O.T.: Will We Ever Have Health Police?

[timbalionguy]

If you look at the history of totalitarian societies, they have been promoting the idea of 'euthanasia' of certain classes of people. I put regulatory denial of health care in elderly people in the same category as gassing Jews in concentration camps, or in-vivo infanticide for purposes of convenience. The decision to provide or withold care of the elderly should be a decision between a patient, their doctor and their immediate family. Bureaucrats need not be involved. (I am dealing now with a close elderly friend who refused life-saving surgery because he was afraid of one of the pre-surgical tests. Tests he feels are mandated by lawyers rather than medical common sense.)

The real problem with our health care system is talked about regularly here: rampant greed. If the greed would be removed from the system, health care costs would plummet. One way of doing this would be to almost completely deregulate health care, but have severe penalties for those who abuse the system. This would promote honest-to-goodness competition, and that has always driven prices down and improved choices. Part of this would include an implication that people must be responsible for their own decisions.

I have a good health care plan now. But if I were to lose my job, and even if I did have to use public health care for a while, I would much rather pay my own way then have someone do it for me. I am solely responsible for my own actions, or inactions.

All the proposed health care plan does is systemize much of the greed, and regulate everything into oblivion. It is a leftist control-freak's dream-come-true. It is a deeply flawed plan and belongs in a dustbin behind the Capitol building.

[kittystar]

Okay, guys; we could go a long way to control medical costs if we would just pitch out the trial lawyers who go after millions of $$ for the slightest medical problem......right now doctors are so afraid of being sued that they over-use every diagnostic tool that is available regardless of the cost or the actual possible benefit to the patient.

[BonnieG]

For anyone interested, the hr3200 bill can be read, in it's entirety here... inhttp://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.txt.pdf

[BonnieG]

Sorry, the link doesn't work. But if you want to read the whole thing, google hr3200. The 1,017 pages are on PDF.

[jdm2857]

Now there's a sure cure for insomnia.

[SaltLakeJan]

PST
I am glad we can agree to have different points of view. And thanks for saying I didn't fabricate; it wasn't my intent. We all are emotionally envolved with Health Care. And I learned from your critique to check two sources before I quote..

I also think we may have a different opinion regarding the use of the word czar.

There is no American government position called czar. Time magazine called William Simon the energy czar when Nixon appointed him to head the new Federal Energy Administration, and the name has stuck as a slang term used often in newspaper stories for whatever official is in charge of a particular area. There is no such real office, though.

I refer to a quote from Chicago Tribune, March 5, 2009. There are also many current AP articles regarding "Obama's czars, but the Chicago article gave more information.

"White House czars’ power stirs criticism
Oversight of posts too limited, some lawmakers say

By Christi Parsons and Tom Hamburger
March 05, 2009

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama named two women this week to lead his effort to overhaul the nation’s health-care system. One of them, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, began preparing for confirmation hearings, where senators will probe her views on health policy and demand lengthy documentation of her credentials.

But the other woman, Nancy-Ann DeParle, can begin work right away, without outside review of her abilities or opinions. And although lawmakers can ask Sebelius for testimony in the future and control her budget, DeParle will remain largely outside the gaze of Congress.

That is because DeParle holds the newly created post of “health czar”—one of several new “czar” positions that are within the White House and require no Senate review. Sebelius, by contrast, is on tap to become the secretary of health and human services — a position for which Congress has developed well-worn methods of oversight.

Now, with the number of czars growing, some lawmakers and outside experts fear that Obama is concentrating too much policymaking and power within the White House — and also setting up the potential for conflict among his many advisers.

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) became concerned enough to send a cautionary letter to Obama last week. At times, he said, White House staffers of the past have assumed duties that should be the responsibility of officials cleared through the Senate confirmation process.

“They rarely testify before congressional committees and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege,” Byrd wrote of past czars and White House staffers in similar positions.

At times, he said, one outcome has been to “inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.” Such “rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the constitutional system of checks and balances,” Byrd said.

In addition to naming DeParle to coordinate health-care policy, Obama has tapped Carol Browner to be White House energy czar, a post that could overlap with the functions of the Energy Department and Environmental Protection Agency. Adolfo Carrion, a former Bronx borough president, is the urban affairs czar, a job that may dovetail with the functions of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

And Paul Volcker, Obama’s big-picture economic czar, must coordinate with the Treasury Department and other agencies.

The White House says the czars are needed to focus on the president’s toughest tasks — such as overhauling the health-care system — which will require cooperation from several agencies. The czars’ job is to move among the agencies and coordinate.

“The challenges coming at us are bigger than anything we’ve seen since the Depression,” said Jim Messina, deputy White House chief of staff. “It’s crucial to have people in these positions who can help us meet them head on.”

But Paul Light, an expert on the presidency at New York University, said Byrd has a valid constitutional concern about Obama’s use of czars. Light, too, is worried about Obama’s expansion of the czar system, but his apprehension is focused on more practical concerns.

He points out that previous presidential czars became frustrated because they had no permanent staff, and their power was diffuse. Besides, he said, “there are so many czars in this White House, they’ll be constantly bumping into each other.”

The confusion about competing roles played by czars and their Cabinet counterparts was on display Monday as Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, tried to explain how authority would be divided between DeParle and Sebelius in steering health reform.

At first he declared that DeParle “will be in charge.” Then he acknowledged a role for Sebelius and others.

“I think obviously this is something that spans across many platforms, not unlike, say, something like energy independence, that a lot of people that work in this building and in different agencies will be involved in,” he said."

thamburger@tribune.com

cparsons@tribune.com

PST. If "Slinky as a guest" and I are comparing one thing and you another, Please let me know. And I think some of the President's szars may have had some sort of confirmation hearings.

Jan

[roster]

Jan, You need to use the "Quote" function so it is always clear what you are saying and what you are pasting in.

[PST]

I stand by me statement that there is no position in government with the word czar. I was reacting to Slinky's question:

And just as an aside, since when did we become historic Russian and developed a need for "czars"??? Who the heck came up w/that term for an American government position?? The first American "czar" was the "drug czar" wasn't it? Snort.

My answer is that the press came up with that term. It's not anyone's real job title and the administration avoids it. Take that Tribune article. It refers to Nancy-Ann DeParle as the "health czar," in quotation marks. She is actually is the Director of the White House Office of Health Reform. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_administr ... n-deparle/. Reporters talk down to us when they insist on using that terminology. The second official mentioned, Carol M. Browner, is the Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change. The New York Times was even worse than the Tribune. It calls her the climate czarina! See http://projects.nytimes.com/44th_presid ... ol-browner. The constant use of that term is a lazy cliché that has become misleading as well. It's a stupid term, when you think about it, since the real czar had no boss, and these people all do.

What's more, the Tribune article undermines its own point, which is whether it is wise to have so many important policy-making positions that do not require Senate confirmation. Some of the so-called "czars" do require Senate confirmation, like the TARP czar (actually Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability) who runs the bank bailout. Certain other officials, like the National Security Advisor, require no confirmation but are never called czars. The Tribune article actually asks a good question if you strip away the czar talk. It has nothing special to do with President Obama, though, since the number offices not requiring Senate confirmation has been growing steadily since FDR under both parties. One of the notable things about the Obama appointments, though, is how many of them were confirmed by the Senate in former jobs, including Ms. Deparle (I believe, as Director of the Health Care Finance Administration) and Ms. Browner (as Administrator of the EPA). Some, like Lawrence Summers, were even cabinet secretaries.

[SaltLakeJan]

bobkat13 wrote:

Putting the government in charge of health care frightens me to no end. If we put the government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years we'd be out of sand.."

Putting any government in charge of our health care frightens many people, including me. I had a taste of working for a federal bureau. I am sure not all government offices were as inefficient as that one was. The nepotism in that office hurt the morale of the capable employees. Nepotism doesn't just exist in local offices, some of our U.S. Senators are experts at that. Governments of both major parties have made major mistakes in implementing programs that could be of real benefit to the people. Please don't give them free reign over our health care.

bobkat13's husband's statement is a classic,

My husand WORKS for the federal government, and he says the most frightening sentence ever uttered is "I'm with the government and I'm here to help.

It is a sentence I won't forget.

Jan

[SaltLakeJan]

Wearyone wrote:

What program has our government run that works correctly? Those who think the government can run a national healthcare plan well, why do you think that? It's not a, "Well, it stinks now, we gotta do something." That's not the answer. Me? I don't know what the answer is, only that putting our government in charge of it will, in the long run--maybe even the short run--only make things worse. This isn't fear or stupidity talking, but common sense based on our government's past and current performance. Anyone who has worked for any government agency (federal, state, etc.) should be well aware of what a fiasco this will end up being.

My answer to sentence one "Not one." I agree that putting our government in charge would make another program that will fail. Since I had the experience of working for a federal bureau that was filled with nepotism & inefficiency. As a result, the capable employees were resentful, but afraid to complain. I'm sure some government offices are professional, but enough are not, that there has to be a better way to manage our health care than the Federal government. Medicare & Medicaid are filled with fraud. Possibly almost destroyed by fraud. Why would Nationalized Health Care be different?

EDIT: My husband is about to lose his employer-provided healthcare plan because the company is about to close. (I'm self-employed.) I've been on individual healthcare before when he wasn't working and had to pay through the nose just for me. We can't afford that now, so we will not have health insurance once his company goes under. I say this only because I keep reading places (not necessarily here) that only rich people or those with good insurance don't what nationalized healthcare. I am, obviously, not in that group, and I don't--again obviously--want nationalized healthcare.

I am so sorry you are losing your husband's employer health care, and it is so sad that the company he works for is closing.
We are living in hard times, and you are taking a double hit.
I wish the best for you.
Jan

[WearyOne]

Thank you, Jan. It'll work out somehow!

[DreamStalker]

bobkat13 wrote:

Putting the government in charge of health care frightens me to no end. If we put the government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years we'd be out of sand.."

Putting any government in charge of our health care frightens many people, including me. I had a taste of working for a federal bureau. I am sure not all government offices were as inefficient as that one was. The nepotism in that office hurt the morale of the capable employees. Nepotism doesn't just exist in local offices, some of our U.S. Senators are experts at that. Governments of both major parties have made major mistakes in implementing programs that could be of real benefit to the people. Please don't give them free reign over our health care.

bobkat13's husband's statement is a classic,

My husand WORKS for the federal government, and he says the most frightening sentence ever uttered is "I'm with the government and I'm here to help.

It is a sentence I won't forget.

Jan

That quote about government here to help was a Ronald Reagan quote and it was not meant to be frightening ... it was meant to be humorous (from pre-Rove GOP days).

Anyway, I agree with Jan that the people do need to rise up and make the US congress accountable. The executive office has minor power over healthcare legislation or any other legislation. But since the congress is no longer a people's congress but rather a corporate congress ... they don't do the people's business, they legislate for corporate business. The high cost of health care has many factors ... but the most significant one is corporate and Wall Street greed. If you take the profit incentive for health insurance ... then no one can be denied for pre-existing conditions and coverage won't be selective to just conditions that you don't have. Now some may say that removing the profit out of health insurance will chill innovation in the health sciences. I say just look at our military ... it is a non-profit government organization and there is clearly no chilling of innovation in our military defense.

I'm with Den and feel that less government is generally best for everyone, including corporate businesses.

However, I feel that government should provide three (3) basic public (call them socialistic if you like) services ... 1) security in the form of a national defense sytem and local law enforcement system, 2) an equal opportunity for primary and secondary education regardless of income level, and 3) an equal opportunity for health insurance regardless of income level. With those three basic national government priorities, the citizens can be all they can be. Do away with all of the other government services but keep the above three and the nation has the potential inherent in the human spirit to overcome all natural and man-made obstacles/disasters. When people do not have to worry about their security or health destroying everything they have worked for or dreamed of, they can focus their energy on education and innovation to better their lives and the lives around them.

I'm not a democrat as some have implied and although I did vote for Obama during the primaries, I did NOT vote for him in the national election ... yep, I voted for him before I voted against him. I will admit that I tend to vote against the GOP rather than for the Dems (when I do vote for them) ... unlike Pam. So I guess our efforts cancel each other out .

We really need a third- and/or fourth-party system cuz as they say, our two-party system is only one party away from a one-party system and remember that the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is only a one-party system and the north Korean peoples probably think they have their heads out of the sand. So having a republic or democratic government can lead to a sense of false liberty ... be that humorous or frightening.

Also, I hope everyone realized that my previous post re: The Soylent Green Healthcare System was completely in jest. I have nothing against old people, my mother is old, I'm getting old, and I hope to one day to call myself old too.

[BlackSpinner]

Putting the government in charge of health care frightens me to no end.

You're afraid?
The country that faced down the British empire, the Alamo, cleared the countryside of hostile indigenous peoples, raised a flag on Iwa Jima?
And you're afraid?

You're afraid that the country which developed the assembly line, ran the Marshal plan to rebuild Europe and put a man on the moon can't manage what a bunch of uneducated Russian peasants did a hundred years ago? That a bunch of decadent Europeans managed over 60 years ago. That a bunch of prairie farmers and Quebecoise politicians did in the 60's?

You're afraid you're too incompetent organize a rescue mission for the 47,000,000 people without health care ?

And you guys are the world power that can destroy the planet and you don't think you can manage to organize some health care? You want to run the UN, dictate how the rest of the world should run their governments and your scared shitless to organize to provide adequate health care to children?

[SaltLakeJan]

Jerry wrote:

Well since I fall into that "Old Retired Fart" catagory i'm glad I got my heart rebuild before National Health Plan because I am definately not young enough to be worth the cost to the goverment even if I did pay my way into the system for 40 years!!

I think everyone here is glad you got your heart fixed. Your posts have a lot of common sense.

One of the great things about Cpaptalk.com is that we have ta wide range of adult ages. This gives us the opportunity to hear points of view from all the different situations in life - and from different countries

I enjoyed reading your oximeter reports . . . keep well Jerry.

Jan

[WearyOne]

Putting the government in charge of health care frightens me to no end.

You're afraid?
The country that faced down the British empire, the Alamo, cleared the countryside of hostile indigenous peoples, raised a flag on Iwa Jima?
And you're afraid?

You're afraid that the country which developed the assembly line, ran the Marshal plan to rebuild Europe and put a man on the moon can't manage what a bunch of uneducated Russian peasants did a hundred years ago? That a bunch of decadent Europeans managed over 60 years ago. That a bunch of prairie farmers and Quebecoise politicians did in the 60's?

You're afraid you're too incompetent organize a rescue mission for the 47,000,000 people without health care ?

And you guys are the world power that can destroy the planet and you don't think you can manage to organize some health care? You want to run the UN, dictate how the rest of the world should run their governments and your scared shitless to organize to provide adequate health care to children?

Not sure if you're joking, serious, angry, appalled or what. But, to sorta answer your question...no, I don't trust the government to do it RIGHT. I, for one, am not afraid for reasons that are totally unrelated to this thread and would start another debate totally unrelated, so I'll leave out why. But, no I am not afraid. I just know it will be a huge fiasco, won't work, and will end up causing more problems that it may (or may not) correct, not to mention the trillions of dollars wasted on something that ends up not working any better. This country may be wonderful and capable in a lot of respects, but as far as the government running things like a nationalized healthcare program? Pleeease.

Just because our country does a lot of good things, a lot of major things well, doesn't mean the government can do all things well.

You know, you really sound like a politician, especially the "adequate health care to children" comment. Politicians love to use children, the elderly, etc., to pull at peoples' hearstrings and try to make them feel bad for not doing what they think should be done the way they think it should be done. (Just joking; but honestly, that's what it made me think of.)