It’s a tremendous leap from “[t]he national coordinator for health information technology shall undertake the development of a nationwide health information technology infrastructure that provides appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care” to “Barack Obama wants old people to die,” but leave it to Tennessee’s own Steve Gill to make the jump. And he’s been making that same jump for over a week now, ever since Rush Limbaugh picked up former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey false claim that provisions in the economic recovery act would allow the federal government to determine what is and is not “unnecessary care”:
But the bill goes much further on page 442. It explicitly says that the government will be delivering information to your doctor at bedside, quote, “to guide decisions at the time and place of careâ€â€”at the time and place of care. So, in fact, this is going be a two-way system. Your medical treatments will be stored in the medical database but the government will also be communicating with your doctor at the time and place of care.
Freddie and I talked about what a load of hooey this was on the show this morning – McCaughey left out one tiny, but crucial, word and oh, by the way, she gets paid by the very people who want to stop healthcare reform at any cost:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
But our Aunt B. (can we call you “our Aunt B.?) of the Tiny Cat Pants wrote in with another salient point:
I was listening to you on the way into work talking about the weirdness with the Republican talking point about the Dems wanting there to be some kind of live-chat between your doctor and Obama during your appointment in order to determine what kind of medical treatment you should get. And I loved it! But I just wanted to say that you missed, I think, the most obvious weird thing–the Republicans really do want half of us to have to okay our medical procedures with the government. You’re going to tell me that they wouldn’t love some system whereby when a woman wanted an abortion, the doctor had to text Rush Limbaugh and discuss her case with him to see how to procede? So, how come what’s good for the gander isn’t good for the goose?
Shhhhhh, Aunt B! Don’t give them any ideas! Come to think of it, maybe that’s what they’re afraid of? Monitored medical records might mean a whole mess of skeletons tumbling out of the closets of the “No Uterus” crowd, which would undoubtedly mess up their very deft use of abortion as a political football.
So, Rush, Steve, et. al, which is it? Medical privacy for everyone – including women – or not?
UPDATE: Another email from a loyal listener:
This is the dumbest argumnent I’ve ever heard. Evidence-based medicine is one of the most basic changes that we can make to fix the healthcare system. This isn’t: we’re going to tell you how to treat your patient. This is: we’re going to see what actually works and what doesnt’ and give you the results so that you can have the most effective information possible. Are they against the CDC?? This is so dumb. I want this opposition engraved on their tombstone so that for all of eternity they will be remembered as dumb.
Have the heard the one about the birth certificate?
UPDATE: Don’t forget to read about my Aunt B.’s powerful female bits. How powerful, you ask? So powerful that elected officials feel the need to regulate them.
Hey! Thanks, polerin. Aunt B. is a peach, ain’t she? I can’t tell you how many times I’ve done a spit take while reading her blog. Freakin’ hysterical.
Thanks for the link, eldano. I’m checking it out.
Slarti – Good point about collective systems and I don’t mind having that conversation and keeping it in mind. Gill et al, on the other, not interested in history or dialogue and it really cheeses me off.
heh, I love Aunt B. almost as much as I love you guys. Which is a-whole-fuckin-bunch.
For an interesting take written from the conservative perspective, check out this Washington Monthly piece that shows how to change some of the incentives so that it makes sense for private institutions to put the long term care of their patients first, just like the VA can: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.longman.html
steve gill is a cross between a wannabe lamebo and
larry always chewing the kud low
in suburban attire
Mary, Gill did indeed jump the gun on this one.
However, as the debate moves forward, let’s keep in mind the history of all collective systems (above the smallest of scales):
1) The money flows without strings. Happy days are here again.
2) Once the rules are widely known, the well-connected and corrupt begin to game the system for personal gain or to take shortcuts. This has never NOT happened.
3) Costs spiral out of control.
4) Some form of rationing is introduced, usually something reasonable that all can agree on.
5) Costs, still not being contained manageably, force stricter rationing.
This pattern is indisputable: it’s happened to various degrees in every collective system ever devised, especially healthcare schemes. Canada, Great Britain, TennCare, you name it.
I say this as someone who, more likely than not, stands to gain in the short-term from health care reform. And I also say it as someone who believes the healthcare system needs reforming.
But, to claim that government does not eventually put strings on funds it gives to institutions and individuals (highway funds, anyone?) is to simply ignore logic and history.
Ben – They’re not complaining, they’re fearmongering. You know, half the stuff they say on the radio they don’t really believe, so I’ve been told. Recommendations for care by the the government will be system-wide – as they are now – and will continue to be much less invasive than the absolute control that insurance companies have over many life and death situations. The provisions in the stimulus bill are baby steps towards fixing our healthcare system and the screaming heads are twisting them – with their usual lies and obfuscations – for their own personal gain.
So, Rush, Steve, et. al, which is it? Medical privacy for everyone – including women – or not?
Everyone except those women’s children, unless they want contraceptives.
The idea that gov’t recommendations (from the CDC or other gov’t agencies) on care plans are somehow invasive is just goofy. Is it any less invasive than the insurance companies’ utilization/review process that rations or even denies care? As for invasiveness … people at VA hospital, or who go to public health centers, already have to deal with government involvement in their care. The VA has turned into a national model of how healthcare should work. JCAHO is using VA as an exemplar of how to improve communications, build efficiency, and reduce the number of critical incidents. I’m just not sure what Steve Gill or Rush Limbaugh are complaining about. This is just sour grapes.
[...] Here’s what came of it. [...]