The Washington Post reports:
Obama repeatedly stressed the need for swift and aggressive action on
the economy, pitting his plan against those who he said would "do
nothing" to assist a desperate public.
the economy, pitting his plan against those who he said would "do
nothing" to assist a desperate public.
The urgency to get this bill passed reminds me of the quarterback who tries to get off a play quickly before the opposing coach can challenge the previous play. What else in this bill needs to be reviewed before we go on?
Share
{ 25 comments }
The Health IT section is almost guaranteed to be a $20B disaster.
I agree completely with Rustbelt. The health care industry re-engineering, complete with non-elected review boards and rationing plans, will cost billions to set up, then fix, then…
It's in a 'stimulus' plan for what reason? Is US health care a dying industry? Can we fix it with a multilayer bureaucracy secreted into the plan without debate?
Obama is not only a socialist, but a fascist
The Health IT bill now appears to include the Daschle agenda on bureaucracy, a grab bag of really bad ideas.
Worse than I thought. Eric is right.
The "No Huddle Bailout." I like it.
I think it's funny that you guys are using the government created internet to complain about their supposed likely inabilty to set up a nationl health IT data bank (using the internet they created).
The country needs a nationalized health IT system. Private enterprise would likely never solve the issue for years to come. In fact some of the best health IT systems are evolving in the VA and Medical systems… well and of course the company I work for is a leader on the issue as well.
Put feigned outrage and hysteria aside. This will be a good thing.
Obama seems to be using the same tactics as Bush II used to pass the Patriot Act. Why is no one calling him out for this?
muirgeo –
The roots of the Internet were *funded* by the government through DARPA but was hardly created by the government. Even more, it was certainly not created by writ of Congress.
I agree that a system of tracking patient records makes a lot of sense from an efficiency point-of-view. But, how does the government get the right to even look at my health record, let along monitor the appropriateness of my doctor's actions?
Also, the whole thing about forcing hospitals to use it — if the system ends up being any good, then hospitals will use it without being forced to. And, if it's lousy, then they shouldn't be forced to use it at all.
"I think it's funny that you guys are using the government created internet…"
– muirgeo
Is that what you think? The government created the Internet we know and love today? Really?
Disregarding the fact there were plenty of private competitors from BBS networks to Compuserve, Prodigy and AOL, I think the Internet mostly languished until the early 90's when it was finally privatized. It was THEN the Internet we know and love blossomed into what it is today.
I think it's funny that muirgeo is using the non-governmentally created English language to communicate with us.
Common language is the greatest spontaneous order of them all.
Muirgeo,
The creation of the Internet was due to a lack of central oversight in a defense-related research agency. The use of packet switching, the definition of address structures, and the sequence of institutions that joined the network were all decisions taken outside of government funded oversight committees and with no input at all from a Washington DC-based bureaucracy. Please don't confuse the functional operation and role of DARPA with anything else administratively 'under' US government agencies.
Second, your point "The country needs a nationalized health IT system" is made without logic or evidence. The US currently has fewer than 260 health care organizations, of a size above 500 employees, serving the needs of 314 million citizens (2007 data). Those organizations are funded by a variety of grants, government programs, insurance, organizational fees, and personal financial relationships. It's a very complex system.
We don't have a national energy policy and that system has fewer producers in an easily identified and measurable network. Why is that too difficult but health care is easy?
What evidence do you have suggesting the government can plan and implement a nationwide effort that provides health care that supports personal care and choice of service AND data tracking that provides for basic legal privacy concerns? What are the limits of that system?
Why don't we need a national ID card system first?
Why don't we need a 'national education system' to provide for efficiency of scale and reduction of waste?
Muirgeo, as you well know, we can't provide for the support and adequate maintenance of our national parks (a small number of fixed, tangible locations where users transport themselves to the sites). How on earth can you suggest the government can centrally plan and allocate health care?
"The country needs a nationalized health IT system."
Why? So the government can control how long we live?
well and of course the company I work for is a leader on the issue as well.
Ah, nothing like naked self interest to inform one's sense of public priority.
Muirgeo –
So I take it then, since you did not broach the premise of this post — that you are perfectly fine with those who use panic and fear as a means to hustle through legislation before it has been vetted?
Or is that only operative when liberal Democrats are in power, and you happen to agree with the outcome?
Are you truly an "Ends Justify the Means" person? Because the thrust of this post was about HOW the bill was being passed, not the substance of the bill. (Which, topically enough, NONE of us has had the time to study.)
No sense calling George out on his gross mistakes. He won't owe them. The recent compendium includes:
* underground utilities are a panacea.
* government created the Internet.
I'll be the keeper of the list. Replying to him has become like doing the medium difficulty Sudoku puzzle. The only challenge is in minimizing the time.
A troll knows he's being over the top, and makes brash statements to see what reaction they get. I don't think George is that devious. In fact, my bet is that he thinks we're like the Republican group in his Kiwanis club.
"* underground utilities are a panacea.
* government created the Internet."
BoscoH
* Somalia and Ethiopia operate under free markets
"underground utilities are a panacea"
– BoscoH
Implicit in that was rural Kentucky should be just like urban St. Louis!
muirgeo on Feb 10, 2009 at 11:19:57 AM
"I think it's funny that you guys are using the government created internet"
ChrisF on Feb 10, 2009 @ 11:59:53 AM
"The roots of the Internet were *funded* by the government through DARPA but was hardly created by the government. Even more, it was certainly not created by writ of Congress."
Wrong muirgeo, right on Chris!
http://fcw.com/articles/2008/04/18/flipside-a-few-minutes-with-larry-roberts.aspx
Wrong. Obama is NOT trying to get off a play before the opposing coach tosses the red flag. This is a lot more like the "debate" before the Patriot Act was passed, or the "debate" in advance of the Iraq War Resolution. We have to be terrified into granting the Messiah the absolute power he needs to save us from ourselves. Just like in 2002.
Come on, why don't you guys admit it – health services shouldn't be socialised because people shouldn't have access to services they can't afford and to supply goods and services to those who can't pay is Socialism. Let 'em get on TV and plead for charity if they can't afford medicine . . .
health services shouldn't be socialised because people shouldn't have access to services they can't afford
OR, health services should be socialized so that everybody can get the same crappy service that is now supplied to those that can't afford it.
The funny thing is that the Internet came to dominate computer networking not because it was funded by the government, not because it faced no competition.
Off the top of my head, I remember FidoNET, Compuserve, AOL. I'm sure there are others.
In the absence of the government funded internet, one of these networks would have supplied that need. It would have been more expensive, and adopted more slowly, perhaps.
"Come on, why don't you guys admit it – health services shouldn't be socialised because people shouldn't have access to services they can't afford and to supply goods and services to those who can't pay is Socialism."
– Gil
In every other industry we see the market over time drive prices down. As Schumpeter once said that's the great achievement of capitalism; not to make more stuff available to rich people, they can already afford all they want rather, to make more and more goods and services available to poor and middle class people.
We see this in some degree the health care industry. Many things over time have come down in price. Yet, many other things have not.
Why do you think that is Gil? What is preventing the market from innovating new more efficient solutions?
It's an important question because when the market innovates a way of delivering goods and services to poorer people it's sustainable. It's a true increase in their standard of living and of the wealth of society. Socialist transfers are not.
Gilhuahua,
Good idea:
"Let 'em get on TV and plead for charity if they can't afford medicine . . .
Posted by: Gil | Feb 11, 2009 12:54:47 AM"
But only if they pay for the time.
Poor people have a duty to die so we rich people can have more room for our Big SUVs on the roads, less crowds at our beaches, fewer Walmarts crowding our upscale suburbs, less waiting time at the Doctor's/Dentist's office, fewer snotty nosed brats screaming in our stores, and last being our janitors and lawn boys long enough so that we have to learn their names and actually write a paycheck.
Well said, Marcus. I agree 100%
muirducks just want everything nationalized. Why, because Karl Marx said so. The bigger question that will really bake your noodle – why do muirducks become commies?