No, Platt. You've taken that quote out of context and distorted the meaning. Or, more likely, right-wing bloggers distorted it that and you are parroting them. In the larger context, the editorialist accuses Obama's critics of WRONGLY saying government will "end up denying access to essential care". The program he's talking about is "carefully restricted" and "cannot make recommendations to Medicare or private insurers about what they should or should not cover. It cannot tell doctors what treatments to use, or recommend how much doctors and hospitals should be paid for any services".
Further, the editorialist is making a case that we should confront the rising costs of health care and even says that cynical demagoguing about death panels has interfered with our ability to do that. "The new health care reform law makes a start at figuring this out. It sets up a new system to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of drugs, treatments and medical devices. But, after all of the cynical demagoguing about “death panels,” it limits the extent to which the studies can be used to help hold down costs." Here's the quote in it's original context.... "The Obama administration started the process, committing $1.1 billion from stimulus funds to finance comparative studies. The new reform law will move that ahead, setting up a nonprofit, independent institute to organize the work. The comptroller general will appoint a governing board of 19 members, representing patients, doctors, manufacturers and others, including two designated federal health officials. If the institute works the way it is supposed to, patients, doctors and the government will have better information about what works and what does not, what may be worth the extra cost and what does not make sense. Even then, the legislative language is so convoluted there is no guarantee that even the most credible findings will help ensure that patients get the best and most cost-effective treatment. With critics wrongly charging that these studies would insert government bureaucrats between patients and their doctors and end up denying access to essential care, reformers pulled their punches. The institute is supposed to make regular reports of its findings but is carefully restricted as to what it can say. It cannot make recommendations to Medicare or private insurers about what they should or should not cover. It cannot tell doctors what treatments to use, or recommend how much doctors and hospitals should be paid for any services. Depending on how the White House decides to proceed, the effort could begin to change things. The law says the secretary of health and human services cannot deny Medicare coverage of services “solely” on the basis of comparative effectiveness research, but it does not prevent the use of such findings in conjunction with other factors in making coverage decisions. Those decisions generally influence what private insurers cover as well. The secretary needs to press the panel to get the research going and then begin including the findings in Medicare coverage and reimbursement decisions. Critics will howl. If the panel does its job right — and politicians have the courage to make the case — both patients and taxpayers will benefit." > Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11:26:14 -0400 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] How far do you go to preserve individual life? > > Oh, but there is such a thing. From a NYTimes editorial, Sep. 13: > > "The law says the secretary of health and human services cannot deny > Medicare coverage of services “solely” on the basis of comparative > effectiveness research, but it does not prevent the use of such findings in > conjunction with other factors in making coverage decisions. Those decisions > generally influence what private insurers cover as well." > > The key words, a government panel "making coverage decisions." In other > words, rationing of health care that healthcare Czar Donald > Berwick enthusiastically approves. > > Private insurance companies permit the freedom to choose between coverages > and companies. With the government, your freedom to choose is quashed. If > you ask if I prefer the free market to socialism, I'm with Pirsig. If you > like, I'll repeat what he said in comparing the two. > > . > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:00 PM, david buchanan > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > Platt said Horse: > > ... If you don't want me to use the term "death panel" in referring to a > > government body that decides who lives and who dies, I'll comply. I think > > it's an accurate description, but if you find it contrary to fact and unduly > > "provocative," so be it. > > > > > > dmb says: > > > > If there were such a thing as a government bod that decides who live and > > who dies, that term would describe it pretty well. The problem is, there is > > no such thing. The term was invented to describe a particular provision in > > the health care bill. That provision simply says that the government will > > pay YOUR doctor if YOU want to talk to him or her about life and death > > decisions. Who is in a better position to help you decide? So the idea Platt > > presents is not only contrary to fact and provocative, it distorts and > > demonizes a very humane and decent practice, one that informs and comforts > > people when they need it most. > > > > If there is such a thing as a bureaucrat with the power of life and death, > > it's those people who stamp "coverage denied" on your insurance claim. > > That's when people find out they don't have enough money to buy whatever > > treatment they need to live. Every time coverage is denied, profits go up > > and the bureaucrat's job is just a little more secure. He literally has an > > incentive to deny coverage, especially for the pricey procedures. There is a > > lethal tension between the needs of the insured and the motives of the > > insurance companies. A government run program would take that motive out of > > the equation, at least. Such things are supposed to be accountable to the > > voters as well. It scares me less than what we have now. My dad raves about > > Medicare. Had private insurance all his life and was stunned to find out how > > much better it was on the government side. > > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
