"Death Panel" measure survives in House health bill (Representatives, Congress)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All the measure ever allowed was for doctors to be paid for the consults they are having already anyway...
Good point, but I thought the goal was to try to save money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
How did allowing doctors to give out that admission and paying them out of Medicare save money? I never did understand that. However, I made an appointment with a lawyer to take care of my problems so i could refuse to make money for some doctor to give me that info. Isn't that very American of me, trying to save money?
It is, indeed, very American of you. Thank you for that patriotic gesture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
C'mon...everyone knows that Soros is busy trying to get the IMF to "dump the dollar"...whatever that means.
All this talk about Soros reminds me that the secret list of visitors to the WH has finally been released, and Soros is among them. Maybe he was there to talk about healthcare, or maybe just the dumping of the dollar. Or, most likely, to give Obama direction on what should be done, and how.
Good point, but I thought the goal was to try to save money.
Wrong, as usual. The goal is to create a system that delivers the highest quality health care possible at the most reasonable cost. Sort of like what all these other developed countries did a long time ago, thereby making the US the international laughing stock of health care policy. There is no need in any such a new system to stiff doctors by refusing to pay them for services that they are actually providing, and there is certainly no need in developing that system to pay any heed whatsoever to the incessant and absurd catterwauling of the right-wing.
The "Death Panel issue" was a blatant, irresponsible yet effective form of spreading fear. Most people have no idea what this law stated. It wasn't going to pull the cord from Granny's respirator.
Look the reality is people need to be educated on end-of-life issues and they need an advanced directive. Advanced directive isn't translation for "pull the cord" We doctors could care less what your decision is, we just want a decision. We don't want to have to consult the courts or the hospital ethics committees because a person's family argues with each other about what their loved ones would have wanted. I honestly don't care if Mary tells me in an advanced directive if she wants to remain on a respirator or if she wants it pulled. It affects me in no way. What affects me is when Mary has nothing and Mary's husband tells me one ting, Mary's son tells me one thing and Mary's daughter tells me another thing and then the doctors have to judge and contact the courts and ethics committee to reach some decision...all because a patient didn't have an advanced directive. Seriously, if you want to remain on life support...great...just let us know, we could care less what your decision is but if you make me some glorified parent who has to determine whose authority is more important among your family members, that will piyiss me off.
And I fail to see how educating patients is a bad thing. Are we assuming patients are dumb monkeys who are incapable of processing information and making up their mind if they are given choices? Patients need to know what their options are. And the family medicine doctor or the general internal medicine doctor who provides this advice in their outpatient clinic will never see this patient in the hospital when he or she is dying so that doctor has no incentive to provide advice in any particular way. (The hospitalists and ICU doctors on that hospital's staff will be taking care of the patient not their outpatient doctor) It doesn't impact the clinic doctor in anyway so they are not going to advise patients on a particular path contrary to what Palin would have you believe.. They are just going to provide information. Most likely they will type up a form and print it out and hand it to the patient and go over the options with them. The patient can then decide whether they want to type up an advanced directive or pay a lawyer to do it.
Palin's point made no sense and she used the words "Death Panel" to incite fear and convince people that doctors were going to somehow instruct their patients to ask to have the "cord plugged' It was just a lot of fear mongering.
Again, I'm a Republican. I don't support the public option. I believe the public option is a coy way of the govt trying to initiate single payer but this issue was completely mishandled by Palin and Republicans who tried to use this as a tool to discredit Democrats. The truth is this was a very good idea and it's sad it will be shot down all because of manipulation and an irrational fear that these are death panels.
Last edited by azriverfan.; 10-31-2009 at 04:44 AM..
All this talk about Soros reminds me that the secret list of visitors to the WH has finally been released, and Soros is among them. Maybe he was there to talk about healthcare, or maybe just the dumping of the dollar. Or, most likely, to give Obama direction on what should be done, and how.
Yeah, I saw William Ayers is on that list, too. Of course, it's a different William Ayers, but I expect some right-winger somewhere is distraught to a hand-wringing degree over that one this morning. You all are so not connected to reality...
Are we assuming patients are dumb monkeys who are incapable of processing information and making up their mind if they are given choices?
Depends whether the ambulance brought them in from a Tea Party rally or not.
Otherwise, a good and sensible post that makes important points about thinking through end-of-life care decisions in advance. People should heed those points. It also illustrates the degree to which right-wing spinmeisters are willing to exploit and undermine the future health care prospects of a nation for the mere purpose of seeking fleeting partisan points. Truly disgraceful behavior on their part. Not that this should surprise anyone.
Hey, anyone who thinks that "death counseling" doesn't already exist, hasn't had the sad duty of seeing a loved one through the end of life.
My husband was admitted to the hospital on Oct 17 because he had an infection and very low blood pressure. He had been on dialysis for almost three years. On the evening of the 17th I spoke to him just before he went to sleep at about midnight, he told me not to call in the morning, to let him sleep late, and that he would call me when he woke up. He never woke up. He was discovered to be in a lite coma the next morning and by noon we had put him on a ventilator. It was discovered that his liver had failed, and the ammonia level in his brain had caused a coma. We were told that his prognosis was not good, the best we could expect was to maybe wake him up long enough to take him home to die. We choose to remove all life support, the ventilator, the dialysis, all medications, leaving only hydration, and he died in his sleep on the 20th with no pain. He never knew that he was going to die.
Did his Drs basically hold a death panel with us? Yes they did. It is already a fact of medicine. The decision still rests with the family, the Drs do what is requested but only if the insurance will approve the treatment. This is how it should be done, at least I think so. This way the decision is split between the family, the Drs, and the insurance company, and everyone gets to be heard.
Anyone else out there had to do this lately? How do you feel about it? Do you want the FED making that decision for your family?
Wrong, as usual. The goal is to create a system that delivers the highest quality health care possible at the most reasonable cost. Sort of like what all these other developed countries did a long time ago, thereby making the US the international laughing stock of health care policy. There is no need in any such a new system to stiff doctors by refusing to pay them for services that they are actually providing, and there is certainly no need in developing that system to pay any heed whatsoever to the incessant and absurd catterwauling of the right-wing.
Hey, anyone who thinks that "death counseling" doesn't already exist, hasn't had the sad duty of seeing a loved one through the end of life.
My husband was admitted to the hospital on Oct 17 because he had an infection and very low blood pressure. He had been on dialysis for almost three years. On the evening of the 17th I spoke to him just before he went to sleep at about midnight, he told me not to call in the morning, to let him sleep late, and that he would call me when he woke up. He never woke up. He was discovered to be in a lite coma the next morning and by noon we had put him on a ventilator. It was discovered that his liver had failed, and the ammonia level in his brain had caused a coma. We were told that his prognosis was not good, the best we could expect was to maybe wake him up long enough to take him home to die. We choose to remove all life support, the ventilator, the dialysis, all medications, leaving only hydration, and he died in his sleep on the 20th with no pain. He never knew that he was going to die.
Did his Drs basically hold a death panel with us? Yes they did. It is already a fact of medicine. The decision still rests with the family, the Drs do what is requested but only if the insurance will approve the treatment. This is how it should be done, at least I think so. This way the decision is split between the family, the Drs, and the insurance company, and everyone gets to be heard.
Anyone else out there had to do this lately? How do you feel about it? Do you want the FED making that decision for your family?
The fed doesn't, the patient and the doctors do.
Why do you prefer Insurance Company Real Death Panels?
Insurance companies are in the Profit business Not the health business and would sooner see your husband DEAD, and DEAD quickly, than pay any bills.
Anyone else out there had to do this lately? How do you feel about it? Do you want the FED making that decision for your family?
Good Lord. Death panels again? And the government making end-of-life decisions for you again??
How about looking at what the bill actually says, rather than someone's twisted interpretation of it?
SEC. 240. DISSEMINATION OF ADVANCE CARE PLANNING INFORMATION.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The QHBP offering entity —
(1) shall provide for the dissemination of information related to end-of-life planning to individuals seeking enrollment in Exchange-participating health benefits plans offered through the Exchange;
(2) shall present such individuals with—
(A) the option to establish advanced directives and physician’s orders for life sustaining treatment according to the laws of the State in which the individual resides; and
(B) information related to other planning tools; and
(3) shall not promote suicide, assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing. The information presented under paragraph (2) shall not presume the withdrawal of treatment and shall include end-of-life planning information that includes options to maintain all or most medical interventions.
(b) CONSTRUCTION.— Nothing in this section shall be construed-
(1) to require an individual to complete an advanced directive or a physician’s order for life sustaining treatment or other end-of-life planning document;
(2) to require an individual to consent to restrictions on the amount, duration, or scope of medical benefits otherwise covered under a qualified health benefits plan; or
(3) to promote suicide, assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.
(c) ADVANCED DIRECTIVE DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘advanced directive’’ includes a living will, a comfort care order, or a durable power of attorney for health care.
(d) PROHIBITION ON THE PROMOTION OF ASSISTED SUICIDE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (3), information provided to meet the requirements of subsection (a)(2) shall not include advanced directives or other planning tools that list or describe as an option suicide, assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing, regardless of legality.
(2) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to apply to or affect any option to—
(A) withhold or withdraw of medical treatment or medical care;
(B) withhold or withdraw of nutrition or hydration; and
(C) provide palliative or hospice care or use an item, good, benefit, or service furnished for the purpose of alleviating pain or discomfort, even if such use may increase the risk of death, so long as such item, good, benefit, or service is not also furnished for the purpose of causing, or the purpose of assisting in causing, death, for any reason.
(3) NO PREEMPTION OF STATE LAW.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt or otherwise have any effect on State laws regarding advance care planning, palliative care, or end-of-life decision-making.
There's absolutely nothing here that says the government is making decisions for you.
EDIT: People may also want to read SEC. 1233. VOLUNTARY ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION, which explains how the Social Security Act would be modified so that the cost of the optional end-of-life counseling described above would be included in Social Security benefits.
Wrong, as usual. The goal is to create a system that delivers the highest quality health care possible at the most reasonable cost. Sort of like what all these other developed countries did a long time ago, thereby making the US the international laughing stock of health care policy. There is no need in any such a new system to stiff doctors by refusing to pay them for services that they are actually providing, and there is certainly no need in developing that system to pay any heed whatsoever to the incessant and absurd catterwauling of the right-wing.
Then why are they going to cut $500 billion from Medicare, if not to save money? I suppose to make health care "better"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Depends whether the ambulance brought them in from a Tea Party rally or not.
And this is a good and sensible post?
Otherwise, a good and sensible post that makes important points about thinking through end-of-life care decisions in advance. People should heed those points. It also illustrates the degree to which right-wing spinmeisters are willing to exploit and undermine the future health care prospects of a nation for the mere purpose of seeking fleeting partisan points. Truly disgraceful behavior on their part. Not that this should surprise anyone.
And this is good and sensible as well? I suppose right-wing spinmeisters are different from left-wing spinmeisters who undermine the system. Truly disgraceful behavior. I agree.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
