Health Care Bill Specifics with Translation

[BeAChooser]

Here are some specifics from the Democrat Health Care Plan (at least I'm given to understand these things are what it says):

In Section 1233 E & F pp 425-433 the bill establishes that Medicare pay for end-of-life counseling for senior citizens over age 65 every five years, or sooner if beneficiary becomes ill.

Translation: the government is going to be encouraging everyone over 65 to die in order to keep the costs down. It will be called a *free* service. That's quite a change in the philosophy behind current health care, isn't it? And who is going to be doing all this counseling? Why democrats, most likely. This is going to make Medicare even bigger and more costly (and it's already costing over $10,000 a year per person treated by it).

Section 113 b-1 Page 22 requires an audit of all employers that self-insure to "ensure that the law does not provide incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure".

Translation: The government wants to destroy the private insurers of small and mid size businesses. No surprise here since the author of ObamaCare, Jacob Hacker, admitted this was the plan. This is what the government calls *competition*.

Section 123 Page 30 says that a government Health Benefits Advisory Committee will recommend what treatments and benefits are available. Once accepted and adopted by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, there is no appeal.

Translation: You don't like what treatments and benefits are available? Tough. Just try and sue the government.

Section 152 Page 50 states that all healthcare (including insurance coverage) services will be "provided without regard to personal characteristcs".

Translation: Since Obama included millions of illegals in his 46 million uninsured figure used to justify this reform, we can only assume that illegal immigrants will get *free* health care AND insurance, based on this language. Well, not exactly free since someone will have to pay for this *right*.

Section 1173A a-2-D Page 58 calls for a National Health Plan Beneficiary Identification Card for every person and the ability to determine a persons individual financial responsibility and eligibility prior to, or at the time of service.

Translation: No health care card or no ability to pay, no service. Would they really put you on the street to die?

Section 1173A a-4-C Page 59 requires the ability to have electronic funds tranfer from insured account to the federal government automate reconcilliation of health care payment.

Translation: The government is taking no chances. They're going to require electronic fund transfer from your bank account so they get paid the moment their service is rendered. Even the IRS isn't this efficient at stealing your money from you.

Section 164 Page 65 states that taxpayers will subsidize a retiree reinsurance health fund up to 10 billion dollars to assist participating employment-based plans (unions, community organizers, etc.) with the cost of providing health benefits to retirees and to eligible spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees.

Translation: Payback to the unions and ACORN for all the help they've given Obama and the democrats through the years.

Section 294 b-7 Page 91 mandates culturally and linguistically appropriate communication and health services for all.

Translation: You don't speak English? Don't want to? No problem. You need never learn because the government will spend whatever it takes to make sure you don't have to.

Section 205 a-1 Page 95-96 says the Government will establish an outreach program to inform, educate, and enroll participants, directed at "vulnerable" populations and to be accomplished in person at "community locations", by mail, telephone, or electronically.

Translation: Looks like ACORN and Americorps will be getting some big, lucrative contracts. And on the side, they can make sure thos "vulnerable" populations also register and vote (absentee, of course) democrat.

Section 205 C-3-3 Page 102 states that if you do not enroll in a "National Health Exchange Plan" and are eligible for Medicaid, you will automatically be enrolled in Medicaid.

Translation: The key phrase is "you have no choice". And since Medicaid costs are split evenly between the Federal government and states, expect your state taxes to go up to pay for this (now Obama didn't promise that your state taxes wouldn't go up.)

Section 223 f Page 124 says there will be no administrative or "judicial review" permitted for payment rates established under the National Health Care Plans.

Translation: If you're a medical provider and you don't like what the Federal government is going to pay you for your services ... TOUGH. Just try and sue the government.

Section 224 b Page 125 states the Secretary shall design and implement the payment mechanisms and policies under this section in a manner that — (1) seeks to (B) reduce health disparities (including racial, ethnic and other disparities).

Translation: The government is going to level the playing field, no matter what it takes. There is no excuse that one ethnic group suffers more heart attacks than another. And if we can't reduce the number of heart attacks in yours, will just increase the number in the others. We're all in this equally and fair is fair. Right?

Section 312 a-4, c-2 Page 145-148 says an employer MUST auto-enroll employees into a government approved plan, either the public plan or another plan, unless an employee makes an affiormative decision to opt out.

Translation: You say you are young and healthy and don't need insurance? TOUGH. You get it whether you like or need it. And don't think you're not going to pay for it sooner or later.

Section 312 b-3 Page 146-147 indicates that employers MUST pay pro-rated healthcare contribution for part-time employees AND their families.

Translation: Define family. And watch business costs ... and therefore the cost of living ... rise. Afterall, some of those part-time employees have the biggest families.

Section 313 b-1 Page 150 says that any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll, $350+-400K it is 6%, for over $300+-350K it is 4%, for $250+-300K it is 2%.

Translation: So even if your employer offers private insurance, they will still have to dock your pay to pay for the government health plan. This in the end is what will cause employers of all sizes to wash their hands of this and set you free to join (with no option) the public plan. This in short is why we will soon be a single payer system.

Title IV Amendment to IRS Code Page 167-170 imposes a 2.5% income tax penalty to those individuals opting out, not to exceed what would be the National Average Premium, determined by the Secretary of Health and Welfare.

Translation: Even if YOU choose to opt out, you will still be forced to pay into the public health insurance plan. Just another inducement to make you *want* to join the public system. It's what socialists call *choice*.

Section 1302 a Page 460-482 establishes a "Medical Home Pilot Program" for the elderly or "targeted high need beneficiaries" in urban, rural, and served areas. No physician need be on duty. It will be run by nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Care for beneficiaries will be coordinated by a team of individuals at the practice level using "evidence based guidelines" which advocate only the use of medical treatments that are supported by effectiveness research.

Translation: Rationing. Looks like the quality of health care to seniors (and high need beneficiaries ... like some of the disabled) will be going down ... in the interests of cost control.

Do I have it right or have I been misinformed on any particular point?

 

[David Wong]

Hey, a BAC thread where he tries to interpret complex legislation through the far far far far far right wing crazy filter! This should be entertaining!

Hopefully there is a reference in there to Obama as a Fascist who wants to kill granny!

 

[joobz]

Hey, a BAC thread where he tries to interpret complex legislation through the far far far far far right wing crazy filter! This should be entertaining!

Hopefully there is a reference in there to Obama as a Fascist who wants to kill granny!

Your wish is granted.

Translation: the government is going to be encouraging everyone over 65 to die in order to keep the costs down.

 

[David Wong]

Speaking of which, a superb essay on the utter, almost amusing desperation revealed by the "OBAMA WILL EXTERMINATE THE ELDERLY" lie:

http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2009/08/still-not-rock-bottom.html

Basically he points out that these people, in opposing universal coverage, have put themselves so incredibly far away from any position of moral superiority that the only way they can get it back is by inventing a fantasy where their opponents are mass murderers.

It really does border on delusion. Kind of amazing to watch.

 

[BeAChooser]

Ok David, we've heard your response to the first item. How about the second?

 

[DC]

amazing, the bill mixed with BAC lies.

entertaining.

 

[joobz]

Repetitively off-topic removed. Please take this discussion to the appropriate thread.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[Dr Adequate]

So the translation of "translation" is "transparent lies"?

 

[Dymanic]

I'm not going to wade through that whole mess, but I'll take the first item:


End-of-life discussions are associated with less aggressive medical care near death and earlier hospice referrals. Aggressive care is associated with worse patient quality of life and worse bereavement adjustment.

 

[kellyb]

I'm not going to wade through that whole mess, but I'll take the first item:


End-of-life discussions are associated with less aggressive medical care near death and earlier hospice referrals. Aggressive care is associated with worse patient quality of life and worse bereavement adjustment.

I've also read research indicating that a lot of people who wish for pain relief, even if it increases their chance of earlier death when facing potentially terminal illnesses, have their wishes ignored quite often in ICU's.
There are apparently loads of people having slow, excruciatingly painful deaths who stated beforehand that they mostly just want pain relief and to not suffer.

 

[boooeee]

I'll take number two:

Section 113 b-1 Page 22 requires an audit of all employers that self-insure to "ensure that the law does not provide incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure".

Translation: The government wants to destroy the private insurers of small and mid size businesses. No surprise here since the author of ObamaCare, Jacob Hacker, admitted this was the plan. This is what the government calls *competition*.

Do you understand what "self-insure" means? Picking definitions at random from the internet:

"insuring yourself by setting aside money to cover possible losses rather than by purchasing an insurance policy."
"Establishing reserves for future losses instead of purchasing insurance."
"Risk management approach in which an entity sets aside a sum as a protection against a probable loss, instead of transferring the risk by purchasing an insurance policy. This term is a misnomer because no insurance is involved. Properly called risk retention."

The government wants to prevent small employers from self-insuring, meaning they don't purchase insurance. How exactly would this destroy private insurers? It sounds like just the opposite since the government will encourage small and mid-size employers to buy insurance.

 

[kellyb]

Back to #1:

the government is going to be encouraging everyone over 65 to die in order to keep the costs down.

My eyes cannot roll further back in my head.
This is just such classic rightwing fruitcakery. (and I think this as someone who thinks "end of life counseling" should be watched very, very closely, as the ideology behind the euthanasia movement has a sordid history.)
But, seriously. Way to take a serious topic that deserves public attention and debate and turn it into hyperbolic insanity.

 

[boooeee]

Section 313 b-1 Page 150 says that any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll, $350+-400K it is 6%, for over $300+-350K it is 4%, for $250+-300K it is 2%.

Translation: So even if your employer offers private insurance, they will still have to dock your pay to pay for the government health plan. This in the end is what will cause employers of all sizes to wash their hands of this and set you free to join (with no option) the public plan. This in short is why we will soon be a single payer system.

Wrong as well. Stop listening to Sean Hannity. There is absolutely no mention of the public plan in that section. If your employer offers qualified insurance, either through a public plan or a private plan, they don't have to pay the 8% payroll tax.

The funny thing is, I'm against the public option because I think it will eventually force private insurance out of healthcare, leaving us with fewer choices. But the arguments you offer above are simply wrong.

 

[Rolfe]

The funny thing is, I'm against the public option because I think it will eventually force private insurance out of healthcare, leaving us with fewer choices. But the arguments you offer above are simply wrong.

I think your fears are unfounded. In Britain the NHS provides eye-poppingly comprehensive coverage to everyone, and participation is in effect compulsory because it's funded through taxes. Nevertheless there is a thriving, competitive health insurance industry right here. Last time I started to dredge up different schemes, I ran out of enthusiasm for the project before I ran out of web sites to link to.

It's not a very large industry. Most people are perfectly happy with what the NHS provides them in return for paying their taxes. However, there are still enough people interested in purchasing a bit of special treatment to keep the industry alive and healthy, and provide you with all the choice you could wish for.

So I really can't see that Obama's much more modest proposals will wipe out the health insurance industry in the USA. Even if the public plan is excellent, there will always be enough people who want something with a few more bells and whistles to keep the private insurance industry alive.

More likely, competition from the public plan might be just what these inefficient providers need to encourage them to smarten up their act, stop skimming so much off the top, and stop letting down many of their clients.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Here are some specifics from the Democrat Health Care Plan.

In Section 1233 E & F pp 425-433 the bill establishes that Medicare pay for end-of-life counseling for senior citizens over age 65 every five years, or sooner if beneficiary becomes ill.

Section 113 b-1 Page 22 requires an audit of all employers that self-insure to "ensure that the law does not provide incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure".

Section 123 Page 30 says that a government Health Benefits Advisory Committee will recommend what treatments and benefits are available. Once accepted and adopted by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, there is no appeal.

Section 152 Page 50 states that all healthcare (including insurance coverage) services will be "provided without regard to personal characteristcs".

Section 1173A a-2-D Page 58 calls for a National Health Plan Beneficiary Identification Card for every person and the ability to determine a persons individual financial responsibility and eligibility prior to, or at the time of service.

Section 1173A a-4-C Page 59 requires the ability to have electronic funds tranfer from insured account to the federal government automate reconcilliation of health care payment.

Section 164 Page 65 states that taxpayers will subsidize a retiree reinsurance health fund up to 10 billion dollars to assist participating employment-based plans (unions, community organizers, etc.) with the cost of providing health benefits to retirees and to eligible spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees.

Section 294 b-7 Page 91 mandates culturally and linguistically appropriate communication and health services for all.

Section 205 a-1 Page 95-96 says the Government will establish an outreach program to inform, educate, and enroll participants, directed at "vulnerable" populations and to be accomplished in person at "community locations", by mail, telephone, or electronically.

Section 205 C-3-3 Page 102 states that if you do not enroll in a "National Health Exchange Plan" and are eligible for Medicaid, you will automatically be enrolled in Medicaid.

Section 223 f Page 124 says there will be no administrative or "judicial review" permitted for payment rates established under the National Health Care Plans.

Section 224 b Page 125 states the Secretary shall design and implement the payment mechanisms and policies under this section in a manner that — (1) seeks to (B) reduce health disparities (including racial, ethnic and other disparities).

Section 312 a-4, c-2 Page 145-148 says an employer MUST auto-enroll employees into a government approved plan, either the public plan or another plan, unless an employee makes an affiormative decision to opt out.

Section 312 b-3 Page 146-147 indicates that employers MUST pay pro-rated healthcare contribution for part-time employees AND their families.

Section 313 b-1 Page 150 says that any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll, $350+-400K it is 6%, for over $300+-350K it is 4%, for $250+-300K it is 2%.

Title IV Amendment to IRS Code Page 167-170 imposes a 2.5% income tax penalty to those individuals opting out, not to exceed what would be the National Average Premium, determined by the Secretary of Health and Welfare.

Section 1302 a Page 460-482 establishes a "Medical Home Pilot Program" for the elderly or "targeted high need beneficiaries" in urban, rural, and served areas. No physician need be on duty. It will be run by nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Care for beneficiaries will be coordinated by a team of individuals at the practice level using "evidence based guidelines" which advocate only the use of medical treatments that are supported by effectiveness research.

Shorn of these silly and perverse "translations" (and the offensive smilies), this actually looks like a decent set of proposals to me.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm just using my ordinary skills in interpreting written English here.

In Section 1233 E & F pp 425-433 the bill establishes that Medicare pay for end-of-life counseling for senior citizens over age 65 every five years, or sooner if beneficiary becomes ill.

Thus we have established that the time spent by medical personnel in discussing living wills with patients, and ensuring that they are able to make their wishes clear before they become incapacitated, will be paid for.

Section 113 b-1 Page 22 requires an audit of all employers that self-insure to "ensure that the law does not provide incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure".

Thus we try to ensure that as many citizens as possible actually buy insurance, rather than simply hoping they have enough cash saved up to pay for anything they might need. Since this doesn't seem to mandate the use of the public plan, it should be good news for the insurance industry.

Section 123 Page 30 says that a government Health Benefits Advisory Committee will recommend what treatments and benefits are available. Once accepted and adopted by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, there is no appeal.

I am presuming this section relates to the public plan. Good move. Establish from the start, right out in the open, what will and will not be paid for by that plan. Then citizens who want more, and can afford it, can make other arrangements to get what they want. This also sounds like good news for the insurance industry, as they will be able to market their products as providing items the public plan will not.

Section 152 Page 50 states that all healthcare (including insurance coverage) services will be "provided without regard to personal characteristcs".

And I should hope so too. Anti-discrimination clause. So, no bar on antenatal care to unmarried mothers for example, and no discrimination on grounds of colour or sexual orientation. Commendable.

BaC introduced some flight of fancy relating to illegal immigrants at this point. I wish he would make up his mind. In an earlier thread he criticised universal healthcase systems for excluding illegal immigrants from care (even though we couldn't actually find one that did what he was claiming). If people are physically in the country, and need healthcare, then you can treat them or let them die on the street. If your preference is for the former, why not allow them to join the public health insurance plan, and so ensure that they contribute to their care?

Section 1173A a-2-D Page 58 calls for a National Health Plan Beneficiary Identification Card for every person and the ability to determine a persons individual financial responsibility and eligibility prior to, or at the time of service.

Well, if you don't want to introduce universal healthcare free to all comers, then you have to have some means of identifying who is entitled to what. I would fight that tooth and nail in this country, because at the moment we get the care just by showing up warm and breathing (or maybe cold and not breathing, in extreme cases). However, given that the USA doesn't seem to want this system, I don't see how they can complain about a system designed to identify who is entitled to what. "Would they really put you on the street to die?" What do you think, BaC?

So much for the first five.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

So we can move on.

Section 1173A a-4-C Page 59 requires the ability to have electronic funds tranfer from insured account to the federal government automate reconcilliation of health care payment.

Actually, this is illiterate. I doubt that the government is writing illiterate legislation (or not illiterate like that, anyway). So it seems that we've already got an intermediary "translating" the bill.

Anyway, this is a measure designed to reduce overheads by minimising the amount of billing and paper-pushing going on. Since this is a significant contributor to waste in the present system, it seems a wise move.

Section 164 Page 65 states that taxpayers will subsidize a retiree reinsurance health fund up to 10 billion dollars to assist participating employment-based plans (unions, community organizers, etc.) with the cost of providing health benefits to retirees and to eligible spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees.

And this is a problem because? Don't you want to look after your senior citizens who've given a lifetime's work to their country?

Section 294 b-7 Page 91 mandates culturally and linguistically appropriate communication and health services for all.

Well, if this means that the taxpayer has to subsidise TCM for the Chinese community I think it's a bad idea. But even BaC doesn't suspect that. He thinks that being unable to communicate with your doctor is a good incentive to learn English.

Ask any GP in Bradford. Communication with patients whose first language is not English can be difficult, especially if they're distressed or embarrassed. Cultural mores can also cause problems, such as some cultures forbidding a male doctor from examining a female patient. Translation services, and access to an approproate doctor (e.g. a female one), are important and it's good that that is recognised.

Section 205 a-1 Page 95-96 says the Government will establish an outreach program to inform, educate, and enroll participants, directed at "vulnerable" populations and to be accomplished in person at "community locations", by mail, telephone, or electronically.

BaC suspets some sort of weird CT here, as far as I can see. I see only the sort of public information about availability of services that should be standard practice.

Section 205 C-3-3 Page 102 states that if you do not enroll in a "National Health Exchange Plan" and are eligible for Medicaid, you will automatically be enrolled in Medicaid.

Bac's comment is "the key phrase is, 'you have no choice'." In quotes. But there is no such phrase there! Instead I see the word "if". If someone is eligible for public assistance, then they will be automatically registered to receive it. This is a problem because? (BaC seems to prefer to exclude incompetent or confused indigent people from care if they have not managed to go through an active registration process.)

Section 223 f Page 124 says there will be no administrative or "judicial review" permitted for payment rates established under the National Health Care Plans.

Sounds like a provision to prevent doctors constantly disputing what their remuneration will be for particular procedures. They probably need to talk to the BMA, which managed to negotiate such a sweet blanket deal for British doctors that they've been laughing all the way to the bank ever since. I seriously don't believe that US doctors are so disorganised or lacking in industrial muscle or negotiating skills that they can't ensure they're adequately paid.

Eleven down, six to go.

Rolfe.

 

[joobz]

Rolfe, I'll take it from here:

Section 1173A a-4-C Page 59 requires the ability to have electronic funds tranfer from insured account to the federal government automate reconcilliation of health care payment.

Good idea. Electronic payments systems will be used exclusively to cut down on wasteful bureaucracy that comes with accepting paper payments. Also, this takes care of late payments which can result in increased cost of health care due to the handling of the delayed payments. Wasteful wasteful government one of the arguments against a government health care plan and doesn't this minimize this concern?

Section 164 Page 65 states that taxpayers will subsidize a retiree reinsurance health fund up to 10 billion dollars to assist participating employment-based plans (unions, community organizers, etc.) with the cost of providing health benefits to retirees and to eligible spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees.

This part makes sure that the retirees (that were supposedly killed off by point one) actually receive health benefits. Rather than have all these retirees on the public option, they will be able to remain on thier retirement option through thier employer.

Section 294 b-7 Page 91 mandates culturally and linguistically appropriate communication and health services for all.

The language you speak will not hinder you to getting effective health care. Sounds good to me.

Section 205 a-1 Page 95-96 says the Government will establish an outreach program to inform, educate, and enroll participants, directed at "vulnerable" populations and to be accomplished in person at "community locations", by mail, telephone, or electronically.

People will be aware of what the public option is so they can make an informed decision. WIthout this, the criticism would be "Look how wasteful. They have this program and people don't even know how to use it/get it..."

Section 205 C-3-3 Page 102 states that if you do not enroll in a "National Health Exchange Plan" and are eligible for Medicaid, you will automatically be enrolled in Medicaid.

Medicaid is an existing program with existing infrasctructure. Rather than duplicate services, the program will utilize the available resources most effectively. Another nail in the "government does things wastefully" argument.


I'll stop there. I need to get going..

 

[Rolfe]

Section 224 b Page 125 states the Secretary shall design and implement the payment mechanisms and policies under this section in a manner that — (1) seeks to (B) reduce health disparities (including racial, ethnic and other disparities).

Targeting resources towards groups with particular needs is only common sense. It's especially good sense in America, where racial discrimination has some recent and ugly history. Nevertheless, BaC seems to think that it means giving people diseases in order to bring the disease incidence in their group up to the target figure. You're right, this is a CT of mindboggling paranoid stupidity.

Section 312 a-4, c-2 Page 145-148 says an employer MUST auto-enroll employees into a government approved plan, either the public plan or another plan, unless an employee makes an affiormative decision to opt out.

I have a problem with the last phrase. Allowing an affirmative decision to opt out. I think this is a bad idea. Funding of healthcare is at its most efficient when people pay in at a time they can afford it, so that funds are there when they need care, and may be unable to contribute. Allowing people to opt out when they think they don't need care is bad for two reasons. First, it means that people who do that have contributed less than their share over their lifetimes, so they're partly freeloading when they finally do need care. And second, it means that these people will be completely freeloading if they happen to get injured or sick while they're taking a chance. Still, it's probably necessary to allow this to pacify the "Freedom!" brigade.

So what is BaC's objection? Oh, he didn't notice the last phrase and he's objecting that participation will be compulsory.

Section 312 b-3 Page 146-147 indicates that employers MUST pay pro-rated healthcare contribution for part-time employees AND their families.

Quite right too. It's essential to get everyone contributing pro rata, in order to minimise the number of people without cover, who turn up at the hospital and expect other people to pay for their needs.

Oh dear, BaC thinks that not getting these contributions is cheaper.

Section 313 b-1 Page 150 says that any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll, $350+-400K it is 6%, for over $300+-350K it is 4%, for $250+-300K it is 2%.

Boooeee dealt with this. According to him, that's simply an erroneous account of what the legislation actually says. We have to wonder if BaC has actually read the bill? Boooeee confirms that so long as any qualifying insurance is offered, public or private, the tax will not have to be paid. The tax it to incentivise businesses to offer health insurance. Or penalise them if they don't, so as to ensure a contribution is made one wsy or another.

Now this is actually the part of the bill which I think is the best news of all for the insurance companies. What they really need is more healthy people contributing to the system, so that the funds are there to meet the costs of the benefits offered. This of course will eventually benefit the "healthy" people also, as most people do eventually need healthcare one way or another. Since the public plan is not mandated, it's likely that the private insurance companies will see a significant increase in profitable business due to this provision.

Title IV Amendment to IRS Code Page 167-170 imposes a 2.5% income tax penalty to those individuals opting out, not to exceed what would be the National Average Premium, determined by the Secretary of Health and Welfare.

More provisions to prevent freeloading. I see that this is the answer to my reservations above about allowing people to opt out. They will no longer be allowed to squander all their money then simply show up at a hospital demanding free care at other people's expense. Or at least, if they do that, they will at least have paid in something through this extra tax.

Section 1302 a Page 460-482 establishes a "Medical Home Pilot Program" for the elderly or "targeted high need beneficiaries" in urban, rural, and served areas. No physician need be on duty. It will be run by nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Care for beneficiaries will be coordinated by a team of individuals at the practice level using "evidence based guidelines" which advocate only the use of medical treatments that are supported by effectiveness research.

Sounds like an excellent idea to PILOT. BaC seems to think it will lead to a reduction in the quality of care. It seems to me that it is likely to lead to people getting competent care who would previously have been unable to access it. However, since it's a new idea and it can't be certain this will be the effect, it's being referred to as a "pilot". Very wise.

You know, the more I see of this legislation, the more I respect Obama.



If this is all that right-wingers are worried about, it's a pretty good piece of legislation.

On the other hand, the perverse insistence on teasing bad implications from good legislation seen in BaC's post makes me a bit worried about the rest of it. If there are bits they do like, what's wrong with them?????

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Rolfe, I'll take it from here:..

Sorry, didn't see that. I'm sure you're better informed. But a bit of duplication never goes amiss.

Rolfe.