Tonight we watch President Obama tell us the facts, and maybe give us some hope. So much in the news on the economy, the bail out and political pontification, in which something our members of Congress seem to excel. If only they could put their efforts into resolving differences…ah but that is for another time.
Here are some sites and sounds on the Internet to keep you informed. On Social Security, where does it stand, what is its future. The best blog on this is one Ronni Bennett did today on Time Goes By. Read it; it’s real. Whatever your beliefs on this, read it.
Bernacke: what he told the Congress today. You should know this. Click here for his actual testimony.
The Bail out. So much said; so much written. Know the facts. FactCheck.org is where you should go. Here is an example of what you are hearing that is NOT true but polical pontification at its worse: ”
Doctor’s Orders? Republicans claim that the new stimulus law says the government will tell physicians what procedures can and can’t be performed. It doesn’t.
Source: Annenberg Political FactCheck.org
Republican politicians have claimed that the stimulus bill requires that doctors follow government orders on what medical treatments can and can’t be prescribed. But the bill doesn’t say that.
- Rep. Tom Price of Georgia says the measure creates “a national health care rationing board.” Not true. What it creates is a council to coordinate research into which treatments work best, and are most effective for the money. And in fact, the new law states quite specifically that the council has no power to “mandate coverage” and that its recommendations are not to be construed as “clinical guidelines for … treatment.”
- Betsy McCaughey, a Republican former lieutenant governor of New York, claims that the bill creates a “new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology.” Not true. The office was created in 2004 by President Bush. McCaughey also says the office “will monitor treatments” and ” ‘guide’ your doctor’s decisions.” But that’s nothing new. Bush’s initiative called for creating a health IT system to transmit information to “guide medical decisions.”
Critics of comparative effectiveness research, which the government has been funding for decades, claim that it will lead to treatment being approved or denied based on costs. Proponents say it will improve the quality of care and can, in some cases, show that more costly treatments aren’t as effective as less expensive alternatives.
We can’t predict what will happen in the future, but we can say that several claims being made about the impact of the bill are simply opinions being passed off as facts. “
Stay tuned. Be informed.
