There has been a lot of debate, or should I say misinformation about the end of life counseling in the HR3200. After reading it, it’s easy to see older Americans are going to be set aside to die. Arlen Specter didn’t want to address this today in his town hall meeting. He quickly passed the lady who asked about the language in the bill. These politicians are hiding what they don’t want you to know by avoiding the truth that’s in the bill.
Section 1233. Advanced Care Planning Consultation [emphasis is mine]
`(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term `advance care planning consultation' means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:
`(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.
`(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.
`(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.
`(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965).
`(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.
`(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include--
`(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual's family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;
`(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and
`(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decisionmaker (also known as a health care proxy).
`(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement for explanations under clause (i) to consultations furnished in a State--
`(I) in which all legal barriers have been addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining treatment to constitute a set of medical orders respected across all care settings; and
`(II) that has in effect a program for orders for life sustaining treatment described in clause (iii).
`(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a States described in this clause is a program that--
`(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;
`(II) distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the professional's authority under State law) may sign orders for life sustaining treatment;
`(III) provides training for health care professionals across the continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining treatment; and
`(IV) is guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association.
------------------------------
[More on "order regarding life sustaining treatment" in the same Section]
`(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term `order regarding life sustaining treatment' means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that--
`(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professional's authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the individual and be followed by health care professionals and providers across the continuum of care;
`(ii) effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;
`(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized within a given locality, region, or State (as identified by the Secretary); and
`(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as defined in section 1866(f)(3)) if executed by the individual.
`(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items--
`(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;
`(ii) the individual's desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting;
`(iii) the use of antibiotics; and
`(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.'.
Notice the bill says it will discuss palliative care and hospice options. In other words they will relieve your pain but not invest in the cure. It's no wonder Specter dodged the question. End of life counseling will be set to allow you to give the government the cheapest route to your death.
I just don't see how it's necessary. We already have laws in place to protect this situation. You can have a living will with your wishes for end of life. You can already designate a proxy etc... there's no need to reinvent the wheel. This bill needs to die...let's send the BILL to end of life counseling.
ReplyDelete"Notice the bill says it will discuss palliative care and hospice options. In other words they will relieve your pain but not invest in the cure."
ReplyDeleteThese are separate things. The end of life discussion is entirely separate from current treatment options. The current treatment options are not disccussed in this section as this section is talking about planning for the (possibly remote) future. It has no bearing on the current treatment that is happens concurrently...
Rereading this, I believe that "benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title" covers everything else up to and including "give me everything possible modern medical treatment to extend my life as long as humanly possible". I don't know how you missed this - it's in the same sentence as "palliative care and hospice."
ReplyDeleteWhy are they going to discuss palliative care if they aren't going to push the cure? Palliative care is to make you comfortable without pursuing the cure. Even in your second statement, you continue to avoid the contradiction of the bill. The bottom line of this healthcare bill comes down to economics. The Social Security system is broke and they are expanding hospice and palliative care. The writing is on the wall.
ReplyDeleteI didn't miss anything.
They do discuss "the cure". And palliative care. And hospice care. Patients are free to choose which options they want. I see no contradiction. If I had health issues that was going to become a large burden on my family (economically or emotionally) I would like to discuss hospice care with my doctor. After discussing it, I may opt for "the cure" instead. Even if the cure was costly and time consuming and did not extend my life for very long.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the contradiction in the bill again? I do not see it.
Phil, There are Congressmen who will tell you they have a staff of lawyers to interpret the language in these laws; yet you act like you have a total understanding when it comes to this strange language they use. Is this coming from your staff of lawyers Phil? Why is it you are so sure that there won't be rationing of care, especiallly when you consider the debt of the country and broken programs like Social Security that would be helped by a decrease in the population. In case you aren't aware, Social Security was only designed to assist a person through retirement for just a few years. Now people are living 10, 15, even 20 years longer than first forecasted by the original plan of Social Security.
ReplyDeleteWhy discuss a cure and treatment that avoids a cure and provides pain relief? Give us solid proof that all medical treatment will be provided to provide as much life to the patient as possible. This confusing language is designed to fool and trick people. It's like the section that reads it's a tax but we aren't going to treat it like a tax. They are using language that contradicts for a reason. The reason is to confuse the national debate and let a lawyer and a judge decide it means rationed care later.
Clay,
ReplyDeleteI do not have a cadre of lawyers. And I'm very thankful for that. :) I cannot provide proof that medical treatment will always be given in all cases at all times. But you can't prove the inverse either. I suspect that sometimes a doctor will give bad advice for bad reasons - but I think that that will be the vast, vast, minority of the time. Why? Because I believe that doctors generally have a person's best interest in mind. They actually care for their patients. The idea that the government wants to harm people or, through lack of care, kill people is, I think, more than a little paranoid.
Paranoid? What is paranoid about it? The longer people live the more stress it puts on Social Security and other socialist type programs that aid the elderly.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that you don't believe that government is capable of such thought after centuries of history proving otherwise is just naive.
Yesterday, Obama looked at two private corporations and one government program. In his comparison of Federal Express and UPS, he said they do their thing very well, and he then went on to say the government program, the post office, is a mess. Why would you want to take that chance with the medical system?
I would rather ask what is it the government is trying to accomplish by increasing hospice and palliative care and compare it with the issues of the day, like government programs that are broken to look at alterior motives than just give these guys a break because they tell us it's so. They aren't exactly the most trustworty of people. In fact, there is plenty of proof that our politicians are corrupt on both sides.To blindly give them a control of the healthcare system is just plain insanity.
They have a goal. Obama stated the goal of a single payer system in 2003 and 2007, and now he lies about that. The bottom line is this program isn't acceptable. It's not acceptable because of the confusing language they use. It's not accpeptable because members of Congres have admitted they will never read it. It's not acceptable because members of Congress voted against placing themselves on the program and dropping their own coverage. It's not acceptable becasue it oversteps the limits placed on the federal government as defined in the Constitution. It's not acceptable because it continues to increase the national debt, which a Democrat in my state said he will happily pass on the the children and grandchildren in forms of taxes. Regardless of the language, these points are more important.
You're saying that the government will systematically kill old and weak people. Not even foreigners - their own citizens. You don't think that's just a wee bit paranoid?
ReplyDeleteIf I've mis-characterized your position, please clarify.
Why would doctors (who generally have people's best interest at heart) go along with a system like that? It makes no sense.
Not all doctors agree that we should extend people's lives by a year, two years, or five years. Some doctors claim it's a waste of money, but when it's their time, will they fell the same. Interesting question to ponder. Are these the same doctors you speak of?
ReplyDeleteWhat I am saying is lessons of history in the past, and the United States has an ugly side at times, have eliminated people that it feels weaken its society. In the United States there was a huge Eugenics movement led by Margaret Sanger. That movement is still alive in the United States today. In case Sanger doesn't ring a bell, she founded Planned Parenthood in hopes of controlling the black population. To deny there are people in the United States who doesn't believe in rationing and other programs that systematically kill people off is a naive view. It's quite possible they are in government, and it's possible they are behind this bill. There is no way to know for sure. In history there are plenty examples of leaders killing off their own citizens based on age, illness, religion, political philosophies, and race. We obvioiusly have taken this argument into a much broader place, but if Social Security and Medicare are going broke one of the best ways to fix it is to ease the amount of usage to slow the money going out of the system. It shouldn't be considered paranoid to ask if the government would use a nationalized healthcare program to ease the pressure off the strapped existing social programs.
By the way, to believe that a government isn't capable of systematically killing off part of the population is like believing the Holocaust never happened. It could very well happen in the United States just as easily as it happened in Germany.
ReplyDeleteBy the way Phil, look up Barbara Wagner and the Oregon healthcare system. She was denied benefits that would keep her alive, but the state of Oregon offered financial assistance with physician assisted suicide. It's a well documented case of what you don't believe could happen in the United States.
ReplyDeleteThere was a recent article on Wagner published just this week, and you can find her story on this blog as well.
Ok - so Planned Parenthood (or an underground eugenics movement) is behind section 1233 of the proposed bill and its aim is to systematically kill off old (and possibly black) people so that social security remains solvent? Is that what you're saying?
ReplyDeleteAlso - some doctors would rather see their elderly patients dead so that the government can save a few bucks on treatment? What percentage of doctors do you think feel this way?
In the Barbara Wagner case, I believe it was the insurance company that saw the "Death With Dignity Law" in Oregon as a way to save money. They denied her claim knowing that once the pain was bad enough, Oregon would at least give her the drugs to die with dignity if she so chose. The proposed health insurance bill may cover the drugs that her insurance company denied, I don't know.
I still don't understand how the government paying for end-of-life discussions between doctors and their patients becomes the government systemically killing old people. I just don't see it. Can you spell it out for me?
Why are you trying to put words in my mouth Phil? You know that's not what I said. I said there are movements in this country that support systematicallly killing people off. I am starting to think you are a troll.
ReplyDeleteHow would I know what percentage of doctors favor stopping treatment rather than prolonging life. Why don't you contact Dr. Kevorkian since that is along his line of work. Rahm Emanuel's brother Zeke also favors hospice over extending the life of the patient. If you want a politician who also favors ending life over prolonging life, read Tom Daschle's book. He has been a force in developing this healthcare plan. Daschle describes the need for rationing in his book.
I am not going to let you get away with putting words in my mouth. I never said Planned Parenthood was responsible for any part of this bill. Quit playing games.
By the way, Oregon has a state sponsored healthcare plan which denied Wagner's treatment.
ReplyDeleteSure. It is spelled: O-B-A-M-A-C-A-R-E.
ReplyDeleteYour words: "In the United States there was a huge Eugenics movement led by Margaret Sanger. That movement is still alive in the United States today. In case Sanger doesn't ring a bell, she founded Planned Parenthood in hopes of controlling the black population. To deny there are people in the United States who doesn't believe in rationing and other programs that systematically kill people off is a naive view. It's quite possible they are in government, and it's possible they are behind this bill."
ReplyDeleteI read this as there are groups trying to kill people off and they may be behind the bill. Seems a straight forward enough reading of what you said.
If I'm mis-understanding please correct me. In fact, maybe you can just tell me what you believe the problem is about section 1233 of the proposed bill. Rather then bring underground eugenics groups and the holocaust into the discussion, just try to keep it tightly focused on the specifics of this section of this bill.
I'll start. I think this section of the bill simply offers to cover the bills of doctors discussing end-of-life issues with their patients. Currently things are not paid for by typical insurance coverage, so this is just a way to help people with important medical decisions. Let's start there.
Thanks for the note about Oregon health care denying her coverage as well.
ReplyDeleteWhat I said Phil is there are known eugenic groups in this country. Planned Parenthood is one of them. I never said Planned Parenthood is responsible for the bill; however, with that said, before all is said and done, I figure their influence in government susidized abortions will be seen.
ReplyDeleteIn my comment, I was pointing out that there are eugenic groups in the United States, and it's very possible they have influence in this bill.
I cited two names that have been influential in this bill. Tom Dashcle, who has written a book justifying rationing of care, and Zeke Emanuael, who believes that furthering treatment of the elderly is a waste of money and we should expand hospice service for those people. Why do people seek hospice--to go a die peacefully.
Like I said, I wanted to focus on the specifics of the bill, but you claimed that you didn't believe the government could get away with systematically killing off a selected group in the population. I only wanted to show you that its possible in the United States.
Considering the people involved in lobbying for this bill, it's possible these ideas are included in the confusing writing of this bill which memmbers of Congress admitted to having a staff of attorneys to interpret this coded writing.
I simply ask this, why does the government need to get involved with counseling the elderly on death. There are plenty of people in the community that are more than capable of counseling someone in their time of dying. Let's start with ministers, or have we become to politically correct and allowed God too controversial to allow such a thing? Why does the government need to subsidize counseling for those dying. Maybe it's to make sure the government audits the dying person to get every dime of tax based on the death (estate)tax. Who really knows? We will just have to agree to disagree. I think all this government involvement is wrong and anti-constitutional. I tend to think back to what Ronald Reagan said about all of this.
"One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it."
I don't know why you say the "the government" is going to counsel people on end-of-life issues. It will be doctors, medically qualified physicians. I believe that in most cases (I could be wrong about this, I don't know) it will generally be the doctor the patient already has. The government will simply cover the bill, not give any medical advice or content.
ReplyDeleteAs far as ministers counseling, this bill does nothing to stop that. In fact - I think the after the medical consultations, people who are so inclined, will naturally go get a second opinion, from their ministers, and a third from their family. This section of the bill does not stop anyone from seeking advice from anyone. Also ministers, as much as they know about spiritual issues, are simply not qualified to discuss the medical aspect. Everyone should council the patient on their area of expertise.
Given what I've stated above, I still don't see the problem with this section of the bill.
I am assuming that you are assuming that HR3200 remains pure. I warn you Democrats from Barack Obama to Barney Frank have told us what the end game is, and that is a government controlled single payer system. Obama stated this a number of times before taking office. This wasn't taken out of context. If that's the case, then the Bureau of Doctors is not out of the question, and doctors could eventually become government bureaucrats. It's been proven so many times you give up an inch of freedom and the rest crumbles around you. Do you really want to take that chance? I don't care what party you belong to, the fact is too many people being sent to Washington are going there for the wrong reason, and power consumes them the nation's capitol is a golden ring they are on a quest to find.
ReplyDeleteI will take my chance in the free market than put my faith in these idiots in Washington who have proven a failure with programs like Social Security and Medicare. That should be enough to make any logical person run from the idea of nationalized healthcare on any scale. It may start off as limited, but it will grown, and past history has shown it will lead to rationing.
Well then I guess it just comes down to faith in people. You seem to believe that people will take advantage and be corrupted, thus putting power into the hands of anyone will produce negative things. I like to have faith that people are generally good and large systems like this, while they can be corrupted and cause some harm, are made up of people that at least try to be good and that programs like this will produce a general good. Everyone needs health care, why not pool our resources? You may disagree. :) You seem to favor breaking power up into the smallest possible chunks (a free market system) to stop anyone from using power which corrupts. It's a valid viewpoint as well. The best (and most realistic) solution probably lies somewhere in the middle.
ReplyDeleteNotice that we've strayed from the specifics of the section of the bill again. That always seems to happen on the Internet. :)
Phil: The problem with that and every other section of the bill is that government has NO BUSINESS MAKING DECISIONS FOR AMERICANS!!! I'm sorry...you believe that they're just going to counsel people if the patients choose to take it. If you believe that, I have a 1975 Gremlin in mint condition that I'd like to sell you.
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of patient advocacy groups who help people make those decisions now. Why does the government feel the need to stick their wienies in the soup?
You say the doctors will be doing the counseling. A logical question comes to mind: If the doctors are getting paid by the government, then how do you think they'll counsel patients? If you said "According to what the paycheck signer wants.", go to the head of the class.
Should ministers start counseling patients, you can bet the farm that the frickin' ACLU will be screaming about the imaginary "separation" clause they love to invoke. So your point there is moot.
Put yourself in this scenario. Heaven forbid you should be stricken with a terminal disease. The doctors have told you that you have 8 months to live, 12 with treatment. Your only child is getting married in 10.
You tell your doctor "Give me the treatment." He tells you that those possible 12 months will be agonizing for you and that your quality of life will be horrible, so he advises just going without the treatment. Despite his advice, you insist on treatment.
A month or two into the treatment, your doctor calls you with the news that the government has not found it cost efficient to continue your treatment. You still want the treatment to be able to attend your child's wedding. "Sorry," your doctor says, "but my hands are tied." What then?? You are out of options, and it would all be because of this legislation. Do you see the snowball effect this bill represents? It's hideous!
I beg you to read a great article by Joy Tiz. Here's the link: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13454. It showcases the arguments Hitler made during his rise to power.
I leave you with this:
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not protest;
I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.
Phil, we are approaching a $12 trillion deficit. We have numerous government programs that are broken, and still no answers as to how to fix them. We have countries that are challenging the dollar and looking at our credit rating and worry about whether or not we will make good on the money we continue to borrow that will be passed on to our children. When it comes down to the bottom line, it really has little to do with people are good or not—it comes down to is there enough money to provide healthcare for up to 300 million plus people.
ReplyDeleteYou have to consider the bottom line, and that’s what will drive many of the decisions that will come about which may include rationing. The paragraphs in this section leave plenty of leeway for eventual rationing. Sure there will be people who want to help other people, but they might not have the resources.
This country is in a real mess economically, and it has little to do with the recession. It has to do with the debt and our credibility to pay the debt. I don’t see how adding a trillion dollar plus program is going to help the situation. It’s clear to me, government will have to ration care in order to meet the budget.
Blackandgoldfan,
ReplyDeleteCiting Hitler in your argument is always bad form, it never helps your argument. It just makes you look like a wild-eyed, irrational, overly emotional person. I'm not saying you are, but it makes things come off that way.
Your entire post is just a series of general assertions. You tell a story, a fiction, and point to it saying, "see, see! It'll be just like that!". If you have something more factual and less emotional to add to the discussion, I'd would like to hear it. I really would.
By the way, I would *LOVE* to have a mint '75 Gremlin. I passed a crappy, broken down one last week and still looked for the "for sale" sign. :) They are awesome cars, at least from a cultural perspective. Heh. I mean look at this: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/95/225289371_1471663c68_o.jpg That is a cool looking car. :)
Bill,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the insightful comment, it is well reasoned and thoughtful. I now have a better understanding of where you are coming from with respect to the health care bill. And who knows, you may just turn me around on the topic. :)
I know this will open a very large can of worms, but given that the health care system in this country is in pretty bad shape (we're 33rd on the list of countries listed by infant mortality rates (I mean Slovania and Cuba are ahead of US!), we're 45th on life expectancy), how do you think we should fix the problem? Just use the free market? That seems a little simplistic.
Phil,
ReplyDeleteYou need to read Liberty and Tyranny and the section on Barbara Wagner and the Oregon Healthcare Plan. It was the pharmaceutical company that helped Wagner, it wasn't the state sponsored system in Oregon, which is similar to Obamacare.
Thanks Phil. You know I have heard the statistics that you cite. There are also statistics out there that show cancer patients in the United States live an average of five years longer. I learned when I was looking into the education field, the standard which they base these numbers vary differently from country to country.
ReplyDeleteSince I brought up education, please allow me to explain why the United States looks so bad when it comes to test scores to show you an example why the numbers you cite don't necessarily paint the real picture.
George W. Bush started the horrible No Child Left Behind plan. Don't get me started on the federal education program in general right now as it's an overall mess, but this law didn't help. It promoted mainstreaming. Mainstreaming is the idea that special needs children be moved out of the special education classroom and back into the regular classroom. Test scores fell because these children were included in the tests where as other countries left these children out of thier results. They made it look like there was a huge education gap in the United States and other countries, but few people explain mainstreaming when they discuss the difference in scores.
Phil, I have two questions for you. First, do you trust everything that comes out of Cuba?
Secondly, may I ask who you voted for President last November?
The distinctions between today and WWII Germany were not drawn by me. The Germans of that era heard all the same arguments we're hearing now. Please read Ms. Tiz's article. She gathered many sources, including former Hitler Youth members. I love this country too much to let there even be a chance of history repeating itself. That is a fact.
ReplyDeleteAnd, yes, I do get emotional when I think of what could possibly happen to my two autistic children if someone decides they're not productive citizens. As much as those who support this say "That'll never happen," my kids and their futures are not worth the risk.
The scenario I presented was to make you open your mind a bit to what could be a possibility. Though you may never face a situation like that, there are those people in this country who may. What would you say to them? "Sorry. I was wrong about this. I never believed it could happen in this country!"?
If this gets signed into law, and we here on the right were wrong, we will be adult enough to admit it. If we're correct about it, it will have been too late for everyone.
Sure, statistics can be twisted to say almost anything. I just found those stats on Wikipedia and did not delve into where they came from. (It seems pretty hard to fudge those numbers though, just determine the age of people when they die and do a little 5th grade math).
ReplyDeleteGiven that you are arguing with the stats that show the US health care system is in trouble, does that mean that you disagree with the premise? Do you think the health care is system is fine as it is?
I've just took a look at where those numbers came from. The pages have two lists based on input from two different sources: the UN and the CIA World Factbook. The CIA World Factbook (a great resource BTW), puts us at 46th for infant mortality rates, the UN puts us at 33. For life expectancy the UN puts us at 38 the Factbook puts us at 37.
Given that the factbook is produced by the CIA (which not known for loving Castro :) ), I'd tend to think that the numbers are in the ballpark. This means that the US health care system is not the best and couldd use some work, so I guess I'd put the same question to you again: how would you go about fixing (or at least making better) the US health care system?
Thoughts?
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_World_Factbook
The question of who I voted for is not relevant to the topic at hand and would just cement your thoughts on me (for good or ill) - so I won't say.
blackandgoldfan,
ReplyDeleteI do believe that your children may be clouding your judgment a bit. Argument by scenario is unconvincing. I could tell the opposite story - and no one would be convinced. I'm not going to red the article as framing the issue as "the US is just like Nazi Germany!" is a useful path to follow. I'm sorry about that.
If the bill is a total trainwreck I have faith enough in the self-correcting US system of government that the thing will eventually be sorted out or repealed. Not trying something to fix the (what I believe to be) broken health care system, would be worse than doing nothing at all.
Given that I'll ask you the same question that I asked Bill: how would you fix the health care system? If you don't think it's broken, please explain why.
Thanks.
Looks like this section of the bill is going to be dropped anyway: https://twitter.com/stevebruskCNN/statuses/3290303949
ReplyDeleteAll that arguing for nothing I suppose. :)
I am not so sure the UN is the most credible source in the world. Right now they are currenlty yelling we have four months to take action or the world will be ruined forever by global warming. I have been hearing these silly claims for nearly 20 years now. Remember Ted Danson made a claim the oceans would be dead ten years ago if we didn't take action and stop carbon emissions. That was twenty years ago.The United Nations is full of corruption.
ReplyDeleteAs for Wikipedia, it's a great source to quickly find something, but every college professor I know says don't count on it for reliable information. It's part of the WWW2, and is an open forum for anyone to put information in.
By the way, Congress is on recess. How did they take this out of the bill if they are recess?
ReplyDeleteThe other source of information on the Wikipedia page is derived from the CIA Worldfact book though. If you don't trust the UN (and I'm not saying you should), you'll trust the CIA, right?
ReplyDeleteThe section has not been removed yet, but Senator Grassley ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee just made a statement saying that he will remove it. I'm assuming he has the pull to follow through on the statement. But you're right - it's not out yet, but it looks like it soon will be.
Phil, this is a House Bill (HR). How does Senator Grassley plan on doing that since he is in the Senate and not the House?
ReplyDeleteGood point about Senate vs. House. :) I'm just reporting on what he said. I'm not entirely sure on the mechanism he'll use. I suppose he means that he will not allow the senate version to contain the language from this section. And since the house and senate version have to be the same before the president can sign it into law, he'll kill it that way.
ReplyDeleteBut like I said, we'll just have to wait to see what he actually does.
Phil: You asked my ideas on "fixing" the healthcare system.
ReplyDelete1. Let the free market flourish. When price caps don't even cover the basic cost of a procedure (let alone make any money for the doctor), it doesn't make practicing medicine cost-effective. Less people practicing medicine, shortage of service. Then the government turns around and says we need more "reform." Competition drives the price of goods and services down in a free market system.
2. Encourage tax-free medical savings accounts that can be rolled over year after year.
3. Tort reform. Frivolous malpractice suits are driving malpractice premiums through the roof. That cost is made up somewhere along the line!
4. Start making welfare recipients pay at least SOMETHING for their care. They go to the ER, they walk out without paying a penny. I have a $50 copay. This may also discourage them from abusing the ER. This costs the taxpayers billions of dollars a year.
5. Expedite the FDA approval process for new drugs. I would also repeal the 17-year patent that applies before a drug can be made in generic form. Make it 10 to allow the pharm companies to recoup their investment.
6. Limit the amount of freebies doctors get to push certain drugs. Let them decide what works best for their patient. Sometimes, it's a cheaper, equally effective drug. They shouldn't be swayed by goodies and vacations.
7. Get the government out of it. There isn't one thing that government has done better or cheaper than a free market solution.
There are some of my suggestions for "reform."
Not based on emotion, but on common sense.
Phil, don't think that evil is confined to Commmunists, Nazis, radical Islamics, etc. There are evil "white men" right here in America who by the power of their pen can exact the same kind of evil. Seven of them sat on the 1972 U.S. Supreme Court. Margaret Sanger is another good example of American evil. Any legislation that comes out of this Administration that would in any way alter the traditional practice of medicine by depriving people of any age the medical care they deserve, is evil.
ReplyDeleteExcuse me, I am a physician. I advise people all the time of their options...it is called informed consent. Those options include treatments both curative (if available) and palliative care. It is malpractice not to provide informed consent before going forth with treatment. This section simply advocates sound advise to give to any patient so that THE PATIENT can make an informed decision about what they want done or not done to their person in the event of a terminal condition or who can make those decisions if they cant. What you are reading into this is what we Dr's call Hysteria. It is irresponsible of you to make assertions that are purposely unfounded or you are too lazy to vet for yourself.
ReplyDeletePhil, you are a dumb ASS. End of story. Your ignorance knows no limit. Human history is human history and human nature hasn't changed. Give the government a chance to get their foot in the door, and it's guaranteed they will force their way in. We don't live in a world of unicorns and rainbow bridges. Yeah, people are capable of good. But if you give control to the government it's guaranteed to become corrupted. That's why we have the Constitution. Our forefathers weren't idiots. Trusting the government is a fool's quest at best. And you are one helluva fool.
ReplyDelete