Reply With Quote
No one will be able to provide you with any do entation to disprove you.
Of course what you will get right is wing opinion as proof that you are wrong.
Ok... to everyone ripping on the 'death panels'...
Honestly, what do you expect?
Do you expect the government to pay for every treatment under the sun to possibly extend life?
Don't insurance companies ALREADY do that?
Can't people, if they have the resources, get that alternative care from a private source if the government declines to pay it?
Really, it's so stupid. It's OBVIOUS that, yes, if you are on health care, then there will be decisions made near end-of-life that may deny you care. It happens NOW, and there's no possible way the government could provide the best possible treatment to everyone.
Too bad he can't just come out and say that, because half the people will take it as fact that Obama wants to start a roving band of techno-warriors to go house to house and start exterminating everyone over the age of 65 like some present-day Logan's Run.
Now, I don't agree with many aspects of the plan, but this 'death panel' idea is re ed nonsense.
No one will be able to provide you with any do entation to disprove you.
Of course what you will get right is wing opinion as proof that you are wrong.
The problem with the Death Panel idea is that after 3 years, everyone except those in a grandfathered insurance plan must join a government approved plan. What if this excludes a person from caring for their own family members, and the government says they are pulling the plug, due to expense?
Personally, I want to go if I get that decrepit, but some people want to give death a real fight. Just because I believe they should be allowed to die, or even assisted in dying, doesn't mean I believe I have the right to make that decision, or anyone else but a family member.
I heard today that ion France, if you are in a coma after a few days, they simply pull the plug there! You might be someone perfectly capable of coming out of a coma and living a completely normal live again. Nope. Cost too much to keep you plugged in in case you don't come out of a coma. It wouldn't be long before our government panels do the same things due to costs, because there are no set in stone planes yet.
They can go with a private insurer, considering they can't deny you coverage for a pre-existing condition.
I fail to see how that decision would be made by anybody other than a family member.
Do you actually have anything to back this up? Honest request. I googled around and couldn't find anything about that.
I would suspect that it might be the case if you enter vegetative state, but then again, France actually has a mixed system with private insurers available too, so you could go that route if you can afford it and so desire.
Dying is very profitable for the medical industry.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...fe-costs_x.htm
Why does the House bill want to decrease Specialists?
"want to decrease Specialists"
which page is that on?
There is already a crisis of not enough primary care/general prac ioners, a symptom of the system being broken as docs flee PC to grub money in the specialties.
The only thing Insurance companies can deny to a patient is "experimental" or un FDA-approved treatments. ANYTHING else a doctor prescribes to treat a dying patient, regardless of the possibility of success is going to get paid for.
Obama has specifically talked about these expensive, "heroic" procedures; if not in so many words - and he has a point; I'm sure if my dad, and any number of patients I know of had it to do over again, they wouldn't do that last round of chemo, radiation, or been hooked to the life support, etc.....
Most people spend a majority of their LIFETIME medical expenses in the final weeks or months of their lives - with baby boomers aging, THAT is what is driving up costs SO dramatically these days; and, I've said it before, Obama gets it.
I'm (literally) headed to a town hall with Arlen Specter right now; can't continue; I'll report back what I see (or maybe y'all can catch me on youtube)
Yep, and they want to make more doctors be general prac ioner. It's there somewhere, maybe I can find it.
i think we can all agree on the morphine drip.
Page 241 lines 6 to 8:this is talking about financial reimbursement for their work. Why would doctors take the extra schooling for a specialty when it's not going to pay them any more money? It makes such a concept obsolete.Service categories established under this paragraph
shall apply without regard to the specialty of the
physician furnishing the service.’’.
They make these things hard to find, purposely I think. They don't directly add or exclude important things, but make it impossible to survive or exclude.
WC, I'm pretty sure you'll still be able to go with a private company.
Now, due to government undercutting the private companies somewhat, those costs may be PROHIBITIVE for some people that could theoretically afford them now. However, private companies will, I'm sure, still exist, ESPECIALLY if the government's service is poor.
Of course, there are people NOW who can't afford that health care. It seems to me that government-ins uted health care will swing the balance by emphasizing the extremes. Now, people on the bottom will have SOME form of health care, but PRIVATE health care will skewer up to the extremely wealthy.
"I'm pretty sure you'll still be able to go with a private company."
WC is part of the lying mob spreading bull to rouse the rabble.
Note that it's always some extreme hypothetical, and words like "they're gonna kill my baby, and grandma".
How did this get derailed from the death panel canard to wanting more GPs?
Anything to avoid a real discussion, I suppose.
because nothing that can go wrong will go wrong.
There's no such thing as giving death "a fight". You ALWAYS lose. Everybody dies.
False ‘Death Panel’ Rumor Has Some Familiar Roots
WASHINGTON — The stubborn yet false rumor that President Obama’s health care proposals would create government-sponsored “death panels” to decide which patients were worthy of living seemed to arise from nowhere in recent weeks.
Advanced even this week by Republican stalwarts including the party’s last vice-presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, and Charles E. Grassley, the veteran Iowa senator, the nature of the assertion nonetheless seemed reminiscent of the modern-day viral Internet campaigns that dogged Mr. Obama last year, falsely calling him a Muslim and questioning his nationality.
But the rumor — which has come up at Congressional town-hall-style meetings this week in spite of an avalanche of reports laying out why it was false — was not born of anonymous e-mailers, partisan bloggers or stealthy cyberconspiracy theorists.
Rather, it has a far more mainstream provenance, openly emanating months ago from many of the same pundits and conservative media outlets that were central in defeating President Bill Clinton’s health care proposals 16 years ago, including the editorial board of The Washington Times, the American Spectator magazine and Betsy McCaughey, whose 1994 health care critique made her a star of the conservative movement (and ultimately, New York’s lieutenant governor).
There is nothing in any of the legislative proposals that would call for the creation of death panels or any other governmental body that would cut off care for the critically ill as a cost-cutting measure. But over the course of the past few months, early, stated fears from anti-abortion conservatives that Mr. Obama would pursue a pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia agenda, combined with twisted accounts of actual legislative proposals that would provide financing for optional consultations with doctors about ho e care and other “end of life” services, fed the rumor to the point where it overcame the debate.
On Thursday, Mr. Grassley said in a statement that he and others in the small group of senators that was trying to negotiate a health care plan had dropped any “end of life” proposals from consideration.
A pending House bill has language authorizing Medicare to finance beneficiaries’ consultations with professionals on whether to authorize aggressive and potentially life-saving interventions later in life. Though the consultations would be voluntary, and a similar provision passed in Congress last year without such a furor, Mr. Grassley said it was being dropped in the Senate “because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly.”
The extent to which it and other provisions have been misinterpreted in recent days, notably by angry speakers at recent town hall meetings but also by Ms. Palin — who popularized the “death panel” phrase — has surprised longtime advocates of changes to the health care system.
“I guess what surprised me is the ferocity, it’s much stronger than I expected,” said John Rother, the executive vice president of AARP, which is supportive of the health care proposals and has repeatedly declared the “death panel” rumors false. “It’s people who are ideologically opposed to Mr. Obama, and this is the opportunity to weaken the president.”
The specter of government-sponsored, forced euthanasia was raised as early as Nov. 23, just weeks after the election and long before any legislation had been drafted, by an outlet decidedly opposed to Mr. Obama, The Washington Times.
In an editorial, the newspaper reminded its readers of the Aktion T4 program of Nazi Germany in which “children and adults with disabilities, and anyone anywhere in the Third Reich was subject to execution who was blind, deaf, senile, re ed, or had any significant neurological condition.”
Noting the “administrative predilections” of the new team at the White House, it urged “anyone who sees the current climate as a budding T4 program to win the hearts and minds of deniers.”
The editorial captured broader concerns about Mr. Obama’s abortion rights philosophy held among socially conservative Americans who did not vote for him. But it did not directly tie forced euthanasia to health care plans of Mr. Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress.
When the Democrats included money for family planning in a proposed version of the stimulus bill in January, the socially conservative George Neumayr wrote for the American Spectator: “Euthanasia is another shovel ready job for Pelosi to assign to the states. Reducing health care costs under Obama’s plan, after all, counts as economic stimulus, too — controlling life, controlling death, controlling costs.”
Ms. McCaughey, whose 1994 critique of Mr. Clinton’s plan was hotly disputed after its publication in The New Republic, weighed in around the same time.
She warned that a provision in the stimulus bill would create a bureaucracy to “monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost-effective,” was carried in a commentary she wrote for Bloomberg News that gained resonance throughout the conservative media, most notably with Rush Limbaugh and the Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck.
The legislation did not direct the coordinator to dictate doctors’ treatments. A separate part of the law — regarding a council set up to coordinate research comparing the effectiveness of treatments — states that the council’s recommendations cannot “be construed as mandates or clinical guidelines for payment, coverage or treatment.”
But Ms. McCaughey’s article provided another opportunity for others to raise the specter of forced euthanasia. “Sometimes for the common good, you just have to say, ‘Hey, Grandpa, you’ve had a good life,’ ” Mr. Beck said.
The syndicated conservative columnist Cal Thomas wrote, “No one should be surprised at the coming embrace of euthanasia.” The Washington Times editorial page reprised its reference to the Nazis, quoting the Aktion T4 program: “It must be made clear to anyone suffering from an incurable disease that the useless dissipation of costly medications drawn from the public store cannot be justified.”
The notion was picked up by various conservative groups, but still, as Mr. Obama and Congress remained focused on other matters, it did not gain wide attention. Former Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, an advocate for the health care proposals, said he was occasionally confronted with the “forced euthanasia” accusation at forums on the plans, but came to see it as an advantage. “Almost automatically you have most of the audience on your side,” Mr. Daschle said. “Any rational normal person isn’t going to believe that assertion.”
But as Congress developed its legislation this summer, critics seized on provisions requiring Medicare financing for “end of life” consultations, bringing the debate to a peak. To David Brock, a former conservative journalist who once impugned the Clintons but now runs a group that monitors and defends against attacks on liberals, the uproar is a reminder of what has changed — the creation of groups like his — and what has not.
“In the 90s, every misrepresentation under the sun was made about the Clinton plan and there was no real capacity to push back,” he said. “Now, there is that capacity.”
Still, one proponent of the euthanasia theory, Mr. Neumayr, said he saw no reason to stop making the claim.
“I think a government-run plan that is administered by politicians and bureaucrats who support euthanasia is inevitably going to reflect that view,” he said, “and I don’t think that’s a crazy leap.”
------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/he...o_inters ial
You know, I say, screw it.
If old people want to be re ed, and not face the possibility of the end of their life with free, informed counseling, then why should Congress write it into the bill?
Just let the boomers think they'll live forever without a consultation, and that the government will pony up massive billions for experimental procedures near end-of-life. They'll probably be too senile to realize that isn't the case by the time the plug is about to be pulled.
Right, it will be funny when they get bills for end of life counseling and they that it isn't covered.
"Someone should do something about this! When is the next town hall meeting? I'm totally going to yell about this while someone else is speaking."
The death panel is only the first scene, say the socialization has just begun and we will see many more likes in years to come. Politicians can still prevaricate around these discussions but the conclusion is already pretty clear and irreversible.
Granted there is no such thing as a death panel in the propsed bill, Sarah Palin evidently supports one or did or doesn't. I get confused.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/13/...anel-flipflop/
In recent weeks, right-wing groups have been pushing the myth that health care reform will somehow kill seniors. One of the most high profile voices pushing this lie has been Sarah Palin, who claimed President Obama will ins ute bureaucratic “death panels.” Today, again on her Facebook page, she continued the attack. Though some Republicans have rebuffed this absurd, inaccurate notion — like Johnny Isakson (R-GA), who called such talk “nuts” — others, like Newt Gingrich, have piled on to agree with Palin.
However, on April 16th 2008, then Gov. Sarah Palin endorsed some of the same end of life counseling she now decries as a form of euthanasia. In a proclamation announcing “Healthcare Decisions Day,” Palin urged public facilities to provide better information about advance directives, and made it clear that it is critical for seniors to be informed of such options:
Though this proclamation is now deleted from the Alaska governor’s website, it shows that Palin’s current fear-mongering is purely political. Palin is not the only conservative leader completely flip-flopping on this issue. Merely months ago, Gingrich too endorsed end of life counseling. At a conference in April of this year, Gingrich said advance directives can “save money” while also helping to “decrease the stress felt by caregivers.”WHEREAS, Healthcare Decisions Day is designed to raise public awareness of the need to plan ahead for healthcare decisions, related to end of life care and medical decision-making whenever patients are unable to speak for themselves and to encourage the specific use of advance directives to communicate these important healthcare decisions. [...]
WHEREAS, one of the principal goals of Healthcare Decisions Day is to encourage hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement communities, and ho es to participate in a statewide effort to provide clear and consistent information to the public about advance directives, as well as to encourage medical professionals and lawyers to volunteer their time and efforts to improve public knowledge and increase the number of Alaska’s citizens with advance directives.
WHEREAS, the Foundation for End of Life Care in Juneau, Alaska, and other organizations throughout the United States have endorsed this event and are committed to educating the public about the importance of discussing healthcare choices and executing advance directives.
There must be something to it. The senate version of the bill is having it removed. Should I say the previsions that allow it. Those previsions don't name one, but it would be the natural extension, since it's not excluded. You see, the Death Panel will be a reality some how. Rationing will have to occur, and it will be done by government bureaucrats. They will ultimately make life/death decisions for people, or the costs will absolutely go into run-away mode.
Like Abortion. Notice you won't find it mentioned anywhere if you search. That's because of past court rulings. It will automatically be a required service unless it's excluded, including late term abortion.
Except there isn't.
You're a fool to think otherwise.
They have purposely left the bill to have the specifics determined later. If you don't think we will see numerous changes that we won't like, you're a bigger fool that I already believe.
They took out the specifics because old people were being told by liars they were going to be killed.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
