Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Social ScienceGender Studies · 1 decade ago

Feminists: Do you still support Obama now that you've learned that he doesn't believe in the "my body" mantra?

The latest Obama bill introduces a new department that will use information technology to "help guide medical decisions". In other words, you won't be able to make them.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi...

Update:

Suspended in Gaffa: I know I didn't, seeing as the word "control" doesn't appear in my question at all. Don't be so obtuse.

Guide: "direct the course; determine the direction of travelling"

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=guide

I think I understand the psychology behind how Hitler was able to do what he did...

Update 2:

Serena: My incredible and unmatched grasp of the English language permitted me to decipher the complex meaning of the word "guide" according to its dictionary definition.

Update 3:

Suspended in Gaffa: Page 442. The bill creates an entirely new department who's goal is to mandate, create and monitor health care technology and records which, according to the bill, will be used to "guide" (i.e. direct) medical care.

Update 4:

Suspended in Gaffa: The dictionary definition of "guide" is quite clear. While the government probably cannot mandate your health care if you pay out of pocket, keep in mind that a substantial portion of health care is paid by the government (through medicare and medicaid) and that health insurance is a highly regulated industry which engages in heavy lobbying and which would welcome government efforts to "reduce costs" (one of Obama's stated goals). This bill gives that department the ability to "guide" (i.e. direct) any medical care that is subject to either government spending or regulation. Virtually everyone falls under those categories.

Update 5:

Rio Madeira: Not quite. Obama has talked a lot about medical records (which likely makes no economic sense, given that about 40% of doctors reject their usage...It's like telling Chinese farmers to smelt iron). But this bill aggregates power in the administration to not only create medical records, but to use them to "guide" health care.

Update 6:

Rio: So naive.... So naive. I suppose you probably think that a career would be beneficial to your intellectual and emotional growth?

Update 7:

Max Power: It's my understanding that, according to the federal government, one American life is worth about $1 million (when applied to public safety projects and the like). On a more expansive level (like universal health care) that figure would have to drop substantially.

6 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Having worked in health-care for 20 years as a Nurse, Pharmaceutical Rep, and now in Medical Sales. I can say with a high degree of confidence (excluding electronic charting) that this is a step toward rationing health care. While on the surface, it sounds like health-care will improve or at least stay the same. Quality will actually be diminished. Doctors will have to fill out more forms and challenge those in charge to provide the best care. Cost-effective care is not synonymous with the superior care. Their hands will tied on what they can and can not do. Of course those with resources will still receive better care.

    It will also decrease innovation and advancements in care. I know of no healthcare worker who supports more government interaction or control.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Why do people doubt what you are stating. This portion of the proposal was written by (I refuse to pay my taxes) Daschle.

    Daschle says health-care reform "will not be pain free." Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

    Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

    The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle's book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.

    In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.

    Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration's health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. "If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it," he said. "The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol."

    http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publica...

    I wonder when the government will decide to stop my treatments. What is the monetary value that the government will palce on my life?

  • 1 decade ago

    I didn't realize that they'd changed the definition of "guide" to "control". Thanks for staying up on that. Either way, I'd like to think that Obama has more pressing issues at the moment than this bill.

    Incidentally though, would you mind telling us which of the 680 pages the quote you're looking at is on?

    Edit: I'm not trying to be obtuse, but you claimed that technology to help guide medical decisions equate to you not being able to make them. How does that technology inhibit you from making your own medical decisions? Not everyone has time to look through each page of this bill to get your argument.

    I have to agree with Rio. It sounds like this has more to do with record keeping and ensuring that each practitioner has up-to-date info on each patient than anything. I really doubt that it's part of some left-wing conspiracy to take your medical choices out of your hands. Technically, your doctor "guides" your medical decisions now. That's his/her job. They point (or direct, if you prefer) you in the direction that they'd recommend, but ultimately the choice is yours.

  • 1 decade ago

    I've heard of this proposal before; all it will do is replace medical paperwork with electronic records. Given his recent lifting of the Global Gag Rule, it's a safe bet that Obama really does believe in women having control over their bodies.

    EDIT: Assuming the doctor is worth their salt, that won't override the patient's final decision. It simply allows them to consider additional options.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Serena
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    "Help[ing] [to] guide medical decisions" and people being unable to make them is not the same thing.

    I'm actually more interested in hearing how you jumped to your conclusion.

  • Sarah
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    I'm not a feminist or american but I just don't understand why in america abortion is about gender/feminism etc??

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.