What Are The Health Implications Of President Obama’s Nearly Trillion Dollar Economic Stimulus Bill?

Have you seen what is in the “stimulus” bill that could impact your health?

A new Rasmussen poll released today reveals nearly six in 10 voters believe their Congressmen and Senators are clueless about the details of President Obama’s economic stimulus plan that will likely exceed $1 trillion once enacted into law. This is a scary proposition since the purpose of this legislation is to help “stimulate” the economy by spending money on projects that will generate jobs and/or income for the American people.

In fact, President Obama said a couple of weeks ago that we need to move “boldly and swiftly” to enact this legislation into law as soon as possible:

Since this bill passed the U.S. Senate today by a vote of 61-37 and now heads to House and Senate subcommittees to hammer out the differences to come up with a consensus on what should be included in the final version of it, the results of that Rasmussen poll loom large. While I’m not here to debate the merits of every little minutia of spending included in the Obama economic stimulus bill, I do think we should take a closer look at the health implications of what the President is presenting to the American people with his warning that failure to do so “could turn a crisis into a catastrophe.”

Former New York Lieutenant Governor Betsy McCaughey

Since this is a blog about health, I think you’ll find this Bloomberg column to be an especially thought-provoking and eye-opening piece. It was written by the former lieutenant governor of New York named Betsy McCaughey and closely examines some rather strange health-related provisions included in the Obama bill as “stimulus” that don’t seem to be in any way, shape, or form connected to creating jobs or income for the American public.

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle

According to McCaughey, the health provisions included in the stimulus bill were mostly penned by former Senate Majority Leader and President Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Daschle, who recently withdrew his nomination due to failing to pay over $100,000 in back income taxes. But his fingerprints are all over the items concerning health and healthcare included in the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009″ that you need to know about.

Let’s take a look at some of these health items designed to stimulate the American economy and see what you think about them:

1. Electronic medical records tracked by the federal government

I actually like this idea because it will help patients and doctors get the medical records they need in a timely manner and make healthcare run more efficiently. I’m sure this will provide some kind of stimulus to the economy if it goes into effect quickly and without any added bureaucracy and government dollars spent on it beyond what the legislation calls for.

2. New federal government oversight of healthcare

Now this is something that concerns me and should anyone who advocates alternative health. The bill calls for the creation of a brand new National Coordinator of Health Information Technology whose purpose will be to oversee the actions of the healthcare providers you see to determine if they line up with what the federal government believes is the best care for you. The stated purpose is to keep the costs of healthcare down, but it sounds like the federal government wants a “nanny state” regarding health. What if they deem a low-carb diet, for example, is an inappropriate treatment option for obesity and diabetes? Where does that leave any of the fine low-carb doctors who know the best way to help their patients is with low-carb nutrition? Are we empowering the federal government to enforce the USDA-recommended Food Pyramid guidelines on all physicians? This is truly frightening and serves no purpose in “stimulating” the economy at all.

3. Health providers must be a “meaningful user” of the new system

This undefined term basically leaves doctors and hospitals at risk of severe penalties and sanctions if they don’t follow the protocol procedure outlined by the federal government for treating patients. If your particular health situation requires a non-traditional approach for treating, then your doctor will not be allowed to perform that treatment since it is not included in the electronically delivered protocols provided by the new system that will be put in place. Again, this could all but put an end to those brave doctors and nutritionists who understand low-carb diets are highly effective at controlling weight and diseases. If Big Brother government says you can’t do that anymore, then what will these doctors do? Again, this adds more government to the problem which means more tax dollars spent for many years to come on needless oversight.

4. Slow the costly development of new prescription drugs

A Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research would oversee the research and development of medications that may or may not be needed for treating diseases. I have mixed feelings about this one. While on the one hand I do believe we need to continue research into effective drugs for treating non-preventable diseases, I also realize that we Americans expect to have every little ailment we suffer from cured by a pill. This is wrong! Slowing down this multi-billion dollar industry may be an excellent way to stimulate the economy and save the American people millions of wasted dollars on drugs they probably don’t even need to take (can you say Lipitor or Crestor anyone?).

5. Senior citizens should expect to be sick without treatment

This one seems particularly heinous if it truly comes to pass. Senior citizens, who tend to be the highest users of the healthcare system, will have to learn to accept their conditions as a sign of the aging process and forgo further treatment. That may sound preposterous that something like this would be allowed to happen in a civilized society, but McCaughey says the stimulus bill would implement a cost-effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council, something already happening currently in the UK. Decisions about treatment for the elderly will be determined by a mathematical cost-analysis equation of how much the procedure will cost versus the number of years the treatment will allegedly benefit the patient. Thus, the younger you are, the more likely you will be treated compared to the older generation because of the perceived benefit to society. It seems impossible that this could happen in the United States of America, but the provisions included in this stimulus bill could very well make it a reality. Sure, you’re saving dollars, but at what cost?

Although I may or may not agree with the conclusions made by Former New York Lieutenant Governor Betsy McCaughey in her column, she does make some compelling arguments worthy of further discussion before this bill is sent to President Obama later this week to be signed into law. I’d love to hear your comments about these various health provisions in the Obama stimulus bill and welcome your thoughts about whether health and healthcare should even be a part of legislation designed to improve the economy and jobs. Share your feedback in the comments section below.

Contact your two U.S. Senators as well as your Congressman to let them know what you think about these provisions in the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.”

Jake
It will force people who want to get well and stay healthy off of the medical system. We will get all of the tests we need from internet providers, we will do our own research, and with the help from others, we will interpret our own results.
From information obtain from the internet, we will devise our own treatment. Getting prescription meds will be a problem though. Although I imagine there will be cash only doctors who provide us with needed meds.
There is already a name for this and it is Medicine 2.0
Those who can do Medicine 2.0 will thrive, those who can’t will die an early death.
http://www.libertarian-logic.com Clair Schwan of Libertarian Logic
Never mind that the stimulus package isn’t going to work – it redistributes money to people for discretionary spending. What we need is tax relief to encouragement entrepreneurial investment in the economy. That will create jobs.
It seems the really big problem with the bill is that it allows more encroachment of government right where we don’t need it – in our personal lives. This looks like the narrow end of the wedge for national health care, and that may just button up our socialist coffin rather nicely.
People need choice, not government making their choices. When we lose choice, we lose our freedom. And, untangling government is always a difficult task, especially when we are less free to do so.
We should all direct our future unless we are unable to do so, and then it should be our family and friends that help us, not distant government bureacrats that don’t have a clue.
If we sit by quietly, we get what we deserve.
Clair
http://www.TheBunnellFarm.com Tom Bunnell
I hate to lose what little credibility I have but I am as much a Democrat as you are a Republican Jimmy! — This whole thing is scary!
Neither side is going to give in and these global conflicts and this economy, both local and global, carry a responsibility greater than World War One and World War Two and The Great Depression combined!
The end result of hundreds and then thousands of years of Stimulants and greed by Mankind!
Stimulants have that great an effect! — Sound Crazy! — It is!
— Our “Carbohydrate Wars” are dead center in all this, yet nobody knows it!
You’re right, Tom! This issue is not about politics at all. By the way, I’m not a Republican–I’m conservative. These days, those two entities are not even close to being the same thing. THANKS for your comments.
–Jimmy
Jean Howie
Jimmy, I was surprised to read your reference to cost effectiveness influencing the treatment of the elderly in the UK as I reside in Cheshire, UK, as does my 84 year old mother. She suffers from COPD, is regularly treated in hospital, receives free medication from the NHS in the form of tablets, inhalers, nebulizer drugs etc.etc. She is visited at home by a community matron twice per week. Just before Christmas, she had a severe chest infection and was collected by ambulance within 15 minutes of our call, taken to hospital and given intensive treatment for 48 hours until she responded and then spent several more days in hospital before coming home. I feel she gets excellent treatment by the NHS despite being in her mid-80s with a chronic illness which is not going to get any better – only worse. From personal experience I have found no discrimination for treatment on the grounds of age for either my mother or my father who is also in his 80s.
That’s awesome, Jean. And if the system that is about to be implemented in the United States works like that, then all is well. My reference in this post was an articulation of the point made in the Bloomberg column I highlighted. I’m happy to hear the system works well for your mom in the UK.
–Jimmy
http://sparkofreason.blogspot.com Dave
Hi Jimmy. I don’t think drug companies need to be slowed down. Instead, they need to be regulated such that they a) take a long-term view (instead of pushing out a drug and trying to cash in before everyone figures out it’s useless or harmful), and b) transparently use all of the information available to them. Thus, for statins, including the actual information about statins effect on total mortality or disease incidence would show little expected benefit, or perhaps even harm. Ensuring transparency on this point allows doctors and patients to make rational decisions, and coupled with the long-term analysis, forces drug companies to focus on developing drugs with real benefits. The problem we have right now is there is no emphasis on transparency, so the real information gets obfuscated by marketing hype (if you notice, statin ads say absolutely nothing about improving health).
Pie in the sky, to a certain extent, but I’m a strong believer that regulation should provide a rational business reason for socially beneficial actions, rather than just arbitrarily handcuffing corporations. Increasing transparency and time horizon may also allow insurance companies to influence drug development, since they’re more likely to pay for medications that reduce long-term insurance outlays. Disclaimer: I work on technology that enables this sort of analysis for corporations and governments.
OnPoint
What – no President Barack HUSSEIN Obama? (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
As an Obama supporter, I have to admit I am disappointed with the stimulus. (I was against last fall’s TARP, too.) Obama should have done a stimulus w/o any other projects attached. Each block of spending needs to have its own referendum. BTW, I also felt that way about the massive surges of spending approved by the Republican-ruled Congresses of most of the Bush administration.
The stimulus should have been simplified – buying up bad assets from banks to unfreeze credit, distributions to banks specifically to make them ABLE to help keep homeowners in their homes (those with enough income and decent enough prospects to warrant the effort; some cannot be saved), public works projects, payroll tax holidays to put money directly into the hands of consumers, and small business development loans and grants.
Most important of all, we need to provide incentive to companies to make America great again. Bailouts to the Detroit car companies should have been predicated on proposals from the car companies to develop THE NEXT BIG THING – cars that run on water or something. To wit, are you aware that Brazilian cars mostly run on sugar ethanol (which has a yield of nearly 8x that of corn), and they have an almost perfect template for American and other western countries to follow? Oh, and btw, Brazil is completely FREE of dependence on foreign oil.
I saw a special on TLC about this, and when a top Detroit executive was questioned about this very concept, he said the reason they don’t make those cars in the USA is b/c we don’t have gas stations that sell sugar ethanol. Now, this would have been a great job generator for the stimulus.
Okay, so I’ve rambled on some (Forgive me, Jimmy!), but back to healthcare – those proposals should not have been attached to this stimulus.
RandoMan
Look at this recent news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7878680.stm
What governments do to promote “health”. — sigh
Michele, RN
My concerns focus on the idea of “approved” treatments. Increasing numbers of studies are showing that different treatments are more effective for different groups of people (male v female, white v black). What happens when an unapproved treatment is more effective than an approved one? Will cheaper, less effective treatments be approved over expensive more effective treatments? Finally, has anyone considered “quality” of life? I’ve met many 90 year olds that are much more healthy than some 40 or 50 year olds. So, who would be chosen to receive treatment for a serious cancer? Why would someone that knows nothing about an individual be allowed to make such decisions?
Healthcare legislations deserves to be discussed all on its own. Adding such provisons to the back end of financial issues is unethical. I’ve contacted my senators and representative for the first time–please fo the same.
Sharon
Politicians are not to be trusted. They make vague speeches which can mean anything. Pretty deceitful trying to pull one over on the American public by sneaking in national health care, etc., etc. in this bill that is supposed to save us from immiment disaster. Give me a break!
This all started reminding me of how you are given the protection of being able to back out of a contract you’ve signed with a door-to-door salesman. You can change your mind in the next three business days.
Anytime someone’s telling you “accept this NOW-no time for discussion or it’s the end of the world” you know they’re trying to get away with something that DOES NOT benefit you.
lynn
Jimmy
Can you puleeeeeeese stop bringing politics into your columns and linking to very Republican right wing websites? It is distracting and not what this blog is supposed to be about.
THANKS for sharing your comments, Lynn. But I have to ask you how I brought up politics in my blog post. Public policy issues that impact health is VERY relevant to what I write about here at “Livin’ La Vida Low-Carb” and I would be derelict in my duty to share timely, cutting-edge information here if I ignored it. In no way did I mention anything about my own personal political beliefs in this post.
As for linking to “very Republican right wing websites,” I think the New York Times and Associated Press would be surprised to hear their web sites described that way. While my background is rooted in public policy and government (I have a Master’s degree on this subject), I take great pains to keep that out of my blog about low-carb living.
But keep in mind, this is a blog about what I care about and what I think people need to know about regarding nutrition and health. If that means discussing something that you do not agree with, then it gives you an opportunity to share your disagreements. How about sharing what you think about the Obama economic stimulus bill and these health provisions in it? Do you think they’re a good way to create jobs and improve the American economy or are they totally unrelated? That’s what this blog post was about–stimulating a conversation.
THANK YOU again for your comments, Lynn!
–Jimmy
Sonya
“Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable.
The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalized, and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism.”
~ Das Kapital, 1867, Marx
We can’t expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism.
~ Nikita Khrushchev
It’s a scary day, indeed. We have to speak up. We have to write our elected officials – often! – we have to stay informed and hold them accountable. It infuriates me to no end that these CROOKS – and that’s what most politicians are – continue to get elected to make decisions that affect us.
Anemare
Typical Republicina fear-mongering.
That’s all well and dandy, Anemare, but do you agree that this belongs in an economic “stimulus” bill? If so, tell us why. THANKS!
–Jimmy
Kelly
I find it interesting that Obama said that he was all about HOPE and CHANGE and his first Presidential News Conference he offers neither. Just more of the fear that the Bush administration was so fond of promoting.
Enjoy your new Socialist President everyone who voted for this man. He is truly a wolf in sheep’s clothing!
They will deny health care to anyone 55 and older and ration it to the rest of us poor saps who don’t have the financial means to pay up front.
I for one do not want my medical information in one big gigantic database run by the government. There is to much potential for the abuse of this information.
Remember a little leaven spoils the entire batch!
Christina
Between emails, radio personalities and blogs, I keep thinking more and more about Joseph McCarthy, a Republication senator in the ‘50s. Out of curiosity, I looked McCarthyism up on Wikipedia and found it interesting to note that there was a chain of actions/reactions that led up to the encouragement of McCarthyism during this time period. In particular, the passage of the New Deal was considered a Communist threat. This passage jumped out at me, “It had long been a practice of more conservative politicians to refer to liberal reforms such as child labor laws and women’s suffrage as ‘Communist’ or ‘Red plots’.”
Cathy
Jimmy, thank you so much for posting this information. I had no idea this is what is going on in Washington. This has no business being attached to the stimulus bill. That is how they sneak ridiculous stuff past us without our knowledge. I, for one, am not comfortable with the government having my medical records.
(Neither Republican nor Democrat here.)
Cathy
Sarah
Very scary stuff. Particularly frightening is how the aging generation has started to be judged on their worth! Wow, slippery slope getting more slippery by the minute.
No, I don’t see how this stuff has to do with economic stimulus either (but everything to do with Socialism) and no I don’t want a National Coordinator of Health Information Technology overseeing my doctors. Yikes!
Richard
Once the stimulus bill establishes the “Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research” to structure effective “penalties” against doctors who go against government guidelines, such as eating low fat diets, that will be the end of physicians who continue to recommend low carb diets to their patients.
That’s probably my biggest concern…big brother telling my doctor he can’t use low-carb as a medical tool anymore. Of course, my wife Christine and I joked that these doctors would probably just keep telling their patients to do a low-carb diet and then code it in the system using the government-recommended treatments they call for. There will be a lot of finagling of the system I can assure you of that!
–Jimmy
Matt
Thanks for posting Jimmy. It appears that this is an exaggeration that some leading voices have picked up and run with. Interestingly, this is apparently not a new office at all, in fact the office has existed since 2004. And the references to specific pages are incorrect — the citations she makes cannot be found in any version of the bill. I know … left … right … fight .. fight. So, I think … we don’t all have to worry so much.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200902110012
http://pr.thinkprogress.org/2009/02/pr20090211/index.html
THANKS Matt. But those two links you provided are both well-known web sites that lean towards the left. That’s not to say they don’t have any merit at all, but some would criticize they are anything but unbiased. Again, thank you for your comments!
–Jimmy
Matt
True. But I recommend you take a look anyway, especially since Ms. McCaughey is a known individual who leans toward the right on health care policy. Some items in there definitely are a bit out of line with the truth but some are factual.
Is there a middle? George Wll is probably close to it from the right side, and he too takes issue with this office.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/28/AR2009012802939.html
I agree that this CER does NOT belong in the stimulus package, and should be debated separately. I am trying to find out if it was removed in the latest (smaller) version.
Fair enough. THANKS Matt. It’s still always a good thing to get a topic like this out in the open for people to talk about so they are aware of what is happening. An educated public is better than an ignorant one.
–Jimmy
Dan (aka Renegadediabetic)
I am an independent and have no regard for either major political party. I am for personal freedom and personal responsibility. That also includes responsibility in business and businesses that are irresponsible deserve to fail. Therefore, I dislike this socialist bill just as I disliked the socialist stimulus pacakage from the Bush administration, which included talk of government interest in private banks. I’m sure McCain would have pushed some other socialist package. All it says is that if you are irresponsible, the government will bail you out. This only enlarges the root cause of the problem.
Adding health measures to the bill is even worse. I don’t like any of it. Electronic records managed by the government will only lead to more government intrusion into our lives. Other provisions of the bill are blatant government intrusion. Some readers have complained about politics in the blog, but this should be a concern to all freedom-loving people, regardless of political affiliation.
Check out Dr. Eads lates post on why society makes it hard to stay on low carb. Government intrusion will make it even harder.
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/obesity/low-carb-battles-in-your-brain/#more-2523
Sandy over a JunkfoodScience also posted on this subject.
\http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2009/02/e-debate-electronic-economics.html
http://www.TheBunnellFarm.com Tom Bunnell
I want to hope that this ongoing conflict between the conservatives and the liberals, or the right and the left or the Republicans and the Democrats, or between the believers and the non believers, however you might want to say it ,doesn’t boil over into a national and global catastrophe of unimaginable proportions but it looks like that is where we are headed.
I knew we were in trouble when Obama picked Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State. — He is in over his head!
— And I am a dyed in the wool, liberal, democrat, non believer!
I’m not sure that anybody could unravel this economy and war that our dear president and his cronies got us into as well as causing the September 11th attack in the first place, with there greed for oil and gold and banking interests.
Some will Pray, — I will wish, and hope — and try!
Sonya
I think none of the citizens of the US are happy with the way ANY of the politicians from EITHER party are handling things. We learn more every day about yet another corrupt politician. They need to all go or we’re all going to continue down the path of destruction.
This is why it is so important, as you said, for all of us to continue speaking up, speaking out and demanding proper action.
Here, here!
–Jimmy
http://controlcarb.com Jackie Eberstein
Note that Betsy McCaughey is on the side of big pharma. The Drudge report and of course Limbaugh jumped on this. Are your sure they can be trusted to care about the facts or tell the whole story? They have their own agendas.
Same kind of misleading campaign that occurred when Clinton was attempting to address healthcare.
This is the beginning of a new campaign to prevent any reform of our healthcare system. Too many businesses are making big money and don’t want the gravy train to stop.There is more money in illness than health. The more Americans that get sick or stay sick the more drugs can be sold.
Unfortunately, we are bankrupting this country with our current system and most Americans seem to be participating by being unwilling to be responsible for the only body they will ever have.
Jackie Eberstein
I hear where you’re coming from, Jackie, and appreciate your input. But regardless of your feelings about the healthcare reforms included in this bill, why is it included in an economic stimulus package? What new jobs or sources of income will come from any of these provisions included in this bill? If they want to reform healthcare, then why not introduce something like Healthcare Reform Act of 2009 legislation in Congress? It doesn’t make sense to me that this would be in a “stimulus” package. THANKS again for your feedback!
–Jimmy
Matt
OK, I have been researching this quite a bit and I’ve got the intent. So … comparative effectiveness research is nothing new. It was funded with $335M last year and is getting more with the stimuls bull. It saves money because it invests in research into what works and what doesn’t, and stops the use of what doesn’t. It saves money because it prevents the wasteful use of poor treatments — extending the life of people who get the “right” treatments. It will create more data on treatment efficacy. So that is how it is stimulative. To me this might be a real boon for low carb since obesity/diabetes research has got to be high on the list, and what oh what will they discover when they start applying the research to the practical treatment of obesity and diabetes?
Matt
Following up … it’s big pharma that has the biggest problem with it, because what would happen if they decided statins weren’t effective enough? Now granted they’ll throw enough money at the problem to make that never really take off but it’s got em worried. So it’s stimulus because it creates research jobs, and it’s stimulus because it reduces costs down the road by reducing the number of times someone needs to get treated for a problem Now, if they’re planning on using this for a government-run health care system (which you would think they are hoping for) they’ll make that part of the government health debate.
lynn
Hey Jimmy
I just don’t like being linked to obviously very right wing journalists no matter whether they are writing for the New York Times or any paper. I agree that this is your place to express yourself but discussing politics is like discussing religion and nutrition. LOL
I don’t see anything wrong with a government having access to medical record. Many democratic governments around the world already do this. I also agree that research jobs are being created.

E-mail Updates!

Remembering Kevin Moore

My Latest Tweets

Facebook Me!

Latest Posts

LLVLC Archives

What Are The Health Implications Of President Obama’s Nearly Trillion Dollar Economic Stimulus Bill?

Search

Support LLVLC!

GET THE PALEO SUMMIT!

Quicklinks

My Favorite Health Podcasts

The Best Blogs