They're Baaaaack...

[boxcar]

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...

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/obam...mo_code=B5BE-1

Boxcar

[ArlJim78]

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]

Well golly gee, mostie told me they were not in there.
Whatsupwitdat?

[Mike at A+]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

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]

They never went away.

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

The only question is:

Who sits on the panel?

[JustRalph]

That dummy sarah palin is looking more and more bright as the days go by

[DJofSD]

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]

Originally Posted by Mike at A+

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]

Originally Posted by TJDave

They never went away.

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

The only question is:

Who sits on the panel?

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]

Originally Posted by boxcar

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.

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

That dummy sarah palin is looking more and more bright as the days go by

Exponentially.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by NJ Stinks

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? 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?

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.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by DRIVEWAY

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]

Originally Posted by boxcar

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.