« Obama Donor Starts Anti-Stimulus Bill Campaign | Main | The Lincoln Lunch »

Alert: Massive New Health Care Bureaucracy Still In Porkulus

A few days ago Arlen Specter went on Fox News and told Megyn Kelly that he would "clarify" and "correct" the language in the Porkulus bill that creates an entirely new federal bureaucracy that would force doctors to give up autonomy and conform to federally approved treatments and protocols. So much for clarifying and correcting. The provisions are still in this so called "stimulus" bill, and as we learn from Hot Air, they comprise almost 1/3 of the entire bill, which is over 1400 pages:

HA reader Dr. Eric Novack, who once led an effort in Arizona to put health-care freedoms into law, has reviewed the new version of Porkulus -- and the same sections remain. In fact, as Eric notes, it occupies almost a third of the entire bill:
Of the 1434 pages, pages 806-1251are dedicated to the expansion of the federal health care bureaucracy. (That is, not including the COBRA, Medicaid, etc. expansion that begins on page 1278.)

page 826 line 8 establishes: There is hereby established a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Clinical Effectiveness Research


And the FCCCCER is the engine by which Daschle intended to eventually force all health providers to adhere to federal standards of treatment. They didn't make 445 of 1500 pages about health care to decrease federal control of the industry.

Will Specter honor his commitment and vote against the nationalization of the health-care industry?

I was incredulous to Senator Specter's comments that he would get that language corrected because the House and Senate Democrats hold all the cards in conference and would not let the Republicans have any say about the compromise bill. Unfortunately, I was right.

As to Ed's question whether Specter will honor his commitment to vote against the nationalization of the health-care industry, I say probably not. Specter has already voted for it once, so the Democrats will expect him to vote for it again. He sees the Senate Democrats far more often than he does his own constituents, which makes me suspect he'll go along to get along in order to avoid trouble even though this bill puts the rest of America in an awful health care predicament. It's shocking, I know, since he's a cancer survivor, but he's part of the uber-elite; therefore, he can get any procedure and/or treatment he desires.

What I suspect Specter will do to justify his vote is that he'll say that he read that portion of the bill and came to the conclusion that it doesn't nationalize health care at all but instead infuses much needed technology into our health care industry, yada yada yada, while completely ignoring the new regulations that require doctors to confer with the government on treatments and the fines that doctors will be slapped with if they don't.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/34367.

Comments (13)

Specter is a fool of the fi... (Below threshold)
hermie:

Specter is a fool of the first order.

He, Collins and Snowe had some leverage by sticking with the GOP and voting against cloture; and once more when this bill came up to a vote in the Senate. They decided that being praised by Obama and Reid was more important than keeping the US from a financial catastrophe, and the integrity of the physician/client relationship safe from DC Bureaucrats. It was better to get scraps from the One's table (and an invitation for cocktails), and a fawning editorial in the Washington Post, than to keep taxpayer's money from being spent on wasteful pork projects and programs which will bleed the Treasury for decades to come.

What does Mr 'Scottish Law is Superior to the US Constitution' think he can do to stop this from being passed now that the Dems shut him out and made this bill even worse? Are Collins and Snowe happy their votes were bought so easily?

You can't be serious that t... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

You can't be serious that this bill is at least 1400 pages! I am stunned!

Dave, I am deadly serious.<... (Below threshold)

Dave, I am deadly serious.

The Federal Coordinating Co... (Below threshold)
mantis:

The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research is designed to provide doctors with independent analysis of treatment effectiveness, to reduce costs and improve treatment quality, and so they don't have to rely on the sales pitches of drug companies. Nowhere in the bill is the council given the authority to dictate anything, much less what treatment a doctor can prescribe. The bill states that the funding,

be used to accelerate the development and dissemination of research assessing the comparative effectiveness of health care treatments and strategies.

It's all about providing the best possible information on treatment effectiveness, not dictating treatment. Any claims to the contrary are bullshit unsupported by anything other than the fevered dreams of paranoiacs.

By the way, what happened to parroting McCaughey's lie about the "creation" of the sinister National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, which of course was created by President Bush in 2004? Did you figure out that part was bullshit? Stumble upon the office's website?

You really are this stupid, aren't you? It can't possibly be an act.

Okay, so we get the institu... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Okay, so we get the institutional compassion of the IRS and the efficiency of the Post Office involved in determining medical treatment, with the details spelled out in a 1400 page bill written by lawyers, for lawyers.

Shrug.

What can possibly go wrong?

BTW, I ain't knocking the P... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

BTW, I ain't knocking the Post Office - they do good work getting the mail through. But I wouldn't want them in charge of the internet...

"I was incredulous to Senat... (Below threshold)
retired miilitary:

"I was incredulous to Senator Specter's comments"

I am not suprised. Neither are a lot of other republicans

Mantis"be used to ... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

Mantis

"be used to accelerate the development and dissemination of research assessing the comparative effectiveness of health care treatments and strategies."

What does this add? Medical practitioners are already required to have continuing education to renew their licenses in their practicing jurisdiction. So, if you are a specialist in oncology you would attend the respective medical meetings of your specialty and follow the latest innovations in articles in peer-reviewed journals. Mantis, I get the sense that you would gain a heightened level of confidence in the delivery of health care with a bureaucracy deciding which particular algorithms should be used to recommend your medical treatment. Not I, however. For me, if I had cancer, I would want the freedom to discuss and freely select alternative therapies in a timely manner if an initial treatment strategy is not working. A good oncolgist does not derive his/her reputation from having to check some bureaucratic agency for "comparative effectiveness of health care treatments and strategies." It may be lost on you, but as someone who is associated with the medical profession this definitely has the odor of the government wanting to eventually "standardize" therapies. Just because you are in denial doesn't make someone else stupid.

Dave, you've put up so many... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Dave, you've put up so many strawmen there you could have a scarecrow convention.

Medical practitioners are already required to have continuing education to renew their licenses in their practicing jurisdiction. So, if you are a specialist in oncology you would attend the respective medical meetings of your specialty and follow the latest innovations in articles in peer-reviewed journals.

That's great. Why is doing research on comparative effectiveness a bad thing? It will only serve to inform medical practitioners more.

Mantis, I get the sense that you would gain a heightened level of confidence in the delivery of health care with a bureaucracy deciding which particular algorithms should be used to recommend your medical treatment.

Your senses are off. I would have a higher level of confidence if my doctor were even more informed about he effectiveness of various possible treatments. I know for a fact that he would use no algorithms at all in determining the best treatment, let alone algorithms prescribed by a bureaucracy, which you just invented.

For me, if I had cancer, I would want the freedom to discuss and freely select alternative therapies in a timely manner if an initial treatment strategy is not working.

No one is taking that away from you.

A good oncolgist does not derive his/her reputation from having to check some bureaucratic agency for "comparative effectiveness of health care treatments and strategies."

Who said they did? Do you think a good oncologist would ignore research on effectiveness of treatments?

It may be lost on you, but as someone who is associated with the medical profession this definitely has the odor of the government wanting to eventually "standardize" therapies.

The odor of eventual wanting argument? Pardon me for not getting to worked up over the odors you detect. I prefer to read the fine print.

If someone decides to actually propose a statute or impose a regulation that standardizes therapies in such a way that doctors are restricted from administering treatments they find effective, I will oppose it. That's not what's happening here, and the contention that it is is nothing but a lie.

Mantis,I will accept... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

Mantis,
I will accept the "straw man" argument because I do indeed read more into the intentions of this new bureaucratic entity than what is currently written. It does not change my feeling for what I think the government's ultimate aim is.

So tor return to the citation:
"be used to accelerate the development and dissemination of research assessing the comparative effectiveness of health care treatments and strategies."

How does this differ from what the NIH, FDA already do. Research into the efficacy of new biomedical products and therapies are comparative by nature and the information is generally easy to obtain.

As but one example, (there ... (Below threshold)
epador:

As but one example, (there are many), there already exist impartial organizations that physicians use to decide appropriate treatments. The Medical Letter is one such entity, that continues to offer unbiased and hard-hitting evaluation of new and old medications and treatments. If the government is put in charge of such a boondoggle, it will be subject to all sorts of bias and politicking. This is not a good idea, mantis. I believe it will destroy the fine art of medicine practiced in this country, much to the detriment of medical practice in the world.

And the FCCCCER is the e... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

And the FCCCCER is the engine by which Daschle intended to eventually force all health providers to adhere to federal standards of treatment.

Did they seriously come up with this name, FCCCCER? If so, it is absolutely perfect.

"page 826 line 8 establishe... (Below threshold)
iurockhead:

"page 826 line 8 establishes: There is hereby established a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Clinical Effectiveness Research"

I propose a name change.
Federal Oversight Organization for Comparative Clinical Effectiveness Research

FOOCCER. Now we're all foocced.

Potential sub-agency for maternity issues: Mother FOOCCER




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy