Re: Feb 2 AHIMA meeting on S. 1360

[ahlewis@scsn.net]

  On Mon, 5 Feb 1996, Lewis Lorton sent a post, an excerpt of which 
  follows:
  
  ++++++++++++++++++++++ Begin included message 
  ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  I have attended three of the meetings and have been increasingly 
  dismayed
  that the motives of the health care providers are constantly 
  misconstrued,
  seemingly purposefully, in order to wave some flag.
  
  I have just finished a long private exchange with Jamie which 
  convinced me
  that this is ideology versus reality - not amenable to reason.   Why 
  is it
  so difficult to understand that any resources put into other issues 
  are
  deducted from that available for providing care.  Some issues, some
  activities are worth it - some are not. 
  
   The challenge is to understand the impact of everything that is 
  proposed
  and to make the choices of which to accept - not the current tactic 
  of
  pressing for the most stringent measures - to defeat the demon 
  industry.
  ++++++++++++++++++++++ End included message 
  ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  
  I missed the announcement of the gentleman's elevation to Arbiter of 
  Reality.  This is at least the 2nd time he's tried to equate what 
  "the demon industry" wants to reality, with the implication that any 
  disagreement must be unreal.  Gellman works that one, too.  Perhaps 
  there's a manual somewhere.
  
  In the quote above, substitute "principle" for the loaded 
  "ideology."
  
  The idea of a zero-sum situation, where "resources put into other 
  issues are deducted from that available for providing care" is only 
  true if savings are not realized anywhere else.  (Industry profits? 
  Lobbyist salaries? Congressional campaign contributions?  
  Naaahhh...)  Even then, it is only true in the sense LL promotes if 
  we only count costs his way.  His reasoning is based on the hidden 
  premise that wherever money now goes, it must and will continue to 
  go, world without end.
  
  As concerns the proposition that "the motives of the health care 
  providers are constantly misconstrued...," one assumes that (as 
  corporate entities) their motives consist of profit and the 
  assurance of continued profit.  If not, someone tell the 
  stockholders.  Corporations can be benevolent & beneficial to the 
  community at large -- or not.  Profit is very damn good -- depending 
  upon how much, how it is obtained, and who suffers.  At the very 
  least, it pays to be cautious about the motives and utterances of 
  anyone, in any situation, who stands to profit financially or 
  professionally.
  
  Even the phrase "health care providers" is tricky.  It brings to 
  mind the image of a nurse with a bandage.  But 
  the "providers" mentioned above appear to be simply those who stand 
  to make the money, not those who directly provide the care.
  
  
  
  Alan Lewis
  Private citizen