Ghosts in the Health Care Matrix

The next time you visit the doctor for a routine check-up, you may sense there is another person in the exam room with you.

The uninvited guest will not be a physician assistant or a nurse, but the shadowy specter of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.

You will not actually see him, though, because he will be hiding inside your doctor's computer.

Of all the hidden agendas that are buried within Obamacare, the one controversy that received the least attention involves the widespread adoption of electronic health records by hospitals and physicians across the entire country.

The lack of furor makes sense. A screaming pack of demonstrators who are foaming at the mouth over "DEATH PANELS!" will always get more media airtime than some Geek Squad conspiracy theorist who is mumbling about "a nationwide interoperable health information technology infrastructure."

Booooring!

Try fitting that one on a cardboard sign. "Infrastructure" doesn't even rhyme with anything scary.

The truth is that the Obamacare program does include financial incentives – bonus payments from Medicare, in other words – to reward health care providers who computerize their patients' medical records.

Under the new law, these forward-thinking providers are called "Meaningful Users." Now there is a euphemism that would make George Orwell's physician roll over in his grave. By definition, the opposite of a Meaningful User must be a Meaningless Waster.

After a few years, the bonus payments will be replaced by penalties for any holdout providers who still elect not to use electronic records. Their

reimbursements from Medicare will be cut. Doctors literally will be forced to comply or pay a price.

Under Obamacare, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is also granted the power to use "increasingly stringent measures to enforce compliance."

"Increasingly stringent measures" sounds an awful lot like "enhanced interrogation techniques."

Is the Surgeon General going to waterboard Marcus Welby, MD?

The mastermind of the new healthcare matrix will be the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. This unelected political appointee is in charge of making sure that electronic health records fulfill their promise to reduce the wasteful healthcare spending caused by "inefficiency, medical errors, inappropriate care, duplicative care, and incomplete information."

Critics argue that Obamacare is just one step closer to Big Government telling doctors what to do. The most fearsome example would be those now infamous "death panels" who decide whether your grandma will live to see her next birthday.

The real danger is not some bogeyman death panelist who is dressed like the Grim Reaper. Individual decisions on a case-by-case basis will never result in the cost savings necessary to rescue the Medicare program from going bankrupt. Your grandmother's care does not even add up to a rounding error in the Medicare budget.

According to the government's most recent estimate, Medicare is expected to collapse by 2029. In orderto rescue the entire program from going bust, Medicare needs to start squeezing the savings out of millions of grannies.

This is why the real threat to your grandmother's health is the new Czar for Health Information Technology. Big Brother is not going to bother making life-or-death decisions one blue-haired grandmother at a time, not when he has the power to create information technology standards that can affect the treatment of more than 46 million Medicare patients at once.

Eligibility to become a Meaningful User is based on whether providers fully implement and use government-approved health information technologies that meet certain standards of efficiency and effectiveness. That means once electronic medical records have been imposed on providers across the country, the Czar will be in a position to influence the design of the entire health information technology infrastructure.

For example, electronic record systems include programmed clinical alerts to warn doctors of potential safety problems. Sometimes the warnings are based on clinical factors, like a possible allergic interaction with certain medications.

Other types of helpful alerts are based on insurance coverage policies. For example, the system may warn a doctor before he orders a lab test that is not covered by Medicare.

As Medicare creeps closer to the verge of bankruptcy with every passing year, the pressure will become enormous to start using electronic record systems that also warn doctors before they enter orders that are deemed to be inefficient or not cost-effective.

For instance, the Czar for Health Information Technology and an independent panel of experts could recommend that all electronic record systems should be programmed to warn Meaningful Users to consider whether it is reasonable to withhold certain types of treatment from elderly patients.

After all, that expensive artificial hip is designed to last 10-15 years, and the remaining life expectancy for Mrs. Jones is not nearly that long.

According to some studies, as much as one quarter of the entire Medicare budget is spent treating elderly patients in the last year of their life. Academic eggheads point to this as clear evidence of wasteful or ineffective treatment. Presumably, these eggheads do not like their grandmothers very much.

Perhaps the little old lady does not really need a new titanium hip just to spend the rest of her days watching The Price is Right from a nursing home bed. So the computer decides that Mrs. Jones doesn't get anything more costly than two aspirin and warm tapioca.

Asking for a second opinion will be futile, because all clinical information systems will be loaded with the same "age-appropriate" treatment protocols. Mrs. Jones could be seen by a dozen different specialists, but the computers will always spit out the same answer. No hip for you.

You can save untold thousands of dollars with a simple, inexpensive injection of potassium chloride. No fuss, no mess. No more grandma.

Keep in mind that electronic records will be used in the treatment of all patients, not just the elderly. To eliminate all inefficient and inappropriate waste, the Czar will need to look at other types of patients who also require particularly expensive care, such as people with a family history of Alzheimer's or multiple sclerosis.

In fact, the matrix computers could automatically order a genetic screeningtest for all newborns. Based on each baby's statistical predisposition to develop certain conditions in the future, the computers will crunch the numbers and calculate everybody's fair share of limited health resources. Once you exhaust your capped lifetime reserve, the system refers you to a managed care counselor named Kevorkian. Game over.

In order to maximize the overall benefit for society as a whole, the matrix can limit the quality of care for every individual to a cost-effective level. The Czar's matrix will not let doctors order anything above that well-defined level of care, because a team of economists concluded it would be Bad Medicine. Only a Meaningless Waster would dare to practice Bad Medicine. Meaningful Users always deliver pre-approved Good Medicine.

There is another word for "Good Medicine" like that. It is called "eugenics." A fashionable idea among Progressives in the early twentieth century, eugenics is basically the theory of perfecting humankind by selectively weeding out the bad seeds that produce undesirable traits.

Advocates of this theory included Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. Even Sanger's plan was somewhat less ambitious than the most well-known champion of eugenics, though. Here is a hint. His first name was Adolf.

Back then, the theory of selection was based on prejudice and propaganda. The modern return of eugenics may be based on footnotes in a cost-benefit analysis.

The Czar for Health Information Technology just types a few keystrokes into his matrix, and then lets the computers do all the work.



<< Return to the October 2010 Index

Most self-proclaimed Marxists know very little about Marxism. Some of them have all the buzzwords memorized. They talk about the exploits of labor. They talk about the slavery of capitalist society and the alienation caused by capital. They talk about the evils of power and domination.

But they don't actually believe what they say. Or else they wouldn't be such violent hypocrites. And we're not being dramatic when we say "violent."

For them, Marxism is a political tool that they use to degrade and annoy their political enemies.

They don't actually care about the working class.

Another important thing to remember about Marxists is that they talk about how they want to defend the working class, but they don't actually understand the working class. They definitely don't realize that the working class is composed mostly of so many of the people they hate. Because, here's the thing, they don't actually care about the working class. Or the middle class. They wouldn't have the slightest clue how to actually work, not the way we do. For them, work involves ranting about how work and labor are evil.

Ironically, if their communist utopia actually arrived, they would be the first ones against the wall. Because they have nothing to offer except dissent. They have no practical use and no real connection to reality.

Again ironically, they are the ultimate proof of the success of capitalism. The fact that they can freely call for its demise, in tweets that they send from their capitalistic iPhones, is proof that capitalism affords them tremendous luxuries.

Their specialty is complaining. They are fanatics of a religion that is endlessly cynical.

They sneer at Christianity for promising Heaven in exchange for good deeds on earth — which is a terrible description of Christianity, but it's what they actually believe — and at the same time they criticize Christianity for promising a utopia, they give their unconditional devotion to a religion that promises a utopia.

They are fanatics of a religion that is endlessly cynical.

They think capitalism has turned us into machines. Which is a bad interpretation of Marx's concept of the General Intellect, the idea that humans are the ones who create machines, so humans, not God, are the creators.

They think that the only way to achieve the perfect society is by radically changing and even destroying the current society. It's what they mean when they say things about the "status quo" and "hegemony" and the "established order." They believe that the system is broken and the way to fix it is to destroy, destroy, destroy.

Critical race theory actually takes it a step farther. It tells us that the racist system can never be changed. That racism is the original sin that white people can never overcome. Of course, critical race theorists suggest "alternative institutions," but these "alternative institutions" are basically the same as the ones we have now, only less effective and actually racist.

Marx's violent revolution never happened. Or at least it never succeeded. Marx's followers have had to take a different approach. And now, we are living through the Revolution of Constant Whining.

This post is part of a series on critical race theory. Read the full series here.

Americans are losing faith in our justice system and the idea that legal consequences are applied equally — even to powerful elites in office.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) joined Glenn Beck on the radio program to detail what he believes will come next with the Durham investigation, which hopefully will provide answers to the Obama FBI's alleged attempts to sabotage former President Donald Trump and his campaign years ago.

Rep. Nunes and Glenn assert that we know Trump did NOT collude with Russia, and that several members of the FBI possibly committed huge abuses of power. So, when will we see justice?

Watch the video clip below:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

The corporate media is doing everything it can to protect Dr. Anthony Fauci after Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) roasted him for allegedly lying to Congress about funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China.

During an extremely heated exchange at a Senate hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Paul challenged Dr. Fauci — who, as the director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, oversees research programs at the National Institute of Health — on whether the NIH funded dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Dr. Fauci denied the claims, but as Sen. Paul knows, there are documents that prove Dr. Fauci's NIH was funding gain-of-function research in the Wuhan biolab before COVID-19 broke out in China.

On "The Glenn Beck Program," Glenn and Producer Stu Burguiere presented the proof, because Dr. Fauci's shifting defenses don't change the truth.

Watch the video clip below:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Critical race theory: A special brand of evil

wal_172619/Pixabay

Part of what makes it hard for us to challenge the left is that their beliefs are complicated. We don't mean complicated in a positive way. They aren't complicated the way love is complicated. They're complicated because there's no good explanation for them, no basis in reality.

The left cannot pull their heads out of the clouds. They are stuck on romantic ideas, abstract ideas, universal ideas. They talk in theories. They see the world through ideologies. They cannot divorce themselves from their own academic fixations. And — contrary to what they believe and how they act — it's not because leftists are smarter than the rest of us. And studies have repeatedly shown that leftists are the least happy people in the country. Marx was no different. The Communist Manifesto talks about how the rise of cities "rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life."

Studies have repeatedly shown that leftists are the least happy people in the country.

Instead of admitting that they're pathological hypocrites, they tell us that we're dumb and tell us to educate ourselves. Okay, so we educate ourselves; we return with a coherent argument. Then they say, "Well, you can't actually understand what you just said unless you understand the work of this other obscure Marxist writer. So educate yourselves more."

It's basically the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, the idea that when you point out a flaw in someone's argument, they say, "Well, that's a bad example."

After a while, it becomes obvious that there is no final destination for their bread-crumb trail. Everything they say is based on something that somebody else said, which is based on something somebody else said.

Take critical race theory. We're sure you've noticed by now that it is not evidence-based — at all. It is not, as academics say, a quantitative method. It doesn't use objective facts and data to arrive at conclusions. Probably because most of those conclusions don't have any basis in reality.

Critical race theory is based on feelings. These feelings are based on theories that are also based on feelings.

We wanted to trace the history of critical race theory back to the point where its special brand of evil began. What allowed it to become the toxic, racist monster that it is today?

Later, we'll tell you about some of the snobs who created critical theory, which laid the groundwork for CRT. But if you follow the bread-crumb trail from their ideas, you wind up with Marxism.

For years, the staff has devoted a lot of time to researching Marxism. We have read a lot of Marx and Marxist writing. It's part of our promise to you to be as informed as possible, so that you know where to go for answers; so that you know what to say when your back is up against the wall. What happens when we take the bread-crumb trail back farther, past Marxism? What is it based on?

This is the point where Marxism became Marxism and not just extra-angry socialism.

It's actually based on the work of one of the most important philosophers in human history, a 19th-century German philosopher named Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

This is the point where Marxism became Marxism and not just extra-angry socialism. And, as you'll see in just a bit, if we look at Hegel's actual ideas, it's obvious that Marx completely misrepresented them in order to confirm his own fantasies.

So, in a way, that's where the bread-crumb trail ends: With Marx's misrepresentation of an incredibly important, incredibly useful philosophy, a philosophy that's actually pretty conservative.

This post is part of a series on critical race theory. Read the full series here.