Spending for health care
 

Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: Betsy McCaughey
Email | Print | A A A

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

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aLzfDxfbwhzs

Rush Limbaugh has been spreading this nonsense ..its now making its way through the right wing blogs...and Rush is laughing all the way to bank. He is loving this stimulus bill...what a rating maker to keep his minions listening and spreading the bullshit!

The National Coordinator of Health Information Technology is not a "new bureaucracy" ...in fact, it was created by Bush.

IMO, it was one of the good programs he established. Not only to coordinate the transformation of medical records to a more efficient electronic system. But also to coordinate the dissemination of medical information and research to physicians.

Here is what the stimulus bill says:

SEC. 3001. OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL COORDINATOR FOR HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.

"(a) Establishment-- There is established within the Department of Health and Human Services an Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (referred to in this section as the 'Office'). The Office shall be headed by a National Coordinator who shall be appointed by the Secretary and shall report directly to the Secretary.

"(b) Purpose-- The National Coordinator shall perform the duties under subsection (c) in a manner consistent with the development of a nationwide health information technology infrastructure that allows for the electronic use and exchange of information and that--

"(1) ensures that each patient's health information is secure and protected, in accordance with applicable law;

"(2) improves health care quality, reduces medical errors, reduces health disparities, and advances the delivery of patient-centered medical care;

"(3) reduces health care costs resulting from inefficiency, medical errors, inappropriate care, duplicative care, and incomplete information;

"(4) provides appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care;

"(5) ensures the inclusion of meaningful public input in such development of such infrastructure;

"(6) improves the coordination of care and information among hospitals, laboratories, physician offices, and other entities through an effective infrastructure for the secure and authorized exchange of health care information;

"(7) improves public health activities and facilitates the early identification and rapid response to public health threats and emergencies, including bioterror events and infectious disease outbreaks;

"(8) facilitates health and clinical research and health care quality;

"(9) promotes prevention of chronic diseases;

"(10) promotes a more effective marketplace, greater competition, greater systems analysis, increased consumer choice, and improved outcomes in health care services; and

"(11) improves efforts to reduce health disparities.

I think it will be great that physicians, hospital and labs will have a centralized data base of independent research on medications and medical practices rather than just studies funded by the pharmaceutical and/or insurance industries.

There is absolutely nothing in the current legislation that would expand the mission of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology to "monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. " as suggested in the article above.

Nothing more than fear mongering!

You obviously don't work in health care.

Nope..but unlike you, I dont suggest that I have any special expertise...which you seem to posses regarding everything that Obama does that you dont like.

I dont see any reason to discuss it with you.

You can believe what you want. I know I wont change your mind.

I'm just not as paranoid as you or believe everything I read from an editorial with an agenda.

Try reading or listening to some objective analyses (and the legislation itself) ..rather than limiting yourself to "reports" from "sources" that tell you what you want to see and hear.

It could be mind expanding :eek: ...in a good way!

Good points.

I work in health care.

I am not paranoid, I see the changes each and every day.

My objective analyses is my daily work load.

Stop believing that you are the only one in the know, you are not.

If there is anyone mandating medical procedures and protocols, it is the HMOs and the health insurance industry, not the federal government.

Right back at ya! :D

For the first part, correct. For the second part, not yet, but isn't that why the po folk elected him? So where is the free medical care?

Guess what folk, it ain't coming. You have been duped.

Actually you would be quite wrong. I have been in this profession for nearly 30 years.

The folk elected him, in part, for his position to implement programs and policies that will provide quality and affordable medical care for all.

There was no promise of free medical care. cite please on the free health care pledge!

I dont see "free medical care" anywhere in his health care agenda.

More right wing bugaboo about "universal health care means that the government will take over your life?"

I guess we will see. Ask around that is not the message that the folk got. They want it and they want it now. It is not what we heard, it is what the electorate heard. They did not hear anything other than government sponsorded health care for those without jobs and those without insurance. So, where's the beef?

Dress up the pig however you care.

ahhhhh.....so its not in Obama's health care policy.

Its just something you think the electorate heard?

Guess what..if the electorate heard "government sponsored health care" it was part of the McCain/Palin misinformation campaign....not from Obama.

Wrong again. Nice try at deflection.


Provide universal health care
"I have made a solemn pledge that I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year."—6/23/07, Hartford, Conn.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/campa...ises_obama.htm

You do understand that there is no provision for a credit of $2500 in the latest stimulus plan that would actually keep health care workers employeed if inacted.

"Every American" includes all 16 babies of that mom and Calif but does not include all the illegal aliens that already get free health care while the working poor of legal Americans get squat. You do understand that right?

Where's the beef?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/1..._n_144559.html

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama, seeking support from labor union members in New Jersey, vowed Monday to make health insurance available to all Americans by the end of his first term in the White House.



''We can have universal health care by the end of the next president's first term, by the end of my first term,'' Obama said, bringing 600 union workers to their feet during a question-and-answer session with members of AFL-CIO affiliated unions.



http://www.suntimes.com/news/electio...7obama.article

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/71193.php

http://promises.nationaljournal.com/health-care/

Nope....ready his remarks carefully.

Nowhere does he promise "free" health care for all.

His "universal" proposals means quality and affordable for all.

It was, and has always, been the Republicans who intentionally mischaracterize "universal" as meaning "government run and and free"

"cut the cost by up to $2500/year"....not free!

Typical average family premiums are currently around $10,000-$12,000/yr and rising every year.

Cutting the cost would be nice. Free was never promised nor is it expected.

not what the people heard. I hear it every day!

How do you provide "affordable health care" to the 600,000 workers just laid off last month? COBRA? How do they pay for that?

He's promised to sign it... if congress brings it.
I don't see the word "free" anywhere in there.
Massachusetts has passed their own version of universal health care already. My brother, who is self employed, has health insurance he's paying close to $500 a month for. The state has informed him his insurance is unacceptable because it has no prescription coverage.

If it were free, big business, who have been bitching loudly about health care costs for their employees, would be on it like white on rice... they are not.

That is absolutely a challenge and why we need a comprehensive economic recovery plan so those folks can return to the workforce which most would like to do....along with reform of employer-based health care coverage which is part of Obama's health care agenda.

The fact remains that Obama has never pledged free health care for all...or government run health care for all.

In the interim, at the very least, the children of those workers can be covered through the expanded SCHIP program that Obama signed last week (that Bush vetoed twice)

And those children will be covered ONLy until the parents are able to get back in the workforce.

Obama promises universal health care, he says it over and over.

But never once does he say FREE. :p

Nothing is free, ass, grass, cash.

You are right. Everyone with a job will pay for it for the rest of the sods.

OBAMA and health care:

Universal Coverage
Zero fines & no mandate for small business. (Oct 2008)
Reduce premiums and uninsured get same coverage as Congress. (Oct 2008)
No exclusions for pre-existing conditions. (Oct 2008)
Ban insurance companies from discriminating against the sick. (Aug 2008)
I’ve got a health plan and a plan to get it implemented. (Jun 2008)
AdWatch: My plan costs $2,500 less per family than Clinton’s. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Unclear if Obama’s plan costs less than Clinton’s. (Apr 2008)
Universal health care means anyone who wants it can get it. (Feb 2008)
Insurers are happy to have a mandate; issue is affordability. (Feb 2008)
Voluntary universal participation, like in Medicare Part B. (Feb 2008)
Mandating kids’ insurance ok; mandating adults has problems. (Feb 2008)
Young adults up to age 25 can be covered under parents’ plan. (Feb 2008)
My plan does more than anybody to reduce costs. (Feb 2008)
My health plan does not leave 15 million people uncovered. (Feb 2008)
Adults will get health care as they can afford it. (Feb 2008)
AdWatch: punishing uninsured families doesn’t make sense. (Feb 2008)
FactCheck: Hillary’s plan does mandate; but so does Obama’s. (Feb 2008)
No one turned away due to illness or pre-existing condition. (Feb 2008)
Buy private insurance via National Health Insurance Exchange. (Feb 2008)
Against enforcement mechanism for mandating insurance. (Jan 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, Obama favored single-payer, despite denial. (Jan 2008)
FactCheck: No, US costs are not twice as much as others. (Jan 2008)
AdWatch: Pressure insurance & drug companies to change. (Jan 2008)
FactCheck: OPPORTUNITY to insure all, but no GUARANTEE. (Jan 2008)
AdWatch: Don’t make it illegal not to have health care. (Jan 2008)
Being poor in this country is hazardous to your health. (Dec 2007)
Problem isn’t mandating coverage, but affording it. (Nov 2007)
FactCheck: Coverage plan might leave 8.5 million uninsured. (Nov 2007)
Cautious incremental plan offers choice & subsidy. (Nov 2007)
Added 20,000 children to Illinois healthcare. (Oct 2007)
Government healthcare like members of Congress have. (Sep 2007)
Increase competition in the insurance and drug markets. (Aug 2007)
National Health Insurance Exchange for private coverage. (Aug 2007)
Health plan cuts typical family’s premium by $2,500 a year. (Jun 2007)
Give people the choice to buy affordable health care. (Jun 2007)
National insurance pool & catastrophic insurance. (Apr 2007)
Employers are going to have to pay or play. (Mar 2007)
Need political will to accomplish universal coverage. (Mar 2007)
Universal health care by of first term. (Feb 2007)
Healthcare system is broken without lifetime employment. (Oct 2006)
The market alone can’t solve our health-care woes. (Oct 2006)
Focus on the affordability of a broad healthcare plan. (Jan 2006)
Crises happen in our lives and healthcare is necessary. (Oct 2004)
Believes health care is a right, not a privilege for the few. (Sep 2004)
Will expand health coverage & allow meds to be re-imported. (May 2004)
Ensure access to basic care. (Jul 1998)

Universal Coverage
Zero fines & no mandate for small business. (Oct 2008)
Reduce premiums and uninsured get same coverage as Congress. (Oct 2008)
No exclusions for pre-existing conditions. (Oct 2008)
Ban insurance companies from discriminating against the sick. (Aug 2008)
I’ve got a health plan and a plan to get it implemented. (Jun 2008)
AdWatch: My plan costs $2,500 less per family than Clinton’s. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Unclear if Obama’s plan costs less than Clinton’s. (Apr 2008)
Universal health care means anyone who wants it can get it. (Feb 2008)
Insurers are happy to have a mandate; issue is affordability. (Feb 2008)
Voluntary universal participation, like in Medicare Part B. (Feb 2008)
Mandating kids’ insurance ok; mandating adults has problems. (Feb 2008)
Young adults up to age 25 can be covered under parents’ plan. (Feb 2008)
My plan does more than anybody to reduce costs. (Feb 2008)
My health plan does not leave 15 million people uncovered. (Feb 2008)
Adults will get health care as they can afford it. (Feb 2008)
AdWatch: punishing uninsured families doesn’t make sense. (Feb 2008)
FactCheck: Hillary’s plan does mandate; but so does Obama’s. (Feb 2008)
No one turned away due to illness or pre-existing condition. (Feb 2008)
Buy private insurance via National Health Insurance Exchange. (Feb 2008)
Against enforcement mechanism for mandating insurance. (Jan 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, Obama favored single-payer, despite denial. (Jan 2008)
FactCheck: No, US costs are not twice as much as others. (Jan 2008)
AdWatch: Pressure insurance & drug companies to change. (Jan 2008)
FactCheck: OPPORTUNITY to insure all, but no GUARANTEE. (Jan 2008)
AdWatch: Don’t make it illegal not to have health care. (Jan 2008)
Being poor in this country is hazardous to your health. (Dec 2007)
Problem isn’t mandating coverage, but affording it. (Nov 2007)
FactCheck: Coverage plan might leave 8.5 million uninsured. (Nov 2007)
Cautious incremental plan offers choice & subsidy. (Nov 2007)
Added 20,000 children to Illinois healthcare. (Oct 2007)
Government healthcare like members of Congress have. (Sep 2007)
Increase competition in the insurance and drug markets. (Aug 2007)
National Health Insurance Exchange for private coverage. (Aug 2007)
Health plan cuts typical family’s premium by $2,500 a year. (Jun 2007)
Give people the choice to buy affordable health care. (Jun 2007)
National insurance pool & catastrophic insurance. (Apr 2007)
Employers are going to have to pay or play. (Mar 2007)
Need political will to accomplish universal coverage. (Mar 2007)
Universal health care by of first term. (Feb 2007)
Healthcare system is broken without lifetime employment. (Oct 2006)
The market alone can’t solve our health-care woes. (Oct 2006)
Focus on the affordability of a broad healthcare plan. (Jan 2006)
Crises happen in our lives and healthcare is necessary. (Oct 2004)
Believes health care is a right, not a privilege for the few. (Sep 2004)
Will expand health coverage & allow meds to be re-imported. (May 2004)
Ensure access to basic care. (Jul 1998)

:zzz: Somebody say free? No? Then just rant and rave then hold your breath till you turn blue. Ain't gonna change a thing. :zzz:

Where in this quote do you see that the individual or employer provides for the health care of the individual?

No where. So what is the message that the electorate heard? What are patients telling me every day? I will tell you. Obama and the gooberment is going to give them free health care, ala the UK or Canada, or France, etc.

Get over it guys. This is exactly the message that Obamy sent to get elected.

Where's the beef?

.. double post.

Not trying to "change a thing", but I will call attention to the failures and lies that got him elected and rub it in the faces of those who view him as their savior. Rock on.

Say as you will dude. If you believe that the people were lied to.

Where in the stimulus package is there stimulus for health care providers to actually provide the care? Nada.

screw you! I ruined my health under W!

Hmmmmmm....

again, I say.

I wasn't talking to YOU.

Besides, I'm certain you have me on 'ignore'

:D

We do. Those of us still working, and the companies that employ us.

At no point does he say "single payer".

And just what were you doing under W? :3eye:

Back to Merc's original article....since Merc wont accept that Obama has never pledged to provide free health care to all and that universal means accessible and affordable quality health care for all.

Citing one layperson's unsupported opinion in an editorial that the stimulus bill has a provision that will enable Obama to implement his and Daschel's "so-called policy" to have the government "monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective" does not make it a fact. Damn, Merc...go to the source and read the provision in the bill. I cited it earlier just for you!

What it does is perpetuate bullshit that went from the one editorial writer (with an agenda) to Limbaugh and Drudge (with an agenda) to right wing blogs (dare I say it..with an agenda) and eventually to political forums like the Cellar...where the wing nuts who started the ball rolling hope that ultimately,the more it is repeated, the more likely it might be accepted as factual.

Merc..you can keep playing your role in this farcical charade called "the Obama administration is out to control your life and turn the US into a bastion of socialism" if it makes you feel better, it wont make the allegation any more factual.

Morning everyone - Did I miss anything?

Jebus H Cripes...

That is all.

I expect the political melodrama, Socialism in America or How I Became a Foot Soldier in the Wingers War to Save the Country, will have at least a four-year run.

I'm hoping it will be extending for eight. It is highly entertaining...the down side is that it makes Rush a fatter cat every day. His listeners will be on the edge of their chair waiting for the next installment.

Stayed tuned. That next act may bring in a new element...the "nefarious" stimulus bill is anti-religion!

I am not even going to read this thread, I'm just going to say this:

I am sick to death of conservative whining that we need lower corporate taxes because American corporations can't compete globally. One reason they can't compete is because of health care costs. Every other industrailized country in the world has government health care. When conservatives are willing to give US the same fucking health care they get in Congress, then I will happy to support lower corporate taxes. Until then, they can kiss my ass.

I noticed these 2 articles when I was reading about the fires is AUS...
Don't assume everything is all rainbows and gummy bears in government health care land. You don't even have to read about it other countries, ask the people here who are on government health care how much they like it...

Medibank Private to open own emergency wards


Claims of cover-ups, bungled care at Bundaberg hospital

I'm not claiming it is perfect in other countries, but that they have access to it. I think we should look at what other countries do, and adopt things that would work here. There is no such thing as a perfect system, I don't believe. Ours certainly doesn't work very well though, unless you are fortunate enough to work somewhere that still has good benefits, or unless you can afford good insurance (which doesn't always end up being as good as you think).

Why is OK that taxpayers end up subsidizing health care for employees of rich corporations like WalMart, when they can obviously afford to supply it? Why do we put up with that? Those people don't make enough to buy insrance on their own, so they are mostly on some kind of Medicare. And WalMart is one of the richest corporations in the world. Why aren't you pissed off about that?

Universal affordable and accessible health care does not necessarily mean government health care.

What Obama envisions in the longer term is more quasi-governmental, with a government body overseeing the administration of a program that provides citizens with a range of choices through private health care providers. The citizens would have little or no contact with the government and would interact with their health care provider in much the same manner as they do now if covered by an employer-based plan.

In the short term, the goal is to contain the costs of employer-based plans since they represent over 2/3 of those currently with health care coverage and to provide incentives for small business to create health care pools in order to provide affordable coverage to those small business employees.

Is it doable? I hope we might see steps in that direction if all the fear mongering about government taking over our lives is put aside...and if the economy doesnt keep tanking.

The point is that da po folk never saw it that way, and that is what message has been sent. I am not really concerned if you believe that or not, it is really not important.

Great, you tell us all what it means. Speak for Obama.

OK Merc, We got yer opinion . . . about 40 times. Others see it differently. We'll all just have to see how it plays out. If its true, would it be the first time a politician was a little vague on something to elected?
IIRC - W was going to be the great uniter - how'd that turn out? Could we be any more divided as a country than we are now?

We have only just begun to be divided IMHO.

As opposed to you speaking for the millions of Americans you have heard from who believe Obama' has pledged free universal health care?

Gimme a fucking break.

I try to gain an understanding of his heath care policy agenda by reading his policy agenda! Damn...why not start there and supplement it with articles and analyses of his proposed policy that provide more than one person's opinion! Makes sense, doesnt it?

Or does it really make more sense to draw such sweeping conclusions as your based on the opinion of an editorial writer who offers nothing to support her opinion and public hearsay?

Perhaps it does for you...not for me.

When I see the words 'universal healthcare' I don't see the words free. In fact, it really doesn't tell you much except that it'll be available to everyone 'universally'.

eta: and I don't think I'm any smarter than anyone else, so if i can understand the definition of the word, then why can't others?

We have what you'd probably call universal healthcare here. It's not free, but it's a lot more affordable than private healthcare.

Just as an example, if you go to see your GP over here, it'll cost you anywhere from $40 - $100 per visit depending on the length of the appointment, time of day and particular practicioner. Of that amount, let's suggest $60 as the mean average, you'll get back somewhere between half and two thirds. Some clinics 'bulk bill' which means the bill goes straight to the government for less financial patients such as pensioners, for the rest of us, if we choose to see a public GP, we get a substantial saving. Depending on how much you 'spend' at the doctors throughout the year will depend on how much you might have to either pay or not when it's time to pay your taxes. Of course, if you're a pensioner with no other income for example, you're not required to submit a tax return, so you're exempt.

The system here is designed to try and help those who can least afford healthcare while still giving the more wealthy a break too, depending on how much they draw from the system.

It's not too bad, but it has its faults just like every other government funded initiative.

eta: For the more wealthy, there are tax breaks for having private health insurance from the age of 30. Unfortunately, if you don't have PHI before the age of 30, any tax benefits that might have been available to you are no longer applicable. This is one of the bad parts of the legislation in my opinion.

What the hell? :lol:

But your system and the one in the UK and Canada are highly supported by your tax system. No?

Of course. There aren't any fairy god mothers here either. Where do you think Obama would be planning on getting the money to fund a universal health care system in the US?

C'mon Ali - He was just calming down too! Did you have to fan the flames?:eyebrow:

I know exactly where he plans on getting it. And that was the point.

lol...well I have to leave him something to go on with. I wont be here for a few days. (yes I know there's plenty who'll be happy to see that. Try and control yourselves so you don't look like dicks please)

:D

US? look like dicks? please. :)

Well I don't think you lot will be the ones glad I'm not here. ;)

I think there is a contingent who will be though. lol

(but please feel free to act like dicks anyway ;) )

Much of the cost savings that will be passed on to consumers will result from computerizing the health care system.

I dont know how it is in Australia, but in the US, a relatively small percentage of doctors and hospitals are using or maximizing their use of health information technology systems

A Rand report (pdf)found that implementing health IT would result in a mean annual savings of $40 billion over a 15-year period by improving health outcomes through care management, increasing efficiency, and reducing medical errors.

In terms of the $20 billion for health care IT in the stimulus package, a Harvard researcher suggests that the $20 bill investment in health care IT is in fact a both stimulus (creating thousands of jobs) and a means to make health care more efficient and less costly over a period of a few years.

I dont take these studies at face value, but I am inclined to take them as more credible than the unsubstantiated opinion of the editorial writer in the initial article that suggested the health IT investment in the stimulus bill would be "dangerous to your health" and was to "enable the government to dictate to doctors how to treat patients."