PDA

View Full Version : They're Baaaaack...


boxcar
12-27-2010, 05:45 PM
Oh, yes, remember the Death Panels that were, and then weren't. Well, now the "death panels" are back with a vengeance, despite unpopular demand. In fact, it was the public outcry prior to passing ObaminationCare, that made those monsters go away for a while. But what BO and his horde of Dem(on)s couldn't do legislatively, BO will accomplish through regulations. Of course, as we'd expect, the "death panel" moniker has been replaced with the kinder, gentler sounding euphemism dubbed "voluntary advance care planning". (Personally, I think the would have done more justice to this policy by calling the counseling program "Preparing and Creating Shovel-ready Seniors".)

One neat thing about Agency Regulations is that the Agency head gets to play dictator in the part of the world in which he rules. In this case, Dr. Berwick did in resurrecting the "death panels".

The rule was issued by Dr. Donald Berwick, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, according to the Times. He is a longtime advocate for rationing medical procedures for the elderly.

Mr. 'cap, I must ask you: When we had our little discussion recently about my version of a "public option", you objected strenuously to the idea that those who partook of the services of this option, would be subject to limited or rationed care based essentially on their ability to pay and their financial level of participation in the option. You didn't like that a bit thinking, I suppose, that such a policy would be discriminatory? Well, tell me: Do you think Berwick's rule will discriminate against the elderly? An inquiring mind would like to know.

More on the "good" Doctor:

Before Obama tapped Berwick for the Medicare post, Berwick had long applauded Britain's National Health Service, which uses an algorithm to determine whether the aged are worthy of additional expenditures for medical care and advanced treatments.

Berwick has argued that rationing will have to be implemented eventually, stating, “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”

Nothing quite like compassionate socialism... :rolleyes:

Seniors appear to be a major target for precious resources under the Obama healthcare plan. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Obama plan cuts nearly $500 billion in Medicare benefits to seniors as the federal government adds 30 million uninsured Americans to private and public healthcare systems.

Ah...but those pesky, past-their-prime, over-the-hill, self-important, self-centered, selfish seniors will come around in time -- once they see the "infinite wisdom" in choosing death over life. They will have all eternity to mull over the wisdom of euthanasia.

And just think of all the nifty slogans this new policy will give rise to, such as:
Just Say Yes...for the Grandkids!

Here's the story:

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/obama-death-panels-medicare/2010/12/26/id/381043?s=al&promo_code=B5BE-1

Boxcar

ArlJim78
12-27-2010, 06:05 PM
the bill was a giant blank check which allows them to do things "as the secretary sees fit".

if seniors kick up their heels over this the propaganda department will simply wheel out Andy Griffith once again to spout the government line about how the government algorithms are based on fairness. If your number comes up snake eyes you are simply given a bottle of pain pills and sent on your way. I'd love to see the algorithm they propose to use.

Tom
12-27-2010, 06:09 PM
Well golly gee, mostie told me they were not in there.
Whatsupwitdat?

Mike at A+
12-27-2010, 06:13 PM
the bill was a giant blank check which allows them to do things "as the secretary sees fit".

if seniors kick up their heels over this the propaganda department will simply wheel out Andy Griffith once again to spout the government line about how the government algorithms are based on fairness. If your number comes up snake eyes you are simply given a bottle of pain pills and sent on your way. I'd love to see the algorithm they propose to use.
The "algorithm" surely includes what party you're registered with.

I said it before and I'll say it again. Well actually, I was "warned" that it "wasn't in good taste" to post here so I'll leave it to the imagination of the reader.

TJDave
12-27-2010, 06:14 PM
They never went away.

Everything in this world and the one beyond, is rationed.

The only question is:

Who sits on the panel? :rolleyes:

JustRalph
12-27-2010, 06:20 PM
That dummy sarah palin is looking more and more bright as the days go by

DJofSD
12-27-2010, 06:32 PM
Sean's substitute had a good discussion with some women today (Monday) about this topic. The part I heard was revealing. It's creeping incrementalism.

ArlJim78
12-27-2010, 06:40 PM
The "algorithm" surely includes what party you're registered with.
I'm sure race will be in there too, along with occupation, union affiliation, etc.
then there will be the usual discretionary exemptions that can be applied as the director sees fit. in other words under the table contributions will move you up on the list.

boxcar
12-27-2010, 06:41 PM
They never went away.

Everything in this world and the one beyond, is rationed.

The only question is:

Who sits on the panel? :rolleyes:

Exactly. I was being facetious. However, I think they were stricken from one part of ObmaCare only to be tossed into Medicare. So, all we witnessed was a shell game. Plus the truly enlightened among us knew all along that seniors were the target for rationed care (for more reasons than one, I might add!), so it's no surprise that this "voluntary planning" nonsense wound up being enacted by Berwick's decree.

Boxcar

NJ Stinks
12-27-2010, 07:01 PM
Berwick has argued that rationing will have to be implemented eventually, stating, “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”



The quote above makes total sense. I have three relatives around 87 years old. Medicare (and their secondary insurers) paid over $1M since April 2009 for these three individuals. Nobody I know - including these three - want the quality of life they now endure thanks to virtually free access modern medicine.

What amazes me the most is that righties think 'taxes' is a dirty word yet expect somebody else to pay for almost everything out there until their last breath. :rolleyes:

TJDave
12-27-2010, 07:22 PM
That dummy sarah palin is looking more and more bright as the days go by

Exponentially. :rolleyes:

boxcar
12-27-2010, 07:51 PM
The quote above makes total sense. I have three relatives around 87 years old. Medicare (and their secondary insurers) paid over $1M since April 2009 for these three individuals. Nobody I know - including these three - want the quality of life they now endure thanks to virtually free access modern medicine.

Then your three relatives don't need the U.S. government's "help" in this matter, do they? :bang: :bang: However, I must ask that since you claim they don't want to live, why have they all accepted over 1 MIL in care? Why didn't they "pulled the plug" on themselves long before then? :bang: :bang:

What amazes me the most is that righties think 'taxes' is a dirty word yet expect somebody else to pay for almost everything out there until their last breath. :rolleyes:

What amazes me is that you're perfectly fine with the state playing God. At the end of the day, this country will become like the U.K. whereby the state gets to decide who lives and who dies.

End of life decisions should be strictly be between patients and their doctors, clergy and immediate family members. No one else need apply.

And as far as taxes are concerned, write to your boy Obama; for he has finally seen the light of day and agrees with us "righties". Take the issue up with him. He could have allowed the current rates to expire but he chose not to.

Boxcar

DRIVEWAY
12-27-2010, 08:05 PM
The chronically ill and those towards the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here . . . there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place,” he said.

He added: "Medicare is going to have to decide what it's going to pay for. And at least for starters, it's going to have to decide which medical procedures are not effective at all and should not be paid for at all. In other words, it should have endorsed the [death] panel that was part of the healthcare reform.’"


Fraud and abuse by Doctors and Hospitals are part of the end-of-life discussion. This is why the USA is spending 16.5% of GDP for healthcare. The country in position number two spends 11%.
It is very important that everyone watch the changes being proposed. Some will be good and responsible while others will be challenged and initiate debate. Organizations like AARP can be most helpful in this regards. There will need to be a rigorous appeals process built in to any significant changes in
end-of-life care. Many end-of-life procedures destroy quality of life while extending life little or none. Each individual should plan for this contingency long before it's necessary. Let's hear more before we start labeling.

It's weird that most liberals will entertain discusions of euthenasia while the most conservative want all procedures at any cost available to them as part of medicare. Ironically the most liberal is all for socialized medicine and the most conservative is opposed to all government involvement in healthcare. A very strange juxtaposition.

The answer is obviously somewhere in between. Stay tuned.

boxcar
12-27-2010, 08:36 PM
It's weird that most liberals will entertain discusions of euthenasia while the most conservative want all procedures at any cost available to them as part of medicare. Ironically the most liberal is all for socialized medicine and the most conservative is opposed to all government involvement in healthcare. A very strange juxtaposition.

The answer is obviously somewhere in between. Stay tuned.

You misrepresent what this conservative thinks. My position is that the state should have no role in end-of-life decisions. Period. That's not the function of government. We're treading on very dangerous ground when we allow the government to play God.

However, you did get one part right: I'm diametrically opposed to government intrusion into personal matters of health.

Once a government seizes control of health issues and end-of-life issues, the citizens become nothing more than pawns in the hands of the state. There is nothing more a state can control when it already controls personal property, real property, personal health care and life and death issues.

When do we erect the altar in D.C. to the State Almighty?

Boxcar

DRIVEWAY
12-27-2010, 08:53 PM
You misrepresent what this conservative thinks. My position is that the state should have no role in end-of-life decisions. Period. That's not the function of government. We're treading on very dangerous ground when we allow the government to play God.

However, you did get one part right: I'm diametrically opposed to government intrusion into personal matters of health.

Once a government seizes control of health issues and end-of-life issues, the citizens become nothing more than pawns in the hands of the state. There is nothing more a state can control when it already controls personal property, real property, personal health care and life and death issues.

When do we erect the altar in D.C. to the State Almighty?

Boxcar

An individual can have any health procedure they want. If medicare doesn't cover it they can pay for it themselves.

This discussion is about what Medicare covers during end-of-life not what the individual can choose for themselves and pay for.

Because Medicare may change what's covered during end-of-life care does not mean that they are changing what end-of-life procedures are available.

The state is not imposing life and death decisions in the article referenced. Medicare is simply an insurance policy that everyone pays for during their working lifetime(app. 2.5% of grosspay). The benefits included in medicare have changed over the years and will continue to change. These changes to medicare are what will be debated.

At least at this time the State is not imposing life and death decisions and does not appear headed in that direction.

DJofSD
12-27-2010, 09:18 PM
The quote above makes total sense. I have three relatives around 87 years old. Medicare (and their secondary insurers) paid over $1M since April 2009 for these three individuals. Nobody I know - including these three - want the quality of life they now endure thanks to virtually free access modern medicine.

They all have DNR's, right?

boxcar
12-27-2010, 10:06 PM
An individual can have any health procedure they want. If medicare doesn't cover it they can pay for it themselves.

This discussion is about what Medicare covers during end-of-life not what the individual can choose for themselves and pay for.

So, at the end of the day, Medicare is no better than private plans, correct? One of the biggest complaints about private plans is that they ration care, So, then how does Medicare differ from the private plans?

Also, your argument rings hollow about how [all] Medicare recipients having a choice to pay or not. This is a very disingenuous argument when you know full well that a very large percentage of Medicare recipients live on their fixed SS incomes. So, when the government chooses to not provide care any longer, lay out for me exactly what all the options are for these poorer recipients?

Secondly, your defense of rationing is beginning to sound very similar to an argument I have often proffered against the expansion of a socialized medicine scheme! I have frequently stated that Medicaid is sufficient for those who cannot afford to buy their own health care. A typical liberal retort to my argument was that Medicaid only provided emergency services and, therefore was inadequate for socieity. But why!? Under Medicaid, there was always "rationing" -- just a different kind (such as for that guy I know who was refused a hip transplant). But liberals objected to this kind of rationing as somehow being unjust or unfair, but are now all ears and get this tingly feeling running down their legs when rationing in talked about in the context of Medicare. In principle, how does rationing differ, other than the basis for each!?

So, what I'm getting out of this is the usual liberal doublespeak. Rationing is at once good and evil! It all depends on who is being rationed and who is doing the rationing, isn't that right?

Because Medicare may change what's covered during end-of-life care does not mean that they are changing what end-of-life procedures are available.

A red herring. This isn't the main issue.

The state is not imposing life and death decisions in the article referenced.

Ah...while the article stopped short of saying that, there were concerns expressed therein, however, about it evolving into that. And how can anyone say that it won't come down to this? This guy who heads up Medicare can simply issue another one of decrees! Simple as that!

Medicare is simply an insurance policy that everyone pays for during their working lifetime(app. 2.5% of grosspay). The benefits included in medicare have changed over the years and will continue to change. These changes to medicare are what will be debated.

Debate? Who is going to debate what and with whom? Who debates agencies' regulations!? We're not talking about legislation here! Do you not understand that this Doctor unilaterally decreed this advisory panel or whatever? And apparently he's a huge fan of euthanasia, given how he greatly admires the UK system. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to reverse decreed regulations? Yes, it can be done, but not very easily. These agency heads have a great deal of autonomy. They are answerable to virtually no one.

At least at this time the State is not imposing life and death decisions and does not appear headed in that direction.

You have it only half right! You have no idea how far this doctor will take his rationing plans.

Boxcar

NJ Stinks
12-27-2010, 10:23 PM
They all have DNR's, right?

Yes. But as I posted here awhile back, one of these people is my uncle and he went into a coma after a heart attack. The doctors then told his daughter that they could save him. What was she going to do after hearing that? So he stayed on machines for at least two weeks before he regained consciousness.

Mind you - the heart attack came immediately after my uncle had a hip replacement that his heart doctor was against because the heart doctor said his heart may not be strong enough to endure a hip replacement. In the end my uncle signed a bunch of papers saying he wouldn't sue anybody in the medical profession who was involved in the hip replacement operation. Then he got his wish.

toetoe
12-27-2010, 10:32 PM
They all have DNR's, right?




They'll all be DNF soon enough.

NJ Stinks
12-27-2010, 10:39 PM
And apparently he's a huge fan of euthanasia, given how he greatly admires the UK system.
Boxcar

Just so nobody gets confused by whatever it is Boxcar was trying to convey in the quote above:
__________________________________________________ ___

What is the law on deliberate euthanasia in Britain and other European states? Ursula Smartt, senior lecturer in law at Thames Valley University in West London, explains.


Apart from in The Netherlands, euthanasia is against the law, and classed as a criminal act.

Euthanasia is popularly taken to mean the practice of helping severely-ill people die, either at their request or by taking the decision to withdraw life support.

The definition under Dutch law is narrower - it means the termination of life by a doctor at the express and voluntary wish of a patient.

http://cdnedge.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/background_briefings/euthanasia/1044740.stm

DRIVEWAY
12-27-2010, 10:41 PM
So, at the end of the day, Medicare is no better than private plans, correct? One of the biggest complaints about private plans is that they ration care, So, then how does Medicare differ from the private plans?

Also, your argument rings hollow about how [all] Medicare recipients having a choice to pay or not. This is a very disingenuous argument when you know full well that a very large percentage of Medicare recipients live on their fixed SS incomes. So, when the government chooses to not provide care any longer, lay out for me exactly what all the options are for these poorer recipients?

Boxcar

Medicare, like all private or government plans worldwide, has a clearly defined set of benefits and payment schedules etc. Medicare was instituted in 1965 to protect people against the high cost of healthcare and the unaffordable cost of health insurance for the elderly.

It is not fair to call the list of benefits and payment terms as rationing. As circumstances have it, Medicare is an incredibly generous healthcare that is easily abused by healthcare professionals. Establishing end-of-life rules and procedures is a very delicate matter and requires serious scrutiny and re-evaluation. If a medical procedure is not included in Medicare that does not equate to the government not choosing to provide care any longer. Alternative care will be provided.

If Medicare does not provide a medical procedure and the patient cannot pay for it on their own then they will suffer the consequences. I'm sorry to tell you this but someday Grandma is going to die. Would you have her strapped to a machine for 10 years?

These conversations concerning Medicare benefits are for serious people and will create debate. Changes that the general public are against will cause our legislators to act accordingly. The press, organizations like AARP and individuals affected will be the voice that will challenge any and all arbitrary decisions on the part of any administrator.

There's a need for a calm, cool and collected approach to this subject matter.
Those that would scream fire in a crowded movie theatre should not be included in this discussion.

Again Medicare is the most generous elderly healthcare insurance in the world.

These are my final thoughts on the matter. Have a Goodnight.

boxcar
12-27-2010, 11:46 PM
Medicare, like all private or government plans worldwide, has a clearly defined set of benefits and payment schedules etc. Medicare was instituted in 1965 to protect people against the high cost of healthcare and the unaffordable cost of health insurance for the elderly.

It is not fair to call the list of benefits and payment terms as rationing. As circumstances have it, Medicare is an incredibly generous healthcare that is easily abused by healthcare professionals. Establishing end-of-life rules and procedures is a very delicate matter and requires serious scrutiny and re-evaluation. If a medical procedure is not included in Medicare that does not equate to the government not choosing to provide care any longer. Alternative care will be provided.

I didn't call it "rationing"; but the article certainly did and Berwick, the head honcho of Medicare himself, is very much in favor of rationing. So, how am I being unfair here? :bang: :bang:

And furthermore, the stress in the article is not on fraud or abuses. If abuses by the medical profession was the primary concern, why do patients need end-of-life counseling? :bang: :bang: It seems to me Berwick would be hiring Medicare Police to catch the crooks within the medical profession, instead of rationing patients' care. :bang: :bang:

If Medicare does not provide a medical procedure and the patient cannot pay for it on their own then they will suffer the consequences. I'm sorry to tell you this but someday Grandma is going to die. Would you have her strapped to a machine for 10 years?

Another red herring. You're just full of those, aren't you?

The issue is not what I want for someone else, as I have stated previously. The issue is who the parties should be to make those kinds of decisions. I've stated previously that the parties should be the doctor(s), the patient, immediate family and clergy if any and are consulted. The state should not put itself in the Divine Judgment Seat. The State should not have that kind of power to play God and decided who is going to live or die -- based on whatever criteria it happens to be working with on any given day.

These conversations concerning Medicare benefits are for serious people and will create debate. Changes that the general public are against will cause our legislators to act accordingly. The press, organizations like AARP and individuals affected will be the voice that will challenge any and all arbitrary decisions on the part of any administrator.

Not true. The legislators already had acted by removing the "death panel" clauses from ObamaCare because of public outcry. But what does slick Berwick do? By decree, he sticks rationing into Medicare. Agency administrators, therefore, can openly defy public sentiment by dictating their own policies and have no fear of public recrimination or recourse because they are not elected officials. They are in fact, immune from the public -- and to a large extent even from legislators themselves! Don't forget: It was the legislators themselves who, at some point in time, empowered these agency administrators with sweeping authority to write their own regulations. And herein lies the danger with these mini dictatorships. We have seen the awesome power of the EPA and now even more recently with with the FCC who openly defied Congress and an appeals court ruling with it plans to move forward and implement its "net neutrality" rules.

You still doubt the great power these agencies wield? What about Al Sharpton recently calling on the FCC to put Rush Limbaugh's head on a platter? Sharpton didn't call on the president to do this or the legislators but rather the FCC! Why did he do this? Because he knows the FCC is powerful enough to act unilaterally if it chooses, and that it has the authority to act!

Good grief! We are only discussing this topic again because an agency dictator once again defied Congress and the public sentiment with his plans of setting up "death panels" under Medicare! What more evidence do you possibly need!?

There's a need for a calm, cool and collected approach to this subject matter. Those that would scream fire in a crowded movie theatre should not be included in this discussion.

That's exactly what we conservatives told Congress before it enacted a 2,000+ page piece of unread legislation back in March! :bang: :bang: But that horse is already out of the barn, isn't it? :rolleyes:

Again Medicare is the most generous elderly healthcare insurance in the world.

That may have been case, but now that they want to cut 1/2 Tril from its budget, I don't believe Medicare will be able to boast this any longer.
As Berwick himself said in the article, it was never a question of "if" rationing would become a hard-wired policy, but only a matter of "when". Since this is the case, what advantage have Americans gained with a growing dependence upon the government and the empowerment of the state to become the primary party to our health care decisions? Again, one of the HUGE arguments against the Private Sector was that greedy, evil insurance companies rationed care unfairly. But now, this is precisely what Berwick intends to do with Medicare.

These are my final thoughts on the matter. Have a Goodnight.

Sleep tight. Maybe your tiredness contributed to the lack of any strong argument.

Boxcar

prospector
12-28-2010, 12:35 AM
repeal or no funding to implement

ArlJim78
12-28-2010, 03:46 AM
In other Obamacare news, an update on pre-existing conditions. They told us that 375,000 people would sign up for the new coverage this year. They were just a tad off the mark as only 5,000 have signed up. But get this; they still fear that they will run out of money because costs are so high!

So to recap this fiasco, they alotted $5 billion when they were thinking that 375,000 people would sign up, but they still manage to run out of money when a mere 5,000 sign up.

It's another Festivus miracle!

__________________________________________________ ________
Health plans for high-risk patients attracting fewer, costing more than expected (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/27/AR2010122702343.html)


In the meantime, in at least a few states, claims for medical care covered by the "high-risk pools" are proving very costly, and it is an open question whether the $5 billion allotted by Congress to start up the plans will be sufficient.

In the spring, the Medicare program's chief actuary predicted that 375,000 people would sign up for the pool plans by the end of the year. Early last month, the Health and Human Services Department reported that just 8,000 people had enrolled.

__________________________________________________ _

with $5 billion you could have written a $1 million check to each of the 5,000 people.

DRIVEWAY
12-28-2010, 07:45 AM
:15: I didn't call it "rationing"; but the article certainly did and Berwick, the head honcho of Medicare himself, is very much in favor of rationing. So, how am I being unfair here? :bang: :bang:

And furthermore, the stress in the article is not on fraud or abuses. If abuses by the medical profession was the primary concern, why do patients need end-of-life counseling? :bang: :bang: It seems to me Berwick would be hiring Medicare Police to catch the crooks within the medical profession, instead of rationing patients' care. :bang: :bang:



Another red herring. You're just full of those, aren't you?

The issue is not what I want for someone else, as I have stated previously. The issue is who the parties should be to make those kinds of decisions. I've stated previously that the parties should be the doctor(s), the patient, immediate family and clergy if any and are consulted. The state should not put itself in the Divine Judgment Seat. The State should not have that kind of power to play God and decided who is going to live or die -- based on whatever criteria it happens to be working with on any given day.



Not true. The legislators already had acted by removing the "death panel" clauses from ObamaCare because of public outcry. But what does slick Berwick do? By decree, he sticks rationing into Medicare. Agency administrators, therefore, can openly defy public sentiment by dictating their own policies and have no fear of public recrimination or recourse because they are not elected officials. They are in fact, immune from the public -- and to a large extent even from legislators themselves! Don't forget: It was the legislators themselves who, at some point in time, empowered these agency administrators with sweeping authority to write their own regulations. And herein lies the danger with these mini dictatorships. We have seen the awesome power of the EPA and now even more recently with with the FCC who openly defied Congress and an appeals court ruling with it plans to move forward and implement its "net neutrality" rules.

You still doubt the great power these agencies wield? What about Al Sharpton recently calling on the FCC to put Rush Limbaugh's head on a platter? Sharpton didn't call on the president to do this or the legislators but rather the FCC! Why did he do this? Because he knows the FCC is powerful enough to act unilaterally if it chooses, and that it has the authority to act!

Good grief! We are only discussing this topic again because an agency dictator once again defied Congress and the public sentiment with his plans of setting up "death panels" under Medicare! What more evidence do you possibly need!?



That's exactly what we conservatives told Congress before it enacted a 2,000+ page piece of unread legislation back in March! :bang: :bang: But that horse is already out of the barn, isn't it? :rolleyes:



That may have been case, but now that they want to cut 1/2 Tril from its budget, I don't believe Medicare will be able to boast this any longer.
As Berwick himself said in the article, it was never a question of "if" rationing would become a hard-wired policy, but only a matter of "when". Since this is the case, what advantage have Americans gained with a growing dependence upon the government and the empowerment of the state to become the primary party to our health care decisions? Again, one of the HUGE arguments against the Private Sector was that greedy, evil insurance companies rationed care unfairly. But now, this is precisely what Berwick intends to do with Medicare.



Sleep tight. Maybe your tiredness contributed to the lack of any strong argument.

Boxcar

Berwick's actions will be scrutinized by millions upon millions of Medicare recipients and their families everyday. AARP will remain a watchdog to uncover unfair or unreasonable changes requested and/or implemented by Berwick or any other administrator.

Medicare will clearly publish the benefits that are provided. Don't expect Medicare to embrace every new treatment made available. We currently spend 16.5% of GDP on healthcare in the USA. Unmanaged this number will continue to grow to 20% or more. End-of-life care amounts to 80% of the total cost of healthcare. End-of-life care must be scrutinized and administered to help reduce costs. Accurate patient intent, review of Doctor/Hospital activity and reasonable benefits will help reduce the 16.5% to 15% as an example. Let the professionals do their jobs instead of judgeing them on intent.

Medicare is tremendous heathcare for the elderly in the USA. Administration costs are low and patients are happy with the coverage. Changes have been made over time that have improved the quality of the product. Give credit where credit is due.

The sky is not falling and the movie theatre is not on fire.

boxcar
12-28-2010, 01:08 PM
:15:

Berwick's actions will be scrutinized by millions upon millions of Medicare recipients and their families everyday. AARP will remain a watchdog to uncover unfair or unreasonable changes requested and/or implemented by Berwick or any other administrator.

In the state's eyes seasoned citizens are very expendable and this makes them the most vulnerable to the crafty wiles and wicked schemes of the state. In the state's eyes, seniors have outlived their usefulness and are financial millstones around society's neck. And even more importantly, seniors can be a huge hindrance to liberals' political agenda because, essentially, it's the older people in this country who have a significantly deeper appreciation of American history; and they're the only ones who can speak out of their collective experiences of how life in their day was much simpler due to smaller, less oppressive and more constitutional-oriented government. etc. In short, its only the seniors who can relate to all the cultural, societal and political changes they have witnessed first hand in this country, and who can pass that knowledge on to younger generations. And if there's anything the state can't stand is competing educational sources.

Study the histories of oppressive, tyrannical governments and you will learn that older people in those societies were high priority targets of those regimes. Conversely, the focus was on their youth for their propagandizing and brainwashing activities. The youth of a nation were to be pursued at all costs for political grooming purposes.

And AARP is joke and has lost tremendous credibility with more than a few of its members ever since it supported ObamaCare. Numerous seniors saw that as AARP tossing them under the bus. But please keep me posted on everything AARP does to reverse the 1/2 Trillion in cuts to Medicare.

Medicare will clearly publish the benefits that are provided. Don't expect Medicare to embrace every new treatment made available.[/quote]

With a 1/2 Tril in cuts, I wouldn't expect to see very many old treatments implemented either. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

We currently spend 16.5% of GDP on healthcare in the USA. Unmanaged this number will continue to grow to 20% or more. End-of-life care amounts to 80% of the total cost of healthcare. End-of-life care must be scrutinized and administered to help reduce costs. Accurate patient intent, review of Doctor/Hospital activity and reasonable benefits will help reduce the 16.5% to 15% as an example. Let the professionals do their jobs instead of judgeing them on intent.

I'm not into blind, irrational trust. I leave that to you and other sheeple. If the state was so honest and honorable and virtuous, Berwick would have met with senior citizens organizations and politicians to first discuss the issue before decreeing the same ol' death panels into Medicare that were removed from ObamaCare.

Medicare is tremendous heathcare for the elderly in the USA. Administration costs are low and patients are happy with the coverage. Changes have been made over time that have improved the quality of the product. Give credit where credit is due.

The sky is not falling and the movie theatre is not on fire.

It never is with you liberals -- except when it comes to man-made global warming. :rolleyes:

No! Before ObamaCare, a very large percentage of seniors were happy. That is not the case now, which also accounts for the big drop in AARP membership renewals. As stated previously, many seniors perceive AARP as selling them out because AARP stands to profit off their "advantage" plans.

Boxcar

boxcar
12-28-2010, 01:26 PM
Just so nobody gets confused by whatever it is Boxcar was trying to convey in the quote above:
__________________________________________________ ___

What is the law on deliberate euthanasia in Britain and other European states? Ursula Smartt, senior lecturer in law at Thames Valley University in West London, explains.


Apart from in The Netherlands, euthanasia is against the law, and classed as a criminal act.

Euthanasia is popularly taken to mean the practice of helping severely-ill people die, either at their request or by taking the decision to withdraw life support.

The definition under Dutch law is narrower - it means the termination of life by a doctor at the express and voluntary wish of a patient.

http://cdnedge.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/background_briefings/euthanasia/1044740.stm

Right. The BRITS are far more humane. They just refuse medical care and let the citizens die on their own. So, explain to me how the UK government doesn't have a hand in those citizens' deaths.

If someone has a sick, old relative living in his house who longer qualified (for whatever reason) to receive state-sponsored medical care and he wanted to expedite that relative's death by starving him or her to death, it technically could not be said that he "euthanized" his relative. The relative's death, though, would be be attributed to starvation -- or if the true cause was ever discovered -- to the intentional deprivation of food. In which case, murder charges could be brought against the living relative.

Likewise, when the state willfully deprives or withholds medical treatment from patient and sends the patient home and essentially tells the the patient to go home, get his will in order and get someone to prepare a shovel-ready grave for him, how does that materially differ from the scenario above?

Boxcar

DRIVEWAY
12-28-2010, 04:05 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/12/27/schumacher.end.of.life.planning/index.html?section=cnn_latest

This is another point of view on end-of-life planning.

The reference at the beginning of this thread is from Newsmax which is commonly referred to as the propaganda wing of the ultra-conservative movement. One can only wonder what Joseph Goebbels would think of newsmax.

boxcar
12-28-2010, 04:57 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/12/27/schumacher.end.of.life.planning/index.html?section=cnn_latest

This is another point of view on end-of-life planning.

The reference at the beginning of this thread is from Newsmax which is commonly referred to as the propaganda wing of the ultra-conservative movement. One can only wonder what Joseph Goebbels would think of newsmax.

An excerpt from the CNN piece:

An advance care planning consultation is not about limiting or rationing care. It's not about hastening death. It's not about having choices made for the patient. It's not about saving money.

So, according to this guy who run a National Hospice organization, this new regulation is not about rationing, eh? Evidently he can't or doesn't want to connect the dots. How are benefits not going to be rationed when the government plans to cut a 1/2 Tril from its budget? What does the government plan to do? Pay the doctors in monopoly money? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

And these new regulations are being written by a guy who is on record as fully supporting rationing? I was born at night, but it wasn't last night. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

boxcar
12-28-2010, 05:09 PM
And in that original Newsmax link, Newsmax included a link to the N.Y.Slimes article -- you know -- the real ultra left-wing rag that is unfit to line bird cages with.

Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused Stir

WASHINGTON — When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

Congressional supporters of the new policy, though pleased, have kept quiet. They fear provoking another furor like the one in 2009 when Republicans seized on the idea of end-of-life counseling to argue that the Democrats’ bill would allow the government to cut off care for the critically ill. (emphasis mine)

The last clause in the second paragraph is cute -- "may include advance directives to forgo..." Trust me: There's no "may" about it. And this new policy is all open to interpretation by agency bureaucrats. What will be "aggressive" will be determined by its price tag. If some treatment or procedure isn't deemed to be within budget, guess what?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/politics/26death.html?_r=2&ref=politics

Boxcar

newtothegame
12-30-2010, 04:20 AM
:faint: Just ask this guy.......

Man's penis amputated following misdiagnosis

Published: 29 Dec 10 09:10 CET

A Swedish man was forced to have his penis amputated after waiting more than a year to learn he had cancer.


The man, who is in his sixties, first visited a local clinic in Blekinge (http://www.thelocal.se/tag/blekinge) in southern Sweden in September 2009 for treatment of a urinary tract infection, the local Blekinge Läns Tidning (BLT) reported.

When he returned in March 2010 complaining of foreskin irritation, the doctor on duty at the time diagnosed the problem as a simple case of inflammation.

After three weeks passed without the prescribed treatment alleviating the man’s condition, he was instructed to seek further treatment at Blekinge Hospital.

But it took five months before he was able to schedule an appointment at the hospital.

When he finally met with doctors at the hospital, the man was informed he had cancer and his penis would have to be removed.

It remains unclear if the man would have been able to keep his penis had the cancer been detected sooner.

The matter has now been reported to the National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen) under Sweden’s Lex Maria laws, the informal name used to refer to regulations governing the reporting of injuries or incidents in the Swedish health care system.
http://www.thelocal.se/31130/20101229/

boxcar
01-06-2011, 05:33 PM
"Death Panels" once again do a disappearing act. Apparently this latest public outcry accounts for the WH retreat for wanting to prepare shovel-ready seniors.

The Obama White House has backed off expressly including end-of-life counseling as part of annual well visits for seniors on Medicare.

That is a victory for Americans of all ages who spoke out against this government intrusion in how and when we die. But two problems remain to be solved: the government's attempts to script what is said between doctor and patient on this issue, and government's heavy-handed efforts to motivate doctors financially to push patients into end-of-life counseling.

http://www.newsmax.com/McCaughey/obamacare-physician-quality-reporting/2011/01/06/id/382027

Boxcar