Obama's Rhetoric is the Real Catastrophe

[Coramoor]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Don't you think the scale is unique to him?

Perhaps.

However BO was elected on his profound message of change. Not being Bush is not good enough any more.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DGTess

Things are not good. Further nationalizing - first banks, now medical records, and whatever's next - and government pork are not the answer.

How are medical records being nationalized?

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

How are medical records being nationalized?

Maybe she's referring to electronic medical recordkeeping? If so, she should know that that's something many people in the medical community have been wanting for quite a long time. It's not only an efficiency/money saving issue, but it's a huge safety issue as well. Do you realize that right now, people can go from hospital to hospital with no trace of which drugs they may be taking or which procedures and conditions they've had in the past? It's a great way to enable prescription drug abuse. Furthermore, if you were taken to the ER, unconscious, the medical team these days might have no idea which medications you were taking, which drugs you might be allergic to, whether you've had your spleen removed, etc. By keeping medical records in one database, doctors attending to you whereever you may be know your medical history, which just might save your life. Of course, there are security issues that need to be addressed with such a system (we don't want people hacking into it), but overall the idea is sound, I think.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

Maybe she's referring to electronic medical recordkeeping?

I wondered about that, too (and remembered that George Bush was advocating it before Barack Obama), but I haven't heard any proposal about EMR that could accurately be described as "nationalization" of medical records. Have I missed that part?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

Maybe she's referring to electronic medical recordkeeping? If so, she should know that that's something many people in the medical community have been wanting for quite a long time. It's not only an efficiency/money saving issue, but it's a huge safety issue as well. Do you realize that right now, people can go from hospital to hospital with no trace of which drugs they may be taking or which procedures and conditions they've had in the past? It's a great way to enable prescription drug abuse. Furthermore, if you were taken to the ER, unconscious, the medical team these days might have no idea which medications you were taking, which drugs you might be allergic to, whether you've had your spleen removed, etc. By keeping medical records in one database, doctors attending to you whereever you may be know your medical history, which just might save your life. Of course, there are security issues that need to be addressed with such a system (we don't want people hacking into it), but overall the idea is sound, I think.

The privacy issue is huge. It's possible that the benefits to patients may outweigh the risks, but there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about this.

I think one of the issues that will seem weird is employer-based insurance oversight with easy access to your whole history, but hey, maybe we'll get nationalized health care too, so that won't matter. Imagine the customer service and quality you associate with the DMV but with access to all your medical records. Awesome.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

The privacy issue is huge. It's possible that the benefits to patients may outweigh the risks, but there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about this.

I think one of the issues that will seem weird is employer-based insurance oversight with easy access to your whole history, but hey, maybe we'll get nationalized health care too, so that won't matter. Imagine the customer service and quality you associate with the DMV but with access to all your medical records. Awesome.

Employers, especially big employers that essentially issue their own insurance, already have access to some of this information. I hadn't read that employers were going to gain access to the database, though...guess I need to read up on that more. I AM concerned about that, and the privacy/security issue in general. I don't really trust the government to build the most secure database around.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

Employers, especially big employers that essentially issue their own insurance, already have access to some of this information. I hadn't read that employers were going to gain access to the database, though...guess I need to read up on that more. I AM concerned about that, and the privacy/security issue in general. I don't really trust the government to build the most secure database around.

Seeing and dealing with some of the data leak issues even coming from the VA...I am sure, to a point we can patch a few things but most of it is up to the actual folks who deal with data systems.

problem is, of course keeping up with hackers who keep trying to gain access and making sure that IT departments maintain adequate security.

Some of the problems I face in my department is that IT is so busy chasing it's own tail that they wind up locking out the wrong people who need access.

heh...

[AKA_Monet]

About the health medical records alone: Google Health has their site up... Pretty intense, and has all the info available. Not sure how your physicians will have access to it without their consent. Moreover, the folks that sat on the advisory board are some real "big wigs" in healthcare... So, they have a nice little program on their hands. IDK if I trust Google with all my health information, though... I did not include ALL of it, like my entire vax schedule.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

Employers, especially big employers that essentially issue their own insurance, already have access to some of this information. I hadn't read that employers were going to gain access to the database, though...guess I need to read up on that more. I AM concerned about that, and the privacy/security issue in general. I don't really trust the government to build the most secure database around.

I didn't mean to imply that I read anything that you need to. I just think that having one unified database will essentially mean that anyone who has access now would have access to everything. It's also difficult to imagine successfully locking the folks who control payment in the present system out.

It's hard to see the database leading to the benefits that it could provide while at the same time having the safeguards in privacy that most of us would be comfortable with. Either it's something that provides total access to your complete history to anyone who might need it, even in an emergency when you couldn't give consent, OR it's limited and protected in access and can't deliver its complete promise.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

The privacy issue is huge. It's possible that the benefits to patients may outweigh the risks, but there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about this.

I think one of the issues that will seem weird is employer-based insurance oversight with easy access to your whole history, but hey, maybe we'll get nationalized health care too, so that won't matter. Imagine the customer service and quality you associate with the DMV but with access to all your medical records. Awesome.

I can see both sides of the coin.

It would be good on a safety level. Bad on a privacy level. If it gets serious play in these talks, legislators are going to have to make a hard and fast decision on which is more important. Then supreme court justices will have to do the same.

I don't think we'll be nationalizing health care any time soon, though. I think the goal right now is ensuring everyone has access to some sort of health care.

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

The privacy issue is huge. It's possible that the benefits to patients may outweigh the risks, but there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about this.

I think one of the issues that will seem weird is employer-based insurance oversight with easy access to your whole history, but hey, maybe we'll get nationalized health care too, so that won't matter. Imagine the customer service and quality you associate with the DMV but with access to all your medical records. Awesome.

And the government deciding what's "meaningful" -- "The bill indicates that grants will go to establishments that show "meaningful use" of health IT, a somewhat vague description that analysts say could persuade physicians to hold off on upgrading their records." (http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/...ap6061672.html)

recovery.gov doesn't show where my money is going. It is a propaganda bar chart of motherhood and apple pie. I'll have to read the full bill, but it will take a while -- unlike those in Congress who distilled it and determined their votes not on party lines but on the merits (bullpuckey), I don't absorb instantaneously.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by DGTess

And the government deciding what's "meaningful" -- "The bill indicates that grants will go to establishments that show "meaningful use" of health IT, a somewhat vague description that analysts say could persuade physicians to hold off on upgrading their records." (http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/...ap6061672.html)

recovery.gov doesn't show where my money is going. It is a propaganda bar chart of motherhood and apple pie. I'll have to read the full bill, but it will take a while -- unlike those in Congress who distilled it and determined their votes not on party lines but on the merits (bullpuckey), I don't absorb instantaneously.

oh...you sound like that this is something new....LOL

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by DGTess

recovery.gov doesn't show where my money is going. It is a propaganda bar chart of motherhood and apple pie. I'll have to read the full bill, but it will take a while -- unlike those in Congress who distilled it and determined their votes not on party lines but on the merits (bullpuckey), I don't absorb instantaneously.

Eh...no one absorbs instantaneously even if they think they do.

Anyway, you always have to read all of the information provided. Obviously reading the full bill would give you a direct and detailed reference as with reading the original document for anything. However, 5% or less of the American population will be reading the full bill, hence the website. There is more to the website than the bar chart and perhaps more details on specific programs under the categories will be released as details become available.

We have to have high expectations but realistic expectations.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Eh...no one absorbs instantaneously even if they think they do.

Anyway, you always have to read all of the information provided. Obviously reading the full bill would give you a direct and detailed reference as with reading the original document for anything. However, 5% or less of the American population will be reading the full bill, hence the website. There is more to the website than the bar chart and perhaps more details on specific programs under the categories will be released as details become available.

We have to have high expectations but realistic expectations.

Yes, it says right there in black and white that all of the spending will be specified once it's determined. I believe states and specific programs have to apply for some of it. We can't expect the federal government to just know which road projects, school programs, etc. need funding without states saying, "Hey! Over here! We've got this bridge replacement we need done ASAP..." (for example)

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

LOL It's funny when hateration rears its ugly head.

Just glancing at the article, I really hope they are not accusing Obama of fearmongering. Certainly not after this last administration...Not to mention that people all across the board have been saying the same thing they are accusing him of saying. Why try to single him out? Hypocritical much?

LOL, it's cute when people chalk up criticism of their favorite politician as "hateration." There are lots of smart, well-educated people who disagree with certain things Obama has done, and who aren't big fans of his policies. That's not "hateration," it's life.

When the person you support gets elected, you kind of have to realize that he's going to be open to criticism. As noted, he's being singled out because he's the President...."the buck stops here" and all of that good stuff. Just because you support the guy's policies and statements doesn't mean everyone else does

Also, as Cooramor noted, just because he's "not Bush" doesn't all of a sudden make everything he does positive. At some point a Presidency has to stand on its own, not in comparison to the work of others.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Good job.



There's enough fearmongering to go around. This is an article about politics (and the media) and the presentation of the current economic recession, as well the historical comparisons being made. Obama is the current POTUS who is making a lot of statements to the American public. So this article would be about him.

Exactly. Every President has members of Congress, political pundits, and experts in the various fields who agree with his policies and vocally support them. But, at the end of the day, if people have concerns, or if things don't work out, it's not the political pundits, experts, or even members of Congress who will get the brunt of the criticism or blame; it's going to be the President.