Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan

Commentary by Betsy McCaughey

Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama’s stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.
Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.

Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).

The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.

New Penalties

Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541).

What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.

The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Elderly Hardest Hit

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.

In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.

Hidden Provisions

If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.

The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).

Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,” he said. “The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.”

More Scrutiny Needed

On Friday, President Obama called it “inexcusable and irresponsible” for senators to delay passing the stimulus bill. In truth, this bill needs more scrutiny.

The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn. This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy.
(Betsy McCaughey is former lieutenant governor of New York and is an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The opinions expressed are her own.)
To contact the writer of this column: Betsy McCaughey at Betsymross@aol.com

McCain's Med Plan Offers Consumers More Long-Term Choice...

By Editorial, Rocky Mountain News October 13, 2008
Article Excerpt: Click here to read entire post.

If there's one issue Coloradans have been intently listening to in the season of never-ending political debates - besides the economy, of course - it's probably health care. A new Census Bureau report, after all, reveals that nearly one in five Coloradans under age 65 lack health insurance. The number jumps to 35 percent when only counting the Hispanic community. And while that doesn't mean every one of those residents is in financial straits because of health care costs, one catastrophic medical crisis can send a family to the poorhouse. Both political parties and their candidates are quick to agree that America's health care system is fractured. Both John McCain and Barack Obama are touting preventive care and better information technology to cut costs, and have proposed safety nets (though markedly different) to cover the hard-to-insure, such as patients with pre-existing conditions. That's where the agreement stops. How can voters wade through the health care rhetoric to pick the best offered solution? If you're uninsured, your focus is on securing adequate coverage. If you're insured, you want to know whether proposals will ding your wallet or the quality and scope of your coverage. In either case, you probably value some degree of choice. If that's a high priority, we'd recommend John McCain's plan. Barack Obama's plan extols choice, too, but over time leads in another direction. McCain's health care proposal hinges on a $5,000 tax credit for families ($2,500 for individuals) under which individuals could either keep their current insurance or go out and buy coverage, even shopping across state lines to get the best rates. And under McCain's plan, if you don't spend the entire allotted amount on coverage, the remainder can be deposited in Health Savings Accounts (which McCain wants to expand). The Obama plan, meanwhile, gives birth to a bouncing new bureaucracy: the National Health Insurance Exchange, which would offer private policies and a public insurance plan "based on benefits available to members of Congress" - generous benefits, in other words. All wanting insurance in the public plan would have to be covered under the same premium, without regard to lifestyle choices such as smoking that increase health risks. Obama's plan purports to maintain personal choice - and to some exent does at first - but a growing entitlement program will almost certainly crowd private insurers out of the market.