Is THIS really what Americans want?
Jan 4, 2014 01:36:04 #
Hi Tasine!
That's why they got the nickname "Czar". What Americans want? They probably figured the pro's always are looking out for their best interests. But with so many more expected to be insured, this is a tell that HHS expects a high demand and scarce providers will reduce quality. No one is comfortable being regulated over their quality control procedures or "mechanisms" but they'll get used to it. Yeah, there will be a lot of wasted time from HHS quality orders but there may be a some good ones. This ensures the temptation to cut corners due to high workload will be balanced by the threat of being deemed an unqualified provider by the Czar's orders. Will the Czar bar routine mammograms as this MD congressman fantasizes? I doubt that fantasy is anything but pure political posturing.
That's why they got the nickname "Czar". What Americans want? They probably figured the pro's always are looking out for their best interests. But with so many more expected to be insured, this is a tell that HHS expects a high demand and scarce providers will reduce quality. No one is comfortable being regulated over their quality control procedures or "mechanisms" but they'll get used to it. Yeah, there will be a lot of wasted time from HHS quality orders but there may be a some good ones. This ensures the temptation to cut corners due to high workload will be balanced by the threat of being deemed an unqualified provider by the Czar's orders. Will the Czar bar routine mammograms as this MD congressman fantasizes? I doubt that fantasy is anything but pure political posturing.
Tasine wrote:
Jan 4, 2014 02:46:51 #
rumitoid wrote:
Tasine, why is not Section 1311(h)(1)(B) of the ACA included? The same thing has happened with people complaining and accusing about "death panels": the section is never included. I will look it up but this kind of post by Gingrey, failing to quote the section in question, does not go to building rapport with the two sides but rather planting seeds of division.
Curious, and disappointing: how many needed to peruse Section 1311(h)(1)(B) to determine for themselves what it actually said and if there were not more to that story in other sectors and provisions? Do you see presenting this thread in keeping with your other thread calling for honesty? Did you not find the omission of the pertinent section as somewhat--really, grossly-suspicious? All these sections are interdependent. Even if that section had been accurately quoted (an imperative to such a discussion) it may not tell all or even a small part of the story. It's total absence speaks volumes.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.