Thursday, July 23, 2009

More on Health Care Reform


I thought this cartoon from TownHall.com pretty much sums it up. Even the Democrats aren't on board with this thing.

I have found one more reason to be against it. The title of this article from Health Freedom pretty much sums it up: "Health Care Bill Will Fund State Vaccine Teams to Conduct 'Interventions' in Private Homes"

They quote directly from the proposed bill. Method E of Subtitle C call for "providing for home visits that promote immunization through education, assessments of need, referrals, provision of immunizations, or other services" Folks, regardless of how you feel about vaccines, do you really want government officials coming to your house to giving vaccines to your kids whether you want or agree with them or not. This a very bad idea if you believe in any kind of parental rights when it comes to vaccines.

UPDATE: OneMom claims in the comments that I am over the top on this. She may be right. This may simply be a way for senior citizens to get their flu shots at home instead of travelling to a clinic. If that is the case and it is an appointment type thing, I am fine with that. But I do stand by my principle: I don't want the government thinking they have the right to come into my house without a warrant or explicit permission by me.

5 comments:

OneMom said...

The cartoon is good ... just like a life insurance salesman I recall talking to my parents when I was a little kid.

The vaccine teams concern is really over the top though. It is not talking about just going door to door vaccinating people. It allows an inclusion of vaccinating during regular home visits for high risk and other populations already receiving some kind of social/health services home care and assessment.

Applied Christianity said...

I guess you might be right, Kerry. I just want the government to be able to come into my home with a warrant. All other reasons for entry are invalid, in my opinion. Are you saying that only people that already are being visited by social workers would be in this new vaccine program?

OneMom said...

I'm saying the piece referenced in the draft bill is vague at best, and appears to be allowing those who receive home-based services to receive a vaccination at home instead of having to travel to a clinic (this would include senior citizens and their need for influenza vaccines).

To make the jump (as referenced in the other blog story) that the government is going to start going door to door, forcing their way into our homes and vaccinating people against their will is a paranoia that is way over the top.

I think as Christians and conservatives we need to be careful about "crying wolf" without being certain that there really is a wolf.

Applied Christianity said...

You are right the the blog I linked to is generally a little extreme. I will check more into it.

Russell Clements said...

The portion of the bill exerpted does not say anything about what either one of you have argued. The fact that it is so vague that either of you, as intelligent, thinking adults can reach such HUGELY disparate results is a reason that this bill should be rejected. If the intent is to allow voluntary innoculations in the comfort of ones home, then that should be made clear. If the potential for abuse of the provision is such that involuntary entry to ones home with unwanted care cannot be specifically prohibited by the provision, then the language should be made clear enough that both readers can have their concerns handled. At the very least, there needs to be FAR more specificity, clarity and transparency into the process and the bill. This bill has none of that and thus should be rejected.

While there is MUCH that is broken about our present health care / health insurance system, there are a wide spectrum of ideas and remedies which should be proposed and tried prior to this government option.

I for one am sick to death of health care professionals so busy trying to get people in and out of their office that they don't really even talk to their patients. I have been lectured by a nurse practitioner about the value of vaccines when I refused a vaccine for my daughter. The practitioner never even asked if she had any allergies - (which she does - to eggs) which is one of the SPECIFIC CONTRAINDICATIONS of the vaccine in question. How will the bill address this?

I have been a party to CPR on an already dead man who had arrived by helicopter to an ER when "every reasonable" measure was taken to ensure that the ER doctor and the hospital would not be sued after the fact. I'd hate to think how many thousands of dollars his widow was charged for these efforts on a body that was already gone. How will this bill address this situation?

There is much that can be legitimately changed to encourage greater responsibility in the Health care system, and in general these will ALWAYS tend towards giving the patient as much power as possible and greater competition. The single greatest detriment to this now is the government: specifically Medicaide and Medicare. The programs already dictate to providers what they will pay and what services to provide to patients. Other examples abound in the medical care provided by the Veteran's Administration or the medical programs provided to "native americans". Given the destructive past effects on the marketplace by government intrusion is there ANY reason to continue to consider expanding the government option?