.
Obama comes up short on both.
I tend to agree in that the Dems were in a uniquely strong political position to push for such that is quite likely not to be seen again in many years-action taken only when much more suffering of a widespread nature occurs due to continued inaction. earl
immortalitylost
Say Meow.
From my viewpoint, Republicans and democrats are slowly becoming the same thing. Republicans are more and more just throwing money (that we don't have) at everything, (the usual democrat shtick) and Democrats (as we can see now, with Obama) are doing little to "bring our troops home" from Iraq, and are only anti-war during election times. So they're becoming republicans aparantly, because being republican now apparently automatically means you love war, and eat babies, lol. Man...
Bush took it into his own authority to send the troops off to fight in Iraq, which was not supposed to be within his authority to do... So why can't Obama stop the war in Iraq just as quickly? I mean, even if it's not in his power, who cares? Who pays attention to the constitution anymore? Pfff, it's only a document containing the rules our nation was founded on... that doesn't matter anymore, right? Times change, right?
Heavy sarcasm intended...
I agree that the federal Govt. is too large and unwieldy to make any changes in anything like good time. That's why I voted for Congressman Paul, though he never made it out of the primaries. He ran republican, and people wondered why, because since he sincerely wanted to end the war in Iraq the moment he went into office, people pegged him as a democrat... So apparently the republican party has become the war mongering party. They used to be all about no nation building, and no unnecessary war... but Bush changed all that with his "let's play superman!" turn at office. That man... evil, evil!
I think it's funny how so many people are complaining that the federal govt. is too big, it's so inefficient, and how it's encroaching on our freedoms. And then when a guy runs for office who wants to downsize the federal govt. drastically, like, how it's supposed to be in accordance with the constitution, remember that little thing? Yeah, lol, when someone comes along who actually wants to fix things, he's booed off the stage and called a nutter by the media. Nice, huh?
I want a new country... check please...
Bush took it into his own authority to send the troops off to fight in Iraq, which was not supposed to be within his authority to do... So why can't Obama stop the war in Iraq just as quickly? I mean, even if it's not in his power, who cares? Who pays attention to the constitution anymore? Pfff, it's only a document containing the rules our nation was founded on... that doesn't matter anymore, right? Times change, right?
Heavy sarcasm intended...
I agree that the federal Govt. is too large and unwieldy to make any changes in anything like good time. That's why I voted for Congressman Paul, though he never made it out of the primaries. He ran republican, and people wondered why, because since he sincerely wanted to end the war in Iraq the moment he went into office, people pegged him as a democrat... So apparently the republican party has become the war mongering party. They used to be all about no nation building, and no unnecessary war... but Bush changed all that with his "let's play superman!" turn at office. That man... evil, evil!
I think it's funny how so many people are complaining that the federal govt. is too big, it's so inefficient, and how it's encroaching on our freedoms. And then when a guy runs for office who wants to downsize the federal govt. drastically, like, how it's supposed to be in accordance with the constitution, remember that little thing? Yeah, lol, when someone comes along who actually wants to fix things, he's booed off the stage and called a nutter by the media. Nice, huh?
I want a new country... check please...
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Hey Mort!
I'd be very interested in what Dr. Ron Paul has to say about this whole health care hijacking {oops! I mean reform!}
Hey Mort!
I'd be very interested in what Dr. Ron Paul has to say about this whole health care hijacking {oops! I mean reform!}
As a medical doctor and libertarian he probably has some interesting ideas, SG, why not do the honors and give us his position, beyond this:
SG, somehow I have the feeling this is going to be your gist
, I have some ideas here too......
Janz
What's Amatta U
In Sunday afternoon's headlines...White House backs away from public option in healthcareSo much for Obama leading.
Reporting from Washington - The Obama administration continued to back away from a government-run insurance option today, with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius saying it is "not the essential element" of healthcare overhaul.
At least FS's elderly friends can relax. We won't be putting them out on an ice floe now.
Way to go Barack. Bravo. Well done.
Ahhhh and so once again Corporate Welfare will continue to suck the life out of the taxpayers..we get it coming and going.
And to think, some idiots think that our President is a Socialist. har har har."Bowing to Republican pressure and an uneasy public, President Obama's administration signaled Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new health care system."
White House Appears Ready To Drop 'Public Option' : NPR
shawn
Well-Known Member
And patient too....don't forget patient.Janz:
Sorry Shawn to continue this rabbit trail but I know that you are an understanding guy.
Beside, this is fascinating....and sort of related, in a "friend of a friend" kind of way.
I am interested to see how deep this rabbit hole will go.
immortalitylost
Say Meow.
Dear God, SG, can I cry on your shoulder?
It's the federal government taking it over! The federal government for Barney's sake! Yeah, cuz like, they're so good at managing everything else they've hijacked... um, I mean reformed, lol. It's a positively terrifying proposal! I just don't get people nowdays, they think the govt. is the answer to all of life's problems! It's the panacea of our century. Things get a bit scary,and then "I know," they say, "let's bring in the federal government on this," they say. "They're the ones in charge! They're the ones supposed to keep us safe!" And I can do nothing but look on in horror...
I guess I've got an allergic reaction, to this so called panacea we have found in the federal government, and I need a new cure to my ills, lol. Dr. Paul is my guy. At least he makes sense. Which is more than most presidential candidates can claim... They're too busy trying to look good, and make a good impression...
"Tell the stupid commoners what they want to hear," They whisper to themselves... "As long as I can get them to trust me, I'm in!" They exclaim greedily, under their breaths...
And the sad part is that they're mostly right...
I seriously, no lie, was getting a haircut near primary election time, and the lady next to me was going oooon about how she was going to vote for Obama, because he was the only one cute enough to look at for four years.
And I died a little that day... *tear*
Lol, avi, the federal government certainly has no place in regulating abortions, and he is very right to leave it on a state level. If only because it is not anywhere in their job descriptions and it shouldn't be their problem, nor is it their place, to rule over all in that decision. Anyways, it's not as if the state is more incompetent than the federal govt., ya know? I mean, really, is that even possible? Except maybe in Michigan... But Michigan sux anyways... Canadians... *grumble* (this is in no way meant to be offensive to any Canadians who happen to read this post... etc, etc, I can't be held liable for what comes out of my brain)
His personal preferences have no bearing at all on his decisions, because, if the decision wasn't left at a federal level, his beliefs would mean exactly nothing, and people could deal with the state, a much smaller power to contend with... and without federally printed moolah coming at them for being good little dogs, and following every order from on high, much more dependent on and therefore respectful to it's citizens...
So win win in my book. Abiding by the rules of the constitution worked before. It's what made us such a powerhouse as a country. And we've managed to bollocks it all up in less than a century... we rock... ehhh... heavy sigh...
sorry for the thread-jacking... I'm a bad kitty...I'll just be over there *points to corner* crying and rocking back and forth in shame...
chyeah, that'll happen, lol.
It's the federal government taking it over! The federal government for Barney's sake! Yeah, cuz like, they're so good at managing everything else they've hijacked... um, I mean reformed, lol. It's a positively terrifying proposal! I just don't get people nowdays, they think the govt. is the answer to all of life's problems! It's the panacea of our century. Things get a bit scary,and then "I know," they say, "let's bring in the federal government on this," they say. "They're the ones in charge! They're the ones supposed to keep us safe!" And I can do nothing but look on in horror...
I guess I've got an allergic reaction, to this so called panacea we have found in the federal government, and I need a new cure to my ills, lol. Dr. Paul is my guy. At least he makes sense. Which is more than most presidential candidates can claim... They're too busy trying to look good, and make a good impression...
"Tell the stupid commoners what they want to hear," They whisper to themselves... "As long as I can get them to trust me, I'm in!" They exclaim greedily, under their breaths...
And the sad part is that they're mostly right...
I seriously, no lie, was getting a haircut near primary election time, and the lady next to me was going oooon about how she was going to vote for Obama, because he was the only one cute enough to look at for four years.
And I died a little that day... *tear*
Lol, avi, the federal government certainly has no place in regulating abortions, and he is very right to leave it on a state level. If only because it is not anywhere in their job descriptions and it shouldn't be their problem, nor is it their place, to rule over all in that decision. Anyways, it's not as if the state is more incompetent than the federal govt., ya know? I mean, really, is that even possible? Except maybe in Michigan... But Michigan sux anyways... Canadians... *grumble* (this is in no way meant to be offensive to any Canadians who happen to read this post... etc, etc, I can't be held liable for what comes out of my brain)
His personal preferences have no bearing at all on his decisions, because, if the decision wasn't left at a federal level, his beliefs would mean exactly nothing, and people could deal with the state, a much smaller power to contend with... and without federally printed moolah coming at them for being good little dogs, and following every order from on high, much more dependent on and therefore respectful to it's citizens...
So win win in my book. Abiding by the rules of the constitution worked before. It's what made us such a powerhouse as a country. And we've managed to bollocks it all up in less than a century... we rock... ehhh... heavy sigh...
sorry for the thread-jacking... I'm a bad kitty...I'll just be over there *points to corner* crying and rocking back and forth in shame...
chyeah, that'll happen, lol.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Here are some of his speeches in Congress regarding health care legislation from house.govAs a medical doctor and libertarian he probably has some interesting ideas, SG, why not do the honors and give us his position, beyond this:
SG, somehow I have the feeling this is going to be your gist
(continued in following post)Congressman Ron Paul - Legislative Information
Paul (TX14) - Speech and Statement - Statement Introducing the Coercion is Not Health Care Act
Statement Introducing the Coercion is Not Health Care Act
May 21, 2009
Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Coercion is Not Health Care Act. This legislation forbids the federal government from forcing any American to purchase health insurance, and from conditioning participation in any federal program, or receipt of any federal benefit, on the purchase of health insurance.
While often marketed as a “moderate” compromise between nationalized health care and a free market solution, forcing every American to purchase a government-approved health insurance plan is a back door approach to creating a government-controlled health care system.
If Congress requires individuals to purchase insurance, Congress must define what insurance policies satisfy the government mandate. Thus, Congress will decide what is and is not covered in the mandatory insurance policy. Does anyone seriously doubt that what conditions and treatments are covered will be determined by who has the most effective lobby. Or that Congress will be incapable of writing a mandatory insurance policy that will fit the unique needs of every individual in the United States?
The experience of states that allow their legislatures to mandate what benefits health insurance plans must cover has shown that politicizing health insurance inevitably makes health insurance more expensive. As the cost of government-mandated health insurance rises, Congress will likely create yet another fiscally unsustainable entitlement program to help cover the cost of insurance.
When the cost of government–mandated insurance proves to be an unsustainable burden on individuals and small employers, and the government, Congress will likely impose price controls on medical treatments, and even go so far as to limit what procedures and treatments will be reimbursed by the mandatory insurance. The result will be an increasing number of providers turning to “cash only” practices, thus making it difficult for those relying on the government-mandated insurance to find health care. Anyone who doubts that result should consider the increasing number of physicians who are withdrawing from the Medicare program because of the low reimbursement and constant bureaucratic harassment from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Madam Speaker, the key to effective health care reform lies not in increasing government control, but in increasing the American people’s ability to make their own health care decisions. Thus, instead of forcing Americans to purchase government-approved health insurance, Congress should put the American people back in charge of health care by expanding health care tax credits and deductions, as well as increasing access to Health Savings Accounts. Therefore, I have introduced legislation, the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act (HR1495), which provides a series of health care tax credits and deductions designed to empower patients. I urge my colleagues to reject the big government- knows-best approach to health care by cosponsoring my Coercion is Not Health Care Act and Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act.
**applause!**May 21, 2009
Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Coercion is Not Health Care Act. This legislation forbids the federal government from forcing any American to purchase health insurance, and from conditioning participation in any federal program, or receipt of any federal benefit, on the purchase of health insurance.
While often marketed as a “moderate” compromise between nationalized health care and a free market solution, forcing every American to purchase a government-approved health insurance plan is a back door approach to creating a government-controlled health care system.
If Congress requires individuals to purchase insurance, Congress must define what insurance policies satisfy the government mandate. Thus, Congress will decide what is and is not covered in the mandatory insurance policy. Does anyone seriously doubt that what conditions and treatments are covered will be determined by who has the most effective lobby. Or that Congress will be incapable of writing a mandatory insurance policy that will fit the unique needs of every individual in the United States?
The experience of states that allow their legislatures to mandate what benefits health insurance plans must cover has shown that politicizing health insurance inevitably makes health insurance more expensive. As the cost of government-mandated health insurance rises, Congress will likely create yet another fiscally unsustainable entitlement program to help cover the cost of insurance.
When the cost of government–mandated insurance proves to be an unsustainable burden on individuals and small employers, and the government, Congress will likely impose price controls on medical treatments, and even go so far as to limit what procedures and treatments will be reimbursed by the mandatory insurance. The result will be an increasing number of providers turning to “cash only” practices, thus making it difficult for those relying on the government-mandated insurance to find health care. Anyone who doubts that result should consider the increasing number of physicians who are withdrawing from the Medicare program because of the low reimbursement and constant bureaucratic harassment from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Madam Speaker, the key to effective health care reform lies not in increasing government control, but in increasing the American people’s ability to make their own health care decisions. Thus, instead of forcing Americans to purchase government-approved health insurance, Congress should put the American people back in charge of health care by expanding health care tax credits and deductions, as well as increasing access to Health Savings Accounts. Therefore, I have introduced legislation, the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act (HR1495), which provides a series of health care tax credits and deductions designed to empower patients. I urge my colleagues to reject the big government- knows-best approach to health care by cosponsoring my Coercion is Not Health Care Act and Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act.
Paul (TX14) - Speech and Statement - Statement Introducing the Protect Patients' and Physicians' Privacy Act
Statement of Congressman Ron Paul
United States House of Representatives
Statement Introducing the Protect Patients' and Physicians' Privacy Act
May 21, 2009
Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Protect Patients’ and Physicians’ Privacy Act. This legislation protects medical privacy, as well as quality health care, by allowing patients and physicians to opt out of any federally mandated, created, or funded electronic medical records system. The bill also repeals the sections of federal law establishing a “unique health identifier” and requires patient consent before any electronic medical records can be released to a third party.
Congress has refused to fund the development of a unique health identifier every year since 1998. Clearly, the majority of my colleagues recognize the threat this scheme poses to medical privacy. It is past time for Congress to repeal the section of law authorizing the federal unique health identifier.
Among the numerous provisions jammed into the stimulus bill, which was rushed through Congress earlier this year, was funding for electronic medical records. Medicare providers have until 2015 to “voluntarily” adopt the system of electronic medical records, or face financial penalties.
One of the major flaws with the federally-mandated electronic record system is that is does not provide adequate privacy protection. Electronic medical records that are part of the federal system will only receive the protection granted by the federal “medical privacy rule.” This misnamed rule actually protects the ability of government officials and state-favored special interests to view private medical records without patient consent.
Even if the law did not authorize violations of medical privacy, patients would still have good reason to be concerned about the government’s ability to protect their medical records. After all, we are all familiar with cases where third parties obtained access to electronic veteran, tax, and other records because of errors made by federal bureaucrats. My colleagues should also consider the abuse of IRS records by administrations of both parties and ask themselves what would happen if unscrupulous politicians gain the power to access their political enemies’ electronic medical records.
As an OB/GYN with over 30 years of experience in private practice, I understand that one of the foundations of quality health care is the patient's confidence that all information the patient shares with his or her health care provider will remain confidential. As an OB/GYN with over 30 years of experience in private practice, I understand that a physician’s ability to provide effective treatment often depends on a patients’ trust that all personal information divulged to a physician will remain confidential. Forcing physicians to place their patients’ medical records in a system without adequate privacy protection undermines that confidence, and thus undermines effective medical treatment.
A physician opt out is also necessary in order to allow physicians to escape from the inefficiencies and other problems that are sure to occur in the implementation and management of the federal system. Contrary to the claims of the mandatory system’s proponents, it is highly unlikely an efficient system of mandatory electronic health records can be established by the government.
Many health technology experts have warned of the problems that will accompany the system of mandatory electronic medical records. For example, David Kibbe, a top technology adviser to the American Academy of Family Physicians, warned President Obama in an open letter late last year that existing medical software is often poorly designed and does a poor job of exchanging information. Allowing physicians to opt out provides a safety device to ensure that physicians can avoid the problems that will inevitably accompany the government-mandated system.
Madam Speaker, allowing patients and providers to opt out of the electronic medical records system will in no way harm the practice of medicine or the development of an efficient system of keeping medical records. Instead, it will enhance these worthy goals by ensuring patients and physicians can escape the inefficient, one-size-fits-all government–mandated system. By creating a market for alternatives to the government system, the op-out ensures that private businesses can work to develop systems that meet the demands for an efficient system of electronic records that protects patients’ privacy. I urge my colleagues to stand up for privacy and quality health care by cosponsoring the Protect Patients’ and Physicians’ Privacy Act.
**vigorously nods agreement**United States House of Representatives
Statement Introducing the Protect Patients' and Physicians' Privacy Act
May 21, 2009
Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Protect Patients’ and Physicians’ Privacy Act. This legislation protects medical privacy, as well as quality health care, by allowing patients and physicians to opt out of any federally mandated, created, or funded electronic medical records system. The bill also repeals the sections of federal law establishing a “unique health identifier” and requires patient consent before any electronic medical records can be released to a third party.
Congress has refused to fund the development of a unique health identifier every year since 1998. Clearly, the majority of my colleagues recognize the threat this scheme poses to medical privacy. It is past time for Congress to repeal the section of law authorizing the federal unique health identifier.
Among the numerous provisions jammed into the stimulus bill, which was rushed through Congress earlier this year, was funding for electronic medical records. Medicare providers have until 2015 to “voluntarily” adopt the system of electronic medical records, or face financial penalties.
One of the major flaws with the federally-mandated electronic record system is that is does not provide adequate privacy protection. Electronic medical records that are part of the federal system will only receive the protection granted by the federal “medical privacy rule.” This misnamed rule actually protects the ability of government officials and state-favored special interests to view private medical records without patient consent.
Even if the law did not authorize violations of medical privacy, patients would still have good reason to be concerned about the government’s ability to protect their medical records. After all, we are all familiar with cases where third parties obtained access to electronic veteran, tax, and other records because of errors made by federal bureaucrats. My colleagues should also consider the abuse of IRS records by administrations of both parties and ask themselves what would happen if unscrupulous politicians gain the power to access their political enemies’ electronic medical records.
As an OB/GYN with over 30 years of experience in private practice, I understand that one of the foundations of quality health care is the patient's confidence that all information the patient shares with his or her health care provider will remain confidential. As an OB/GYN with over 30 years of experience in private practice, I understand that a physician’s ability to provide effective treatment often depends on a patients’ trust that all personal information divulged to a physician will remain confidential. Forcing physicians to place their patients’ medical records in a system without adequate privacy protection undermines that confidence, and thus undermines effective medical treatment.
A physician opt out is also necessary in order to allow physicians to escape from the inefficiencies and other problems that are sure to occur in the implementation and management of the federal system. Contrary to the claims of the mandatory system’s proponents, it is highly unlikely an efficient system of mandatory electronic health records can be established by the government.
Many health technology experts have warned of the problems that will accompany the system of mandatory electronic medical records. For example, David Kibbe, a top technology adviser to the American Academy of Family Physicians, warned President Obama in an open letter late last year that existing medical software is often poorly designed and does a poor job of exchanging information. Allowing physicians to opt out provides a safety device to ensure that physicians can avoid the problems that will inevitably accompany the government-mandated system.
Madam Speaker, allowing patients and providers to opt out of the electronic medical records system will in no way harm the practice of medicine or the development of an efficient system of keeping medical records. Instead, it will enhance these worthy goals by ensuring patients and physicians can escape the inefficient, one-size-fits-all government–mandated system. By creating a market for alternatives to the government system, the op-out ensures that private businesses can work to develop systems that meet the demands for an efficient system of electronic records that protects patients’ privacy. I urge my colleagues to stand up for privacy and quality health care by cosponsoring the Protect Patients’ and Physicians’ Privacy Act.
Paul (TX14) - Speech and Statement - Statement on Introducing the Cures Can Be Found Act
Statement of Congressman Ron Paul
United States House of Representatives
Statement on Introducing the Cures Can Be Found Act
March 26, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Cures Can Be Found Act. This legislation promotes medical research by providing a tax credit for investments and donations to promote adult and umbilical cord blood stem cell research, and provides a $2,000 tax credit to new parents for the donation of umbilical cord blood that can be used to extract stem cells.
Mr. Speaker, stem cell research has the potential to revolutionize medicine. Stem cells could hold the keys to curing many diseases afflicting millions of Americans, such as diabetes and Alzheimer’s. Umbilical cord blood stem cells have already been used to treat over 70 diseases, including sickle cell disease, leukemia, and osteoporosis. Umbilical cord blood stem cells have also proven useful in treating spinal cord injuries and certain neurological disorders. Adult stem cells have shown promise in treating a wide variety of diseases ranging from brain, breast, testicular, and other types of cancers to multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s, heart damage, and rheumatoid arthritis.
By providing tax incentives for adult and umbilical cord blood stem cell research, the Cures Can Be Found Act will ensure greater resources are devoted to this valuable research. The tax credit for donations of umbilical cord blood will ensure that medical science has a continuous supply of stem cells. Thus, this bill will help scientists discover new cures using stem cells and, hopefully, make routine the use of stem cells to treat formally incurable diseases.
By encouraging private medical research, the Cures Can Be Found Act enhances a tradition of private medical research that is responsible for many medical breakthroughs. For example, Jonas Salk, discoverer of the polio vaccine, did not receive one dollar from the federal government for his efforts. I urge my colleagues to help the American people support the efforts of future Jonas Salks by cosponsoring the Cures Can Be Found Act.
United States House of Representatives
Statement on Introducing the Cures Can Be Found Act
March 26, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Cures Can Be Found Act. This legislation promotes medical research by providing a tax credit for investments and donations to promote adult and umbilical cord blood stem cell research, and provides a $2,000 tax credit to new parents for the donation of umbilical cord blood that can be used to extract stem cells.
Mr. Speaker, stem cell research has the potential to revolutionize medicine. Stem cells could hold the keys to curing many diseases afflicting millions of Americans, such as diabetes and Alzheimer’s. Umbilical cord blood stem cells have already been used to treat over 70 diseases, including sickle cell disease, leukemia, and osteoporosis. Umbilical cord blood stem cells have also proven useful in treating spinal cord injuries and certain neurological disorders. Adult stem cells have shown promise in treating a wide variety of diseases ranging from brain, breast, testicular, and other types of cancers to multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s, heart damage, and rheumatoid arthritis.
By providing tax incentives for adult and umbilical cord blood stem cell research, the Cures Can Be Found Act will ensure greater resources are devoted to this valuable research. The tax credit for donations of umbilical cord blood will ensure that medical science has a continuous supply of stem cells. Thus, this bill will help scientists discover new cures using stem cells and, hopefully, make routine the use of stem cells to treat formally incurable diseases.
By encouraging private medical research, the Cures Can Be Found Act enhances a tradition of private medical research that is responsible for many medical breakthroughs. For example, Jonas Salk, discoverer of the polio vaccine, did not receive one dollar from the federal government for his efforts. I urge my colleagues to help the American people support the efforts of future Jonas Salks by cosponsoring the Cures Can Be Found Act.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
(continued from previous post)
Paul (TX14) - Speech and Statement - Statement on Introducing the Child Healthcare Affordability Act
Paul (TX14) - Speech and Statement - Statement on Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act
Statement on HR 6445, a Veterans Healthcare Bill
Statement Introducing the Cancer and Terminal Illness Patient Healthcare Act
Paul (TX14) - Speech and Statement - Statement on Introducing the Child Healthcare Affordability Act
Statement of Congressman Ron Paul
United States House of Representatives
Statement on Introducing the Child Healthcare Affordability Act
March 26, 2009
Madame Speaker, I am pleased to help working Americans provide for their children's health care needs by introducing the Child Health Care Affordability Act. The Child Health Care Affordability Act provides parents with a tax credit of up to $500 for health care expenses of dependent children. Parents caring for a child with a disability, terminal disease, cancer, or any other health condition requiring specialized care would receive a tax credit of up to $3,000 to help cover their child's health care expenses.
The tax credit would be available to all citizens, regardless of whether or not they itemize their deductions. The credit applies against both income and payroll tax liability. The tax credits provided in this bill will be especially helpful to those Americans whose employers cannot afford to provide health insurance for their employees. These workers must struggle to meet the medical bills of themselves and their families. This burden is especially heavy on parents whose children have a medical condition; such as cancer or a physical disability that requires long‑term or specialized health care.
As an OB‑GYN who has had the privilege of delivering more than four thousand babies, I know how important it is that parents have the resources to provide adequate health care for their children. The inability of many working Americans to provide health care for their children is rooted in one of the great inequities of the tax code-Congress' failure to allow individuals the same ability to deduct health care costs that it grants to businesses. As a direct result of Congress' refusal to provide individuals with health care related tax credits, parents whose employers do not provide health insurance have to struggle to provide health care for their children. Many of these parents work in low‑income jobs; oftentimes, their only recourse for health care is the local emergency room.
Sometimes parents are forced to delay seeking care for their children until minor health concerns that could have been easily treated become serious problems requiring expensive treatment! If these parents had access to the type of tax credits provided in the Child Health Care Affordability Act, they would be better able to provide care for their children, and our nation's already overcrowded emergency rooms would be relieved of the burden of having to provide routine care for people who otherwise cannot afford it.
According to research on the effects of this bill done by my staff and legislative counsel, the benefit of these tax credits would begin to be felt by joint filers with incomes slightly above $18,000 dollars per year, or single income filers with incomes slightly above $15,000 dollars per year. Clearly, this bill will be of the most benefit to low‑income Americans balancing the demands of taxation with the needs of their children.
Under the Child Health Care Affordability Act, a struggling singling mother with an asthmatic child would at last be able to provide for her child's needs, while a working‑class family will not have to worry about how they will pay the bills if one of their children requires lengthy hospitalization or some other form of specialized care.
Madame. Speaker, this Congress has a moral responsibility to provide tax relief so that low‑income parents struggling to care for a sick child can better meet their child's medical expenses. Some may say that we cannot enact the Child Health Care Affordability Act because it would cause the government to lose revenue. But, who is more deserving of this money, Congress or the working parents of a sick child?
I like this! United States House of Representatives
Statement on Introducing the Child Healthcare Affordability Act
March 26, 2009
Madame Speaker, I am pleased to help working Americans provide for their children's health care needs by introducing the Child Health Care Affordability Act. The Child Health Care Affordability Act provides parents with a tax credit of up to $500 for health care expenses of dependent children. Parents caring for a child with a disability, terminal disease, cancer, or any other health condition requiring specialized care would receive a tax credit of up to $3,000 to help cover their child's health care expenses.
The tax credit would be available to all citizens, regardless of whether or not they itemize their deductions. The credit applies against both income and payroll tax liability. The tax credits provided in this bill will be especially helpful to those Americans whose employers cannot afford to provide health insurance for their employees. These workers must struggle to meet the medical bills of themselves and their families. This burden is especially heavy on parents whose children have a medical condition; such as cancer or a physical disability that requires long‑term or specialized health care.
As an OB‑GYN who has had the privilege of delivering more than four thousand babies, I know how important it is that parents have the resources to provide adequate health care for their children. The inability of many working Americans to provide health care for their children is rooted in one of the great inequities of the tax code-Congress' failure to allow individuals the same ability to deduct health care costs that it grants to businesses. As a direct result of Congress' refusal to provide individuals with health care related tax credits, parents whose employers do not provide health insurance have to struggle to provide health care for their children. Many of these parents work in low‑income jobs; oftentimes, their only recourse for health care is the local emergency room.
Sometimes parents are forced to delay seeking care for their children until minor health concerns that could have been easily treated become serious problems requiring expensive treatment! If these parents had access to the type of tax credits provided in the Child Health Care Affordability Act, they would be better able to provide care for their children, and our nation's already overcrowded emergency rooms would be relieved of the burden of having to provide routine care for people who otherwise cannot afford it.
According to research on the effects of this bill done by my staff and legislative counsel, the benefit of these tax credits would begin to be felt by joint filers with incomes slightly above $18,000 dollars per year, or single income filers with incomes slightly above $15,000 dollars per year. Clearly, this bill will be of the most benefit to low‑income Americans balancing the demands of taxation with the needs of their children.
Under the Child Health Care Affordability Act, a struggling singling mother with an asthmatic child would at last be able to provide for her child's needs, while a working‑class family will not have to worry about how they will pay the bills if one of their children requires lengthy hospitalization or some other form of specialized care.
Madame. Speaker, this Congress has a moral responsibility to provide tax relief so that low‑income parents struggling to care for a sick child can better meet their child's medical expenses. Some may say that we cannot enact the Child Health Care Affordability Act because it would cause the government to lose revenue. But, who is more deserving of this money, Congress or the working parents of a sick child?
Paul (TX14) - Speech and Statement - Statement on Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act
Statement of Congressman Ron Paul
United States House of Representatives
Statement on Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act
March 26, 2009
Madame Speaker, America faces a crisis in health care. Health care costs continue to rise while physicians and patients struggle under the control of managed-care "gatekeepers." Obviously, fundamental health care reform should be one of Congress' top priorities.
Unfortunately, most health care "reform" proposals either make marginal changes or exacerbate the problem. This is because they fail to address the root of the problem with health care, which is that government polices encourage excessive reliance on third-party payers. The excessive reliance on third-party payers removes all incentive from individual patients to concern themselves with health care costs. Laws and policies promoting Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted from a desperate attempt to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs further took control over health care away from the individual patient and physician.
Returning control over health care to the individual is the key to true health care reform. The Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act puts control of health care back into the hands of the individual through tax credits, tax deductions, improving Health Savings Accounts, and Flexible Savings Accounts. Specifically, the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act:
A. Provides all Americans with a tax credit for 100% of health care expenses. The tax credit is fully refundable against both income and payroll taxes;
B. Allows individuals to roll over unused amounts in cafeteria plans and Flexible Savings Accounts (FSA);
C. Provides a tax credit for premiums for a high-deductible insurance policy connected with a Health Savings Account (HSA) and allows seniors to use funds in an HSA to pay for a medigap policy;
D. Repeals the 7.5% threshold for the deduction of medical expenses, thus making all medical expenses tax deductible.
By providing a wide range of options, this bill allows individual Americans to choose the method of financing health care that best suits their individual needs. Increasing frustration with the current health care system is leading more and more Americans to embrace this approach to health care reform. I hope all my colleagues will join this effort to put individuals back in control of health care by cosponsoring the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act.
**Managed care sucks!**United States House of Representatives
Statement on Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act
March 26, 2009
Madame Speaker, America faces a crisis in health care. Health care costs continue to rise while physicians and patients struggle under the control of managed-care "gatekeepers." Obviously, fundamental health care reform should be one of Congress' top priorities.
Unfortunately, most health care "reform" proposals either make marginal changes or exacerbate the problem. This is because they fail to address the root of the problem with health care, which is that government polices encourage excessive reliance on third-party payers. The excessive reliance on third-party payers removes all incentive from individual patients to concern themselves with health care costs. Laws and policies promoting Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted from a desperate attempt to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs further took control over health care away from the individual patient and physician.
Returning control over health care to the individual is the key to true health care reform. The Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act puts control of health care back into the hands of the individual through tax credits, tax deductions, improving Health Savings Accounts, and Flexible Savings Accounts. Specifically, the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act:
A. Provides all Americans with a tax credit for 100% of health care expenses. The tax credit is fully refundable against both income and payroll taxes;
B. Allows individuals to roll over unused amounts in cafeteria plans and Flexible Savings Accounts (FSA);
C. Provides a tax credit for premiums for a high-deductible insurance policy connected with a Health Savings Account (HSA) and allows seniors to use funds in an HSA to pay for a medigap policy;
D. Repeals the 7.5% threshold for the deduction of medical expenses, thus making all medical expenses tax deductible.
By providing a wide range of options, this bill allows individual Americans to choose the method of financing health care that best suits their individual needs. Increasing frustration with the current health care system is leading more and more Americans to embrace this approach to health care reform. I hope all my colleagues will join this effort to put individuals back in control of health care by cosponsoring the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act.
Statement on HR 6445, a Veterans Healthcare Bill
Statement on HR 6445, To amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from collecting certain copayments from veterans who are catastrophically disabled.
July 30, 2008
Rep. Ron Paul, M.D.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, which will bar the collection of co-payments from veterans for hospital and nursing home care if the veteran is considered catastrophically disabled. I strongly advocate a noninterventionist foreign policy that would result in far fewer wars and, thankfully, far fewer catastrophically disabled veterans. But I also strongly believe that we must take care of those veterans who have been so severely wounded or otherwise disabled. Too often those who are most vocal in support of foreign military action are most silent when it comes time to take care of those who have paid a very high price for these actions. This legislation will provide at least a little relief to the most seriously injured veterans.
I am concerned, however, that this bill incorporates language from HR 6114, which rescinds a current law requirement that the VA obtain a signed consent form from a veteran before conducting an HIV test. We have seen veterans punished severely for attempting to avoid the required but controversial myriad of inoculations they are required to receive. Now we see that they will have less control over what medical tests to which they might be subjected. I am concerned over this loss of control over one’s healthcare decisions among those who voluntarily join the military, and I urge the adoption of a more flexible policy. I would also urge my colleagues and the American people to contemplate this deprivation of medical and privacy rights on a massive scale should we ever reinstate the draft. I believe taking care of veterans should include both providing promised benefits and protecting their privacy rights.
I don't see how anybody can disagree with this.July 30, 2008
Rep. Ron Paul, M.D.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, which will bar the collection of co-payments from veterans for hospital and nursing home care if the veteran is considered catastrophically disabled. I strongly advocate a noninterventionist foreign policy that would result in far fewer wars and, thankfully, far fewer catastrophically disabled veterans. But I also strongly believe that we must take care of those veterans who have been so severely wounded or otherwise disabled. Too often those who are most vocal in support of foreign military action are most silent when it comes time to take care of those who have paid a very high price for these actions. This legislation will provide at least a little relief to the most seriously injured veterans.
I am concerned, however, that this bill incorporates language from HR 6114, which rescinds a current law requirement that the VA obtain a signed consent form from a veteran before conducting an HIV test. We have seen veterans punished severely for attempting to avoid the required but controversial myriad of inoculations they are required to receive. Now we see that they will have less control over what medical tests to which they might be subjected. I am concerned over this loss of control over one’s healthcare decisions among those who voluntarily join the military, and I urge the adoption of a more flexible policy. I would also urge my colleagues and the American people to contemplate this deprivation of medical and privacy rights on a massive scale should we ever reinstate the draft. I believe taking care of veterans should include both providing promised benefits and protecting their privacy rights.
Statement Introducing the Cancer and Terminal Illness Patient Healthcare Act
Statement of Ron Paul on Introducing the Cancer and Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act
18 December 2007
Rep. Ron Paul, M.D.
Madame Speaker, I rise to help working Americans stricken with cancer or other terminal illnesses, and their families, by introducing the Cancer and Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act. This act exempts people with terminal illnesses from the employee portion of payroll taxes while they are suffering from such illnesses or are incurring significant medical costs associated with their conditions. The Cancer and Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act also provides a payroll deduction to any worker who is the primary caregiver for a spouse, parent, or child with a terminal illness.
When stricken with cancer or another terminal disease, many Americans struggle to pay for the treatment necessary to save, or extend, their lives. Even employees with health insurance incur costs such as for transportation to and from care centers, prescription drugs not covered by their insurance, or for child care while they are receiving treatment. Yet, the federal government continues to force these employees to pay for retirement benefits they may never live to see!
Many Americans struggle to pay the costs of treating children, a spouse, or a parent with a terminal illness. My bill also provides much needed tax relief for those who are providing care to a loved one with a terminal disease.
As a physician who has specialized in women’s health issues for decades, I know how critical it is that cancer patients and others suffering from terminal illnesses have the resources they need to combat these illnesses. The Cancer and Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act provides a realistic way to help people suffering from cancer or other terminal illnesses receive quality health care.
It is hard to think of a more compassionate tax policy this Congress could enact than to stop taking the resources away from working Americans that could help them treat cancer, AIDS, or other terrible health problems. I hope all my colleagues will help people suffering from terminal illnesses, and their caregivers, by cosponsoring the Cancer and Terminal Illness Patent Health Care Act.
I don't see how anyone could disagree with this one, either.18 December 2007
Rep. Ron Paul, M.D.
Madame Speaker, I rise to help working Americans stricken with cancer or other terminal illnesses, and their families, by introducing the Cancer and Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act. This act exempts people with terminal illnesses from the employee portion of payroll taxes while they are suffering from such illnesses or are incurring significant medical costs associated with their conditions. The Cancer and Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act also provides a payroll deduction to any worker who is the primary caregiver for a spouse, parent, or child with a terminal illness.
When stricken with cancer or another terminal disease, many Americans struggle to pay for the treatment necessary to save, or extend, their lives. Even employees with health insurance incur costs such as for transportation to and from care centers, prescription drugs not covered by their insurance, or for child care while they are receiving treatment. Yet, the federal government continues to force these employees to pay for retirement benefits they may never live to see!
Many Americans struggle to pay the costs of treating children, a spouse, or a parent with a terminal illness. My bill also provides much needed tax relief for those who are providing care to a loved one with a terminal disease.
As a physician who has specialized in women’s health issues for decades, I know how critical it is that cancer patients and others suffering from terminal illnesses have the resources they need to combat these illnesses. The Cancer and Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act provides a realistic way to help people suffering from cancer or other terminal illnesses receive quality health care.
It is hard to think of a more compassionate tax policy this Congress could enact than to stop taking the resources away from working Americans that could help them treat cancer, AIDS, or other terrible health problems. I hope all my colleagues will help people suffering from terminal illnesses, and their caregivers, by cosponsoring the Cancer and Terminal Illness Patent Health Care Act.
immortalitylost
Say Meow.
Ya see! *points to the wonderfully researched threads above*
He just plain makes sense!
Nice SG! Very classy, and well thought out as always!
He just plain makes sense!
Nice SG! Very classy, and well thought out as always!
citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
State-by-State: Abortion Laws
Since the Supreme Court handed down its 1973 decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, states have constructed a lattice work of abortion law, codifying, regulating and limiting whether, when and under what circumstances a woman may obtain an abortion. The following table highlights the major provisions of these state laws. More detailed information can be found by selecting the table column headings in blue. Except where noted, the laws are in effect, although they may not always be enforced.
Since the Supreme Court handed down its 1973 decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, states have constructed a lattice work of abortion law, codifying, regulating and limiting whether, when and under what circumstances a woman may obtain an abortion. The following table highlights the major provisions of these state laws. More detailed information can be found by selecting the table column headings in blue. Except where noted, the laws are in effect, although they may not always be enforced.
The Supreme Court ruled that there is a constitutional right to privacy. I'll say it slowly, just in case you didn't get it the first time: CON-STI-TU-TION-AL riiiiiiight. Sorry Mort, but no state is allowed to violate the Constitution. It's all part being (say it with me) a naaaaaation.
And if you follow the link I provided, you'll see states are exercising a good deal of local control over various aspects of abortion, so long as the basic riiiiiight is not infringed. So we get the best of both worlds: a right that applies to every state in the union and the ability to pass local laws that more closely reflect the values of the regions voters.
See? You learned something today!