Reed’s health care views

worriedseniorwoman_resizedTom Reed writes:

Tom Reed continued his efforts to curb rising medical costs by supporting two pieces of legislation that would encourage healthcare innovations and find new ways to combat chronic illnesses. “We care about changing lives for the better through medical innovations because we understand the lifelong challenges of those with chronic diseases and conditions. It’s only right that we encourage improvements in our medical research and help these people live healthier lives. These innovations also will help keep rising healthcare costs in check,” said Reed

The National Clinical Care Commission Act creates a working group that will look for ways to streamline the use of federal funding targeted at programs that research metabolic or autoimmune disorders, such as Crohn’s disease and diabetes. The legislation is expected to move to the Senate for further consideration.

Additionally, the House will take up the final version of the bi-partisan 21st Century Cures Act, later this month. “This patient-centered bill will enhance the abilities of the medical community to fight diseases, and get those who are ill the best possible care,” said Reed. “America has led the way in medical innovation for decades, and it’s time to make sure that our medical researchers have access to resources to develop cures for illnesses which have plagued our loved ones.”

The 21st Century Cures bill modernizes the healthcare oversight systems in the United States, enhances medical research and streamlines efforts to develop cures for the 10,000 known diseases without standard treatment options.

“We can come together and advance these types of medical improvements for families everywhere,” Reed concluded. 

What is the purpose of these bills? Do they do more than create red tape?

I believe these bills are relatively trivial when compared to proposals to privatize Medicare or to repeal the central purpose of Obamacare which is to hold medical cost increases down. What do others think?


About whungerford

* Contributor at where we discuss the politics, economics, and events of the New New York 23rd Congressional District (Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, (Eastern) Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben,Tioga, Tompkins, and Yates Counties) Please visit and comment on whatever strikes your fancy.
This entry was posted in Health Care, Political and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Reed’s health care views

  1. josephurban says:

    Nice report. I checked out both of these new laws and will share my comments.
    HR 1192 is all about Diabetes..The name is the National DIABETES Clinical Care Commission Act. It establishes a “commission” to look at the care given to diabetes patients. The commission is supposed to make recommendations about care, etc. So, it is a bill that creates a bureaucracy. Why? Not clear. Since the ACA was supported by the American Association of Diabetic Educators as a step forward. Under the ACA someone with diabetes is guaranteed coverage. And the ACA requires free preventative care. The most cost effective method.
    Of course, Reed’s votes to undo the ACA would directly effect all diabetics as they could be denied care and lose the free preventive services. I am guessing there is something strange going on in a bill that seeks to solve a problem that has already been addressed. A commission?

    The second bill, HR 6, is a horse of a different color.
    As you peruse the various subsections a few things stand out.It seems to be a bill designed to prevent the FDA from regulating new drugs and procedures and medical devices. Another anti-regulatory bill posing as the opposite of what it is.
    Part O-Sec 2263 for example : It allows “researchers” to do clinical trials of new drugs and devices WITHOUT the “informed consent” of the patient. YES. That is what it says. If the researcher says there is little or no danger the patient need not be told the drug or device is not approved. No right to know. REALLY.
    Sec 3141. Allows insurers to limit access to patients of “certain drugs” that are frequently abused. So, even if a patient NEEDS the drug, his INSURER can deny that request if it is a drug that is “frequently abused”. More power to the health insurer to deny coverage based on the drug, not the patient’s needs.
    Sec 4041… Have a seat for this one. Really, It is in this bill concerning MEDICAL devices and DRUGS. The Department of Energy MUST sell OIL from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. SELL OIL.
    So, both if these bills seem to be designed to roll back patients rights, assist insurers and medical device and drug companies at the expense of patients.. And, for some reason, involve selling OIL as well.
    Would expect anything different from Tom Reed?

    Liked by 1 person

  2. whungerford says:

    Why would the GOP want the government to sell oil? Gas prices are already low. What constituency would be served by this? Do oil producers hope to later refill the reserve at inflated prices?


  3. josephurban says:

    Selling from the strategic oil reserve generates income to the federal treasury. Sell now and deplete the reserves. Add the income to the treasury to offset the proposed tax cuts for the wealthy. Of course, that depletes the oil reserve. But let the NEXT generation worry about that. Short term gain. The GOP often chooses short term quick fixes over long term stability.


  4. Deb Meeker says:

    Not to mention, as the GOP accelerate war drums, they can squeak in high voices that the oil reserve is LOW! ” We must do more drilling to keep America strong!”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.