Maxine's Question of the Day

[Sallow]

i have actually since changed jobs, and will be getting my benefits back in about 2 weeks. with the new employer, my rates will actually have gone down significantly (i will currently be paying under $150/ month with a $20 copay and annual deductible of $1500, which i believe is extremely affordable and will never complain about paying), while the services i will have access to will increase by quite a bit. now i can not exactly say that the HC reform bill is solely responsible for low cost of my premiums, but i do know that it has helped dramatically. (per conversations with coworkers about how much they used to paying)


@Sallow - i agree a public option would have been the best overall for everyone

Well yeah. And now I hear some conservatives yammering about it..when the vehmently fought against it when constructing the Health Care Reform Bill. Which they didn't even vote for anyway.

They are not serious about this..not in the slightest. When George Bush senior was talking about "voodoo economics" he sure as heck hit the nail on the head.

Cause and effect is really lost on most conservatives.

 

[TossObama]

While researching this "medical care" mess, I discovered "the Committee" that is in charge of reviewing everyone's medical files and care has been given unbridled liberties to medically experiment on patients.

Which committee would that be?

It's called "The Federal Coordinating Council". They were handpicked by Obama. We were told this "death panel" as Sarah Palin calls them, was shut down. It wasn't.

The "Center for Medicare Services" also has a PDF you can download (if it too hasn't been removed) titled "National Coverage Determinations with Data Collections as a Condition of Coverage: Coverage with Evidence Development".

Circare also has a pdf you can download which addresses the issue of Patients being used for experiments as a condition of Medicare coverage.

As I recall (because I don't have the document in front of me right now), the term "Evidence" replaced the word "Experiments" in the 50s or 60s after some Congressional hearings.

 

[Greenbeard]

While researching this "medical care" mess, I discovered "the Committee" that is in charge of reviewing everyone's medical files and care has been given unbridled liberties to medically experiment on patients.

Which committee would that be?

It's called "The Federal Coordinating Council". They were handpicked by Obama. We were told this "death panel" as Sarah Palin calls them, was shut down. It wasn't.

Oh good lord. CER is what you've been railing about in all these threads? And you think the coordinating council is "reviewing everyone's medical files" instead of, you know, their legislatively mandated responsibility?

(a) ESTABLISHMENT— There is hereby established a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (in this section referred to as the 'Council').
(b) PURPOSE— The Council shall foster optimum coordination of comparative effectiveness and related health services research conducted or supported by relevant Federal departments and agencies, with the goal of reducing duplicative efforts and encouraging coordinated and complementary use of resources.
(c) DUTIES— The Council shall—

(1) assist the offices and agencies of the Federal Government, including the Departments of Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, and Defense, and other Federal departments or agencies, to coordinate the conduct or support of comparative effectiveness and related health services research; and
(2) advise the President and Congress on—

(A) strategies with respect to the infrastructure needs of comparative effectiveness research within the Federal Government; and
(B) organizational expenditures for comparative effectiveness research by relevant Federal departments and agencies.​

​

Contrary to what appears to be popular belief in some corners, this isn't what Palin's "death panels" were supposed to be. First of all, Palin explicitly identified the section of the original House bill, H.R. 3200, she was referring to with that nonsense and it had nothing to do with CER. It was about Medicare reimbursing for voluntary consultations on end-of-life or palliative care.

Aside from the fact that CER is explicitly not what she was referring to, it isn't even conceptually what she was referring to. Palin's death panel fantasy was about denying care based on individual attributes ("level of productivity in society"), which is why she shamelessly brought in her handicapped child as an example. CER, of course, isn't even close to that. It's an attempt to systematically identify the most effective treatment for a given condition. Or for a bit more depth:

The health reform legislation (1), the IOM priority-setting committee (2), and the Federal Coordinating Council for CER (3) define “CER” similarly. The IOM report states that CER is “the generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition or to improve the delivery of care. The purpose of CER is to assist consumers, clinicians, purchasers, and policy makers to make informed decisions that will improve health care at both the individual and population levels” (2).

According to this definition, the purpose of CER is to help stakeholders, including patients and their physicians, to make informed choices among alternatives. This statement of purpose embraces the concept of individualized decision-making, in which the clinical characteristics and preferences of the patient help to determine the choice among alternatives. Consequently, comparative studies will search for evidence that the response to treatment varies within the study population, a phenomenon called “treatment response heterogeneity.” How often it occurs is not known, but 2 randomized trials show that it can occur. In each trial, the treatment that was the most effective overall caused worse outcomes in one or more large subgroups (4, 5).​

Worth studying treatment outcomes scientifically, don't you think?

The "Center for Medicare Services" also has a PDF you can download (if it too hasn't been removed) titled "National Coverage Determinations with Data Collections as a Condition of Coverage: Coverage with Evidence Development".

If you think there's any payer in the world (and that includes the individual) who doesn't re-assess and update some definition of medical necessity for treatments and services it purchases, you're out of your mind. This process, unsurprisingly, is usually aided by data collection.

As I recall (because I don't have the document in front of me right now), the term "Evidence" replaced the word "Experiments" in the 50s or 60s after some Congressional hearings.

I can see you're straining very hard to connect voluntary clinical trials with something Josef Mengele would do. And I think that tells me just about all I need to know about you.

 

[Rozman]

And if you are not for it you are deemed a racist.....

 

[code1211]

Don't just ***** there. Do something.

Something was done. Health Care Reform.

There is always another option in the free market if you look for it unless the other options are legislated out of existnce.

There is absolutely no way that there was not another option available when the circumstance changed for this person.

There was no Healthcare reform. There was only healthcare insurance reform.

 

[TossObama]

Greenbeard, do NOT twist my postings. I never said anything about CER until I mentioned their PDF file in the posting you are responding to. And no, CER is not in any way what you claim I "rail" about.

As well, I never made a claim that Sarah Palin was referring to CER when she went public with death panels in the Obama medical scheme. YOU made that claim about Palin, and you did so by using a very sleezy and very Grade School level of defense -- you attacked me with YOUR claim and attempted to make it mine. You really aren't very good at that sort of thing, and if you are attempting to earn a living at such, you might want to try something else before you starve. Not everyone is ignorant.

Palin was not referring to CER but to what is now known as The Federal Coordinating Committee (aka FCC) -- the same Committee that happens to have Doctors in an uproar, Mr. Greenbeard.

You have obviously not done any research at all, nor do you work with current Patients who are trapped in this Medicare mess. As well I tend to think, based on your responses, that you likely have a dog in this fight and it's been my experiences with people like you that such a dog means money in YOUR pocket.

As for your question "worth studying Treatment outcomes", I sir happen to work in Medical and Pharmaceutical Research AND Patient Care. What you are suggesting is neither scientific nor ethical, Mister Greenbeard, not in any man's language. And just because "ethics" has been twisted by Ezekiel Emmanuel to a completely non-ethical status to match his clearly psychotic thinking does not mean it is correct thinking OR behavior. It is NOT correct behavior in Medicine. You and not a herd of people just like you or Ezekiel have the right to experiment on Patients, demand that they participate, fail to properly inform them, withhold valid known therapies and treatments, and in general treat Patients as if they are human pieces of meat in a Japanese Medical Experiment hut.

Finally, I just want you to know, Mr. Greenbeard, that when people like you come crawling out of the woodwork supporting this dangerous fraud, you shall get a dance with the devil and I'm that devil. You will be stopped, that show will be shut down, and people like YOU will be lucky if they aren't prosecuted and put where you belong the rest of your lives. In a cage.

People matter to some of us, Mr. Greenbeard. I'm one of those who cares very much about people.
The dog you have in this hunt conveniently carved people and proper Medical Care out of your psychotic game. I'm not buying it and neither should anyone else. And I certainly don't buy your nutty spins either.

 

[code1211]

If the goal was to create insurance coverage for the 30 million uninsured that they could purchase, why didn't they just create insurance coverage for the 30 million uninsured to purchase?

You mean like a "public option"? That?

Great idea.

Something more in line with a cost flattening policy. With a pre-existing condition, many of the cost are predictable and controllable under the best circumstances. Sometimes, though, the condition flares up and the cost bloom. Protecting the insurance companies from the excessive loss is what the Government needed to do.

That said, raising the premiums on everyone and every company, that is on 90% of the population, to cover the expenses of the other 10% just seems indirect and excessive to me. Taxes are increasing, premiums are increasing, benefits are dropping and coverage is being reduced or dropped by companies.

The whole program was sold on the basis that everyone would be covered. Those that don't have insurance because they can't afford it will be just a tad surprised when they suddenly can afford it because if they can't they go to jail.

Hallelujah! We're rich!

If you're out of cash and can't buy insurance today, with premiums rising and coverages growing more narrow, what are the chances you will spend more for less in the next two years?

 

[Greenbeard]

Greenbeard, do NOT twist my postings. I never said anything about CER until I mentioned their PDF file in the posting you are responding to. And no, CER is not in any way what you claim I "rail" about.

You're right. The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research has nothing to do with comparative effectiveness research. Why on earth did I bring it up?

As for your question "worth studying Treatment outcomes", I sir happen to work in Medical and Pharmaceutical Research AND Patient Care.

I hope you get a very good discount on your meds. Because I suspect it's time for a refill.

 

[TossObama]

Greenbeard, do NOT twist my postings. I never said anything about CER until I mentioned their PDF file in the posting you are responding to. And no, CER is not in any way what you claim I "rail" about.

You're right. The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research has nothing to do with comparative effectiveness research. Why on earth did I bring it up?

As for your question "worth studying Treatment outcomes", I sir happen to work in Medical and Pharmaceutical Research AND Patient Care.

I hope you get a very good discount on your meds. Because I suspect it's time for a refill.

Are we speaking of the same committee, Mr. Greenbeard? Perhaps you need assistance with the very first paragraph of their official spill. I'll quote it for you;

"The US Department of Health and Human Services today announced the members of The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) the new council will help coordinate research and guide investments in comparative effectiveness research funded by the Recovery Act."

The spill goes on to state they will investigate "sub-populations" and conveniently do not specifically identify exactly what and whom they consider a "sub-population" nor do they specifically state exactly what their "research" involves. Their effort to "guide investments" is also not specifically defined.

Right now, "guiding investments" is most certainly translating to denying Patients valid Medical treatments, and their "research" guff is most certainly translating to herding Patients into unethical, unscientific experiments and forcing the Patients to submit to such.

I find it interesting that now your only defense has now changed from claiming your ideas are embraced by others when they are not, right down to using psycho babble as a defense.

Not very good at what you do, are you?

My medical bag doesn't contain junk like that.

 

[Greenbeard]

The spill goes on to state they will investigate "sub-populations" and conveniently do not specifically identify exactly what and whom they consider a "sub-population" nor do they specifically state exactly what their "research" involves. Their effort to "guide investments" is also not specifically defined.

"They" don't actually conduct CER. They don't even fund it, they're a coordinating council (hence the name), though they can make recommendations to Sebelius's office. CER is funded through NIH, AHRQ, and HHS's Office of the Secretary. If you want to know what kinds of CER they're funding, well amazingly that's public information. You can browse AHRQ's CER Awards or NIH's CER Projects (choose Comparative Effectiveness Research in the "NIH Recovery Act Projects" menu). OS-DHHS is still going through the comments submitted in response to its RFI on building an inventory of CER.

Right now, "guiding investments" is most certainly translating to denying Patients valid Medical treatments, and their "research" guff is most certainly translating to herding Patients into unethical, unscientific experiments and forcing the Patients to submit to such.

Go on.

 

[Revere]

It's the same garbage. Bureaucracies to interfere with your relationship with your healthcare provider.

Who funds it is inside baseball.

If DHHS is reviewing "comments submitted," then it's for the purpose of regulations, and it's top down, government controlled healthcare.

 

[Revere]

Which is the way he thinks it should be, even as he denies it's not.

 

[Revere]

Greenbeard, do NOT twist my postings. I never said anything about CER until I mentioned their PDF file in the posting you are responding to. And no, CER is not in any way what you claim I "rail" about.

You're right. The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research has nothing to do with comparative effectiveness research. Why on earth did I bring it up?

As for your question "worth studying Treatment outcomes", I sir happen to work in Medical and Pharmaceutical Research AND Patient Care.

I hope you get a very good discount on your meds. Because I suspect it's time for a refill.

Are we speaking of the same committee, Mr. Greenbeard? Perhaps you need assistance with the very first paragraph of their official spill. I'll quote it for you;

"The US Department of Health and Human Services today announced the members of The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) the new council will help coordinate research and guide investments in comparative effectiveness research funded by the Recovery Act."

The spill goes on to state they will investigate "sub-populations" and conveniently do not specifically identify exactly what and whom they consider a "sub-population" nor do they specifically state exactly what their "research" involves. Their effort to "guide investments" is also not specifically defined.

Right now, "guiding investments" is most certainly translating to denying Patients valid Medical treatments, and their "research" guff is most certainly translating to herding Patients into unethical, unscientific experiments and forcing the Patients to submit to such.

I find it interesting that now your only defense has now changed from claiming your ideas are embraced by others when they are not, right down to using psycho babble as a defense.

Not very good at what you do, are you?

My medical bag doesn't contain junk like that.

Get used to it. When you call him on his bullshit on point A, he shapeshifts and reappears under point B.

Since you're a provider, he believes you're the problem.

 

[Greenbeard]

If DHHS is reviewing "comments submitted," then it's for the purpose of regulations, and it's top down, government controlled healthcare.

It's for the purpose of building a database. An inventory.

Why is the right so afraid of science?

 

[Revere]

I can't think of any good reason why a duplicitous POS like you should be anywhere near a health care provider or a patient.

You add nothing, and tend toward disruption.

 

[Revere]

If DHHS is reviewing "comments submitted," then it's for the purpose of regulations, and it's top down, government controlled healthcare.

It's for the purpose of building a database. An inventory.

Why is the right so afraid of science?

It's none of government's business.

 

[Immanuel]

I have been without Health insurance for over a year because I had a job where my premiums in the beginning were affordable at around $150 a month (single male). I had no health problems, lived a healthy lifestyle and saw my doctor twice a year for regular checkups. After 2 years of paying my premiums, they decided to triple my rates, with no warning so change in coverage, they simply wanted more money. Where is the right in that? I could no longer afford to pay my premiums so I went without, just hoping and praying that I would have no major injuries, illnesses or sicknesses to put me in bankruptcy.
Now that Obamacare has passed, this practice is illegal. This is just one example of a positive that has come out of this bill. There is also the provision that lifetime caps are gone, you can no longer be dropped from your policy of you get sick. I see no negatives about any of these. Waiting on replys here people.....

Why is it that you believe your employer is required to pay for your health insurance? Most of them do it for only one reason... because it takes that to draw in qualified employees. They are not required, nor should they be required to pay for your insurance.

Health insurance is not cheap and it is only getting more and more expensive. If you had an employer that would pay for all but $150 of your monthly insurance premiums for several years you should be very, very thankful.

Trust me, even though they held your out of pocket at $150/month, their premiums were increasing.

Just think of it like this, you were lucky to have an employer that was willing to give you health insurance.

Immie

 

[TossObama]

One more time, Greenbeard, and then I'm through responding to your idiotic provocations.

I did not say CirCare and that FCC mess were one and the same. I made a simple statement that there was a CirCare PDF file posted on the internet regarding the medical experiments Patients are being forced into.

CER on the other hand IS FCC and is, as I have told you before, part of that committee's title. As well, Obama has broken down the FCC committee into several bunches of groupies, each with their own demands from Obama. Each of them are funded as well with massive amounts of public monies. I also stated a representative from Blue Cross Blue Shield and their affiliates also sits on one such grubby committee to further that mess into the private sector.

It was also noted that the dirtballs on those committees first targeted Medicare, Medicaid and VA Patients, and then began shoving the warped ideas about Medical care into the private sectors via private insurance companies.

Let me make it very clear to you, Greenbeard, this mess will be shut down. No person on this planet should be subjected to this horror, it happens to be illegal, and Patients as well as Doctors and Nurses are fed up with it -- and it's hardly out of the gate.

If FCCCER refuses to comply with and rely on legitimate Medical Research without adding their psychotic and downright dangerous spins to the mix, then they have absolutely no business whatsoever in any position involving Medical care. Waving Medline around doesn't cut it, pal. They are wedging themselves between Doctors and their Patients and are doing so without the consent of anyone except Chicago style goons and Jimmy Carter worm hunters who happen to be sitting on those committees.

I'm wondering if any of those jerks are selling coffins and have vested interests in funeral homes.

Ezekiel Emmanuel never even had a successful Medical Practice and that guy is trying to do what???? Nobody in their right mind would listen to that kook much less put him on a committee involved with health care. But Obama sure did hand pick that guy. He is hardly the great one for ethics in Medicine, Greenbeard.

 

[Revere]

Keep your eye on the other Mengele twin, too, Donald Berwick, who got his job with no confirmation hearing and is accountable to nobody but Sebelius and Obama.

 

[TossObama]

If DHHS is reviewing "comments submitted," then it's for the purpose of regulations, and it's top down, government controlled healthcare.

It's for the purpose of building a database. An inventory.

Why is the right so afraid of science?

How does building a database, an "inventory" translate to science?? Nobody I know is afraid of real science. We simply aren't tolerating a bunch of Jimmy Carter style worm hunters and downright kooks who think themselves to be Medical Scientists.

Real Scientists clearly define their research projects and the goals of those projects. You tell me why that sleezy committee refuses to do that. What is the specific purpose in their "database and inventory"??? Killing Patients by withholding valid Medical treatments, that's what.

By the way. I'm a Democrat.