Tuesday, October 27, 2009 7:04:58 PM
To the extent that healthcare reform affects IMGG it is a concern because our technology saves money.
Also in my opinion, Dean said in the CC, ...that this thing can be taylored to pass, all he has to do is change some claims and we are in, but he did not want to go that route on this round. It is a fall back position.
IMHO
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf
Pelosi, Ried, Baucus and their staff are the only ones who really know what is going into the legislation. We can only surmise what it will look like from the originalHouse bill, the proposed aamendmentsnd what Baucus released out of committee. We can read what the advisors to the President like Ezikiel Emanuel health policy advisor to the Office of Management and Budget
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574374463280098676.html
By BETSY MCCAUGHEY
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, health adviser to President Barack Obama, is under scrutiny. As a bioethicist, he has written extensively about who should get medical care, who should decide, and whose life is worth saving. Dr. Emanuel is part of a school of thought that redefines a physician’s duty, insisting that it includes working for the greater good of society instead of focusing only on a patient’s needs. Many physicians find that view dangerous, and most Americans are likely to agree....
Some of his raving:
"...Covering services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic, and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia." (Hastings Center Report, November-December, 1996)..."
..."However, other things are rarely equal—whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three 70-year-olds, who could only live for another 10 years each—is unclear." In fact, Dr. Emanuel makes a clear choice: "When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get changes that are attenuated (see Dr. Emanuel's chart nearby)...
Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not."...
Also in my opinion, Dean said in the CC, ...that this thing can be taylored to pass, all he has to do is change some claims and we are in, but he did not want to go that route on this round. It is a fall back position.
IMHO
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf
Pelosi, Ried, Baucus and their staff are the only ones who really know what is going into the legislation. We can only surmise what it will look like from the originalHouse bill, the proposed aamendmentsnd what Baucus released out of committee. We can read what the advisors to the President like Ezikiel Emanuel health policy advisor to the Office of Management and Budget
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574374463280098676.html
By BETSY MCCAUGHEY
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, health adviser to President Barack Obama, is under scrutiny. As a bioethicist, he has written extensively about who should get medical care, who should decide, and whose life is worth saving. Dr. Emanuel is part of a school of thought that redefines a physician’s duty, insisting that it includes working for the greater good of society instead of focusing only on a patient’s needs. Many physicians find that view dangerous, and most Americans are likely to agree....
Some of his raving:
"...Covering services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic, and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia." (Hastings Center Report, November-December, 1996)..."
..."However, other things are rarely equal—whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three 70-year-olds, who could only live for another 10 years each—is unclear." In fact, Dr. Emanuel makes a clear choice: "When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get changes that are attenuated (see Dr. Emanuel's chart nearby)...
Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not."...
