Right-Wing Media Compares Health Care Modernization to Nazism
During the Bush years, Republicans displayed a particular fondness for fomenting anxiety over comparisons made between the former president's administration and the Nazi party.
But now that a Democratic president is in charge, the right-wing media has no qualms about comparing President Obama's initiatives to Nazism. Witness this morning's Washington Times editorial, which runs a photo of Hitler alongside a wildly off-base attack on the health information technology (IT) provisions in the stimulus.
The health IT provision in the stimulus sets up a National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, completing a process that began during the Bush administration. Now that Obama is proposing to finish the job, the Times describes it as "chilling" and an invasion of privacy.
The new health IT coordinator would have no ability to facilitate government intrusion into medical records, as the Times claims. Its mandate would be limited to establishing a technological framework for care providers to keep computerized track of patient information. But when Rush Limbaugh is cheering you on, why read the bill before making incorrect judgments?
A Senate Finance Committee fact-check of the Times' and Rush's incorrect claims can be found here, under the second link for February.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Typical garbage. Now cnn and the rest of the right-wing outfits will pick up on this and regurgitate it as a fact.
By the way, its ok for the insurance industry to have a massive data base on individuals concerning insurance claims, but its not ok for a government run system? Seems kind of counter intuitive. Especially when you think about the fact that corporations in germany were behind hitler's rise to power. That was one of the cornerstones of nazi party. Corporate support. Kind of sounds similar to what current party in american politics? Hmmm.
February 11, 2009 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both parties, as far as I can tell, the GOP is just more obvious about it.
February 11, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ouch! I think that the republicans rely on it substantially more though. The k-street project, tax cuts in return for campaign contributions and stuff like that. Also, obama's fundraising demolished corporations buying influence in this administration. I guess we shall see what happens long term.
February 11, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not forget the Medical Information Bureau, which provides life and health insurers with data on medical tests, medical conditions, credit issues, motor vehicle reports and other personal information. Although it is a private organization, it is considered a government reporting agency and must comply with government regulations concerning the security and reporting of personal information.
Point is, this is already being done by the private sector. Advocates of modernization acknowledge the privacy issues. Not only is the Hitler analogy misleading and repugnant, it's totally irrelevant.
February 11, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Typical garbage. Now cnn and the rest of the right-wing outfits will pick up on this and regurgitate it as a fact.
By the way, its ok for the insurance industry to have a massive data base on individuals concerning insurance claims, but its not ok for a government run system? Seems kind of counter intuitive. Especially when you think about the fact that corporations in germany were behind hitler's rise to power. That was one of the cornerstones of nazi party. Corporate support. Kind of sounds similar to what current party in american politics? Hmmm.
February 11, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
OMG, it is hard to read the headlines every day. Didn't think it would be quite this bad.
February 11, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just remind yourself that it's far better for them to be an insane, irresponsible opposition- which is the only thing they know how to do anyway- than running the country! So when you think about it, let's hope we keep seeing headlines like that for decades.
February 11, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tin ears AND tinfoil hats. Impressive!
February 11, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
A democratic president back in office = headspinning lies and distortions become the order of the day. The sad thing is that John Q. Public is, for the large part, still wildly susceptible to being propagandized into buying this crap.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_02/016841.php
February 11, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
A democratic president back in office = headspinning lies and distortions become the order of the day. The sad thing is that John Q. Public is, for the large part, still wildly susceptible to being propagandized into buying this crap.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_02/016841.php
February 11, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
A democratic president back in office = headspinning lies and distortions become the order of the day. The sad thing is that John Q. Public is, for the large part, still wildly susceptible to being propagandized into buying this crap.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_02/016841.php
February 11, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
A democratic president back in office = headspinning lies and distortions become the order of the day. The sad thing is that John Q. Public is, for the large part, still wildly susceptible to being propagandized into buying this crap.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_02/016841.php
February 11, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
A retired VP for a large Health Insurance broker stated to me that 25% of the cost for Health Insurance Companies is in their IT systems. They gladly pay for these separate costly systems to ensure that the "barriers to exit" by their large business customers are high, so that they can keep the customers captive and thus making switching Health Insurance providers costly to the buyer of health insurance. This exactly what Adam Smith predicted would take place when you give the supplier who has monopolistic/oligopolistic pricing power. Therefore, the Washington Times and the WSJ's 2-11-09 editorial are seen as supporting these supplier Oligopolies in their opposition to rationalizing the IT systems for all us buyers.
February 11, 2009 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
A retired VP for a large Health Insurance broker stated to me that 25% of the cost for Health Insurance Companies is in their IT systems. They gladly pay for these separate costly systems to ensure that the "barriers to exit" by their large business customers are high, so that they can keep the customers captive and thus making switching Health Insurance providers costly to the buyer of health insurance. This exactly what Adam Smith predicted would take place when you give the supplier who has monopolistic/oligopolistic pricing power. Therefore, the Washington Times and the WSJ's 2-11-09 editorial are seen as supporting these supplier Oligopolies in their opposition to rationalizing the IT systems for all us buyers.
February 11, 2009 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
A retired VP for a large Health Insurance broker stated to me that 25% of the cost for Health Insurance Companies is in their IT systems. They gladly pay for these separate costly systems to ensure that the "barriers to exit" by their large business customers are high, so that they can keep the customers captive and thus making switching Health Insurance providers costly to the buyer of health insurance. This exactly what Adam Smith predicted would take place when you give the supplier who has monopolistic/oligopolistic pricing power. Therefore, the Washington Times and the WSJ's 2-11-09 editorial are seen as supporting these supplier Oligopolies in their opposition to rationalizing the IT systems for all us buyers.
February 11, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
A retired VP for a large Health Insurance broker stated to me that 25% of the cost for Health Insurance Companies is in their IT systems. They gladly pay for these separate costly systems to ensure that the "barriers to exit" by their large business customers are high, so that they can keep the customers captive and thus making switching Health Insurance providers costly to the buyer of health insurance. This exactly what Adam Smith predicted would take place when you give the supplier who has monopolistic/oligopolistic pricing power. Therefore, the Washington Times and the WSJ's 2-11-09 editorial are seen as supporting these supplier Oligopolies in their opposition to rationalizing the IT systems for all us buyers.
February 11, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
A retired VP for a large Health Insurance broker stated to me that 25% of the cost for Health Insurance Companies is in their IT systems. They gladly pay for these separate costly systems to ensure that the "barriers to exit" by their large business customers are high, so that they can keep the customers captive and thus making switching Health Insurance providers costly to the buyer of health insurance. This exactly what Adam Smith predicted would take place when you give the supplier who has monopolistic/oligopolistic pricing power. Therefore, the Washington Times and the WSJ's 2-11-09 editorial are seen as supporting these supplier Oligopolies in their opposition to rationalizing the IT systems for all us buyers.
February 11, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Group Patient Privacy Rights has actively been trying to get protections into this legislation. The are urging people to contact House and Senate conferees to ensure privacy protection in the final piece of legislation.
The talking points for these protections are:
^Limit income for the sale of protected health information to the minimal costs of preparation and transmittal for purposes of research, public health and treatment
^Close the marketing loophole that allows marketing for prescription or health care products or services that were “previously prescribed.”
^Require the Secretary to promulgate regulations that would narrow the broad definition of “health care operations” and determine which of those activities can be conducted with de-identified data or with valid authorization
^Require audit trails of all disclosures of health information; the secretary should not be able to outright exclude any kind of activity from being tracked
^Incorporate the essential data security protections included in the House bill that require PHI to be protected when it is transmitted and stored (encryption). Breaches are inevitable, so data must be secure and unusable.
^Make sure that “inadvertent” breaches are reported. The California data breach law would be useless if it did not require reporting of “inadvertent” breaches
^Ensure the governance process is not dominated by special interests. Standards and policy-setting must be an open, transparent, regulatory process so consumers’ rights and interests cannot be eliminated.
House Conferees
Rep. Obey: (202) 225-3365
Rep. Rangel: (202) 225-4365
Rep. Waxman: (202) 225-3976
Rep. Lewis: (202) 225-5861
Rep. Camp: (202) 225-3561
Senate Conferees
Sen. Baucus: (202) 224-2651
Sen. Reid: (202) 224-3542
Sen. Cochran: (202) 224-5054
Sen. Grassley: (202) 224-3744
Sen. Inouye: (202) 224-3934
You can sed an electronic letter to them through the PPR website: https://secure2.convio.net/appf/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=225
February 13, 2009 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink