What is a principle:
: a moral rule or belief that helps you know what is right and wrong and that influences your actions
: a basic truth or theory : an idea that forms the basis of something
: a law or fact of nature that explains how something works or why something happens
and, what is an agenda:
: a list of things to be considered or done
: a plan or goal that guides someone’s behavior and that is often kept secret
Based on the definitions by Merriam Webster, I thought a fair resource.
Now, I looked for a nice source that could discuss the strengths and weaknesses of PPACA, found this one first that I felt noted overt pros and cons:
then there was this one, after much searching:
I strongly advise you read both links, I found them to be fairly unbiased and objective overall, while the first was written by a woman who overly benefited from the Massachusetts law personally and is still rather young to appreciate the impacts on the general population. Her point at the end of the day does reinforce this matter should be settled by the states individually, not by the impersonal and insensitive federal government.
But, the point of this post is to show readers what is being said that is about real principle, versus just partisan agenda.
Here is an updated version of the Hippocratic Oath, called the Declaration of Geneva by the World Medical Association, that I think does follow the original Greek version:
At the time of being admitted as a member of the medical profession:
- I solemnly pledge to consecrate my life to the service of humanity;
- I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude that is their due;
- I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity;
- The health of my patient will be my first consideration;
- I will respect the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died;
- I will maintain by all the means in my power, the honour and the noble traditions of the medical profession;
- My colleagues will be my sisters and brothers;
- I will not permit considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;
- I will maintain the utmost respect for human life;
- I will not use my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat;
- I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honour.
So, if you agree with these as basic principles to being a health care provider, do you really think the PPACA will allow you to provide care as expected per the training at least as a physician? No, because this law is about cost first, later, and at the end. But, it will try to impede and disrupt care. Let’s look at this difference in principle versus agenda that defines what doctors offer versus politicians demand, at least the 3 major ones to me.
Principle number 1 per health care that applies to both providers and patients: first do no harm. That is a principle, there is no rational argument otherwise. Does the law really follow that by focusing on cost first? No.
Agenda number 1 per PPACA: everyone should have access to health care. Is that a principle? No, because it is not an absolute that can be applied fully honestly and objectively intended. It is morally correct, but it is not defined just by having health insurance. It falls back that doctors should not, and cannot deny a person at least urgent care needs. Because we as physicians do accept principle number 1, do no harm. The law simply infers having access is enough.
Principle number 2: the health of my patient is my first consideration. Again, it is a principle, a moral rule or belief.
Agenda number 2 per PPACA: The cost of the care is the first consideration. What does PPACA say, per this pending IPAB (I read several links to best describe it, and none were easy nor profoundly partisan or attacking in description, so this one is the best I’ve got to show) http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/independent-payment-advisory-board-ppacas-anticonstitutional-authoritarian-superlegislature that will allow a physician to focus first on the health of the patient? That link above says this, which is saying that they supersede health care decisions based on standards of care:
” In 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) created the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB. When the unelected government officials on this board submit a legislative proposal to Congress, it automatically becomes law”
Principle number 3 per health care: care is provided without violating human rights or civil liberties. Health care is not political nor discriminatory. Politics today is not purely partisan nor biased, by either primary party in power?
Agenda number 3 per PPACA: the use of a universal Electronic Medical Record is mandated for all health care systems. How is having such a large system of EVERYONE’S medical record outside the physician’s own security system of his/her own office not going to risk violating rights and liberties? Again, you are going to trust a person who has at least agreed to some level of commitment to care and confidentiality, or a faceless bureaucracy that as of today redefines the term “punitive” both on the public, as well as within their own ranks in the political system itself!?
I could do more Principles versus agendas, but I hope these three alone relate the tone and concern.
It is just so amazing how disingenuous, dishonest, and dismissive these supporters, defenders, and apologists are these days of the frank consequences and potential for misuse by this law of the health care system. Which reflects agenda. People who go by principle will at least go back and relate what are the basic terms to their mission and purpose. Have you heard ONE PERSON IN THE DEMOCRAT PARTY say anything that relates to a greater good and purpose that is above their plain role as a politician when challenged by concerns and inconsistencies the law has revealed since April 2010?
No, it hasn’t been said. “It is the law, deal with it” has been the mantra by the leaders of Reid, Pelosi, their partisan circle in the House and Senate, and of course by Obama.
Besides, what damn law of alleged significance in this country is called by the President’s name? Social Security isn’t called Roosevelt’s Pension law, Medicare isn’t Johnson Elderly Care, even the Emancipation Proclamation isn’t called Lincoln’s Proclamation. There is the arrogance and agenda by this COTWH and his minions, and he loves it being called Obamination Care, er, Obamacare.
But, this post isn’t directed to the Democrap machine and it’s mob loyalists, but to those who are unbiased and objective.
This law goes as is won’t go very well. Just read up on the IPAB more, it will frighten and dissuade anyone to think the goal of this legislation is to help the public. Cost is an agenda, Care is a principle. Don’t believe me, just go to your doctor you have a sincere and trusting alliance and hear them tell you this law will have no prominent change in your health care. This doctor tells you that, well, laugh me off.
Good luck with that conversation.