WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama suggested Wednesday that under the current health care system, doctors make medical decisions based on what they would be paid for a procedure rather than the best treatment.
In trying to rally support for health care overhaul, Obama described a patient who sees a physician for a sore throat, or a parent who brings in a child with a sore throat.
"Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that's out there. ... The doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, 'You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out,'" Obama told a prime-time news conference.
The president added: "Now, that may be the right thing to do, but I'd rather have that doctor making those decisions just based on whether you really need your kid's tonsils out or whether it might make more sense just to change — maybe they have allergies. Maybe they have something else that would make a difference."
AAO-HNS Responds to President Obama's Comments Regarding Tonsillectomy In response to President Barack Obama’s statements regarding tonsillectomy during a news conference on healthcare reform, the Academy issued the following response to the media and federal lawmakers:
“We, too, are in favor of evidence-based medicine that supports quality patient care. President Obama’s statement highlights the complexity of medical decisions like this. However, the AAO-HNS is disappointed by the President's portrayal of the decision making processes by the physicians who perform these surgeries. In many cases, tonsillectomy may be a more effective treatment, and less costly, than prolonged or repeated treatments for an infected throat.
“For the past several years, the Academy has been developing clinical guidelines based on evidence and outcomes research, including “Quality of Life after Tonsillectomy,” a January 2008 supplement to the journal Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery. We are in agreement with the President’s statement that physicians, patients, and hospitals should make the decisions, based on the evidence, about what’s best for patient care.”
Trying to infer that doctors only have their pocketbooks in mind when coming to health care is like saying that all cops just like bullying people around. It is true that doctors have to take care of #1 because there is NO ONE out there who is willing to do it for them. And yes, despite what a huge amount of people out there think, it is not right to take advantage of doctors desire to help others. Health care is not a right. It is a buisness. Just like I have to take in my car if it breaks down. Should that be a right? Well now, I should then propose a bill that we all get free car tune ups and comprehensive coverage if my car gets a little rusty or the engine fails from a lack of care. Can Obama do that for me? Yes he can!
11 comments:
Not as stupid as Sarah Palin. Now that's TRUE stupidity! =)
Ignorant maybe, she's not Stupid. Nor is she president.
Yes, she's VEEEEEERY stupid. On this there's little doubt. Now, Obama may be stupid as well, particularly on this issue. I have no idea. When it comes to healthcare I have no opinion because I have no real knowledge of the topic. As Pope John Paul II stated, "Know what you're talking about." And since I don't I won't.
But if Obama is stupid (and he may very well be) then Sarah Palin MOST CERTAINLY is stupid. How many unbelievable things does she have to do or not know before she qualifies as stupid? I'd say somewhere between not knowing what the V.P. is supposed to do and not knowing Africa was a continent...not to mention QUITTING on the job.
Brad, you seriously need to get over Sarah Palin.
As for the rest, I'll comment later.
I'll get over her when the Republicans accept reality. How about that.
WHOSE reality are the Republicans supposed to accept??
Heh...I'll tell you what. I'll lay off Palin (who is irrelevant now) when you lay off Obama, Pelosi, and every democrat you hate.
The door swings both ways.
You are absolutely correct, Palin is irrelevant now. As for Obama and Pelosi, they are FAR from irrelevant!
Hmmm...the only problem I see with that deal, is that I don't call all of the people I hate 'stupid'. And I don't hate the democratic party, just the policies they have been bringing to the table as of late. And don't go off on a tangent about the Republicans policies in the past, they're in the past, and if they were detrimental to my freedoms, then I hated them.
Pelosi is not even close to being stupid. She's very cunning, which leads to the conclusion that she's intelligent, unfortunately.
So Brad, as I am sure you know quite a few people who voted for Obama, can you answer the question I've posed for a while now (perhaps you yourself have posed it to others)?
What kind of change did you think you were gonna get??
Hmmmm...first, I don't hate Palin. I just think she's a complete idiot. We (Americans) tend to make fun of all politicians, assuming that we somehow know or could do better. Most of the time this is simple dinner table talk and means nothing (though makes us feel a little better). With Palin, however, it's true. She really is/was that stupid. I've had the luxury of being able to study Amderican history pretty thoroughly, and I have NEVER seen a candidate like Palin. So, for me, it's not about "going off on a tangeant" as you put it. I'm frankly shocked and embarrassed that my fellow Americans could actually consider that woman for ANY office, let along the White House. It's not a party thing, it's an intelligence/credibility/ability thing.
As for Obama, to be honest, I think many people made an "anti-Bush" or an "anti-Republican" vote when they voted for him. In other words, I think, at least a portion of America, saw a vote for Obama as a vote AGAINST the pathetic Republican rule of the past 8 years (and can we honestly blame them?). Republicans, like the dems befor them, have sour grapes for losing VEEEERY badly. This happens. When the Republicans return to power (yes, it will happen someday) the Dems will do the same thing. This is politics. If you think Obama is the first person to run on "Change" then you are mistaken. In fact, have you EVER seen a presidential candidate that DIDN'T run on "change?"
Simply put, Obama was a sure-fire winner because 2008 was a terrible year to be a republican (much like being a Dem in the 80s). Any Dem would have beaten McCain. The ebb and flow of politics will always be this way.
Where I have the problem is when (especially in the church) you have members assuming that ALL republicans are good, while all Dems are bad...almost like a Nephite/Lamanite thing. Now, I'm not accusing you of this. However, there's nothing wrong with voting for Obama, especially when we consider the facts surrounding the campaign. The Republicans deserved to lose, and yes, at some future point, the Dems will deserve to lose too. Let's just not let sour grapes force us into this lame "Tea Party" mentality where we see socialism, totalitarianism and fascism hiding under every rock. Obama (for all his good and bad) will not destroy America.
Ok, that's enough or a rant for now! =)
I love the rants and raves Brad and Jennerator. ;)
Our comment wars are the best around. Aren't we entertaining?
As for a vote strictly against a party, that is one of the stupidest things someone can do. Just because you are mad at a party, doesn't mean the person running under the party doesn't have a better platform than the opposer. As a responsible citizen you've got to get over the "party lines" and actually look at the policies each candidate wants to 'impose'.
Post a Comment