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



## Stephanie (Dec 26, 2010)

well well

By ROBERT PEAR
Published: December 25, 2010

LinkedinDiggMixxMySpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalink.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. 

read it all.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/politics/26death.html?_r=2&hp


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 26, 2010)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

I told you guys


----------



## Mr Natural (Dec 26, 2010)

Good!

When my time comes, I hope I'll be able to check out with a bit dignity.


----------



## Meister (Dec 26, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
> 
> I told you guys



"Told you guys", what?


----------



## rdean (Dec 26, 2010)

I love the hypocrisy of Republicans.  It's so expected, so normal, so "them".  

Remember when Sarah Palin endorsed April 16th 2008 as &#8220;Healthcare Decisions Day&#8221; for the state of Alaska?  It was the same end of life counseling that Republicans now call euthanasia.

It's like the stimulus package.  Republicans were against it, then show up at ribbon cuttings to "take credit" for it.

They have no ideas.  All they have is nothing, except to take credit for what Democrats accomplish.

It really is pathetic.  Seriously pathetic.


----------



## Stephanie (Dec 26, 2010)

rdean said:


> I love the hypocrisy of Republicans.  It's so expected, so normal, so "them".
> 
> Remember when Sarah Palin endorsed April 16th 2008 as Healthcare Decisions Day for the state of Alaska?  It was the same end of life counseling that Republicans now call euthanasia.
> 
> ...



Wtf are you babbling about


----------



## Luissa (Dec 26, 2010)

Stephanie quit while you are ahead, you have no clue what you are talking about. 

First off this programs would be good, especially now that baby boomers are starting to get dementia and alzheimers. These doctors will only be ADVISING on what a patient should do when they are close to death, so maybe they don't waste large amounts of money on treatments that will not help, or could speed up the death process.


----------



## Luissa (Dec 26, 2010)

The doctors were not be compensated before. 
When someone is in the last year of their life, they can have more than one care meeting. If the doctor can help  the family come to the conclusion  that their mother doesn't need chemo, because she is going to die from dementia anyways, and the doctor then comes up with a directive for their end of life care, they should be compensated for their work.


----------



## Stephanie (Dec 26, 2010)

Luissa said:


> Stephanie quit while you are ahead, you have no clue what you are talking about.
> 
> First off this programs would be good, especially now that baby boomers are starting to get dementia and alzheimers. These doctors will only be ADVISING on what a patient should do when they are close to death, so maybe they don't waste large amounts of money on treatments that will not help, or could speed up the death process.


----------



## rdean (Dec 26, 2010)

Stephanie said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > I love the hypocrisy of Republicans.  It's so expected, so normal, so "them".
> ...



Do a search on:  Sarah Palin endorsed April 16th 2008 as &#8220;Healthcare Decisions Day&#8221;

Google

You guys sit in front of a computer, use it!!!!

*NOTE: This is not copyrighted material.  This is out of Sarah Palin's document "Health Care Decisions Day" which she signed when she was governor of Alaska. *

WHEREAS, Healthcare Decisions Day is designed to raise public awareness of the need to plan ahead for healthcare decisions, related to end of life care and medical decision-making whenever patients are unable to speak for themselves and to encourage the specific use of advance directives to communicate these important healthcare decisions.

WHEREAS, one of the principal goals of Healthcare Decisions Day is to encourage hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement communities, and hospices to participate in a statewide effort to provide clear and consistent information to the public about advance directives, as well as to encourage medical professionals and lawyers to volunteer their time and efforts to improve public knowledge and increase the number of Alaska&#8217;s citizens with advance directives.

WHEREAS, the Foundation for End of Life Care in Juneau, Alaska, and other organizations throughout the United States have endorsed this event and are committed to educating the public about the importance of discussing healthcare choices and executing advance directives.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/13/palin-deathpanel-flipflop/ If you copy and paste, you link-Meister


----------



## Luissa (Dec 26, 2010)

Stephanie said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie quit while you are ahead, you have no clue what you are talking about.
> ...



You are an idiot.

I have seen three people with END STAGE dementia die within weeks of having hip replacements. I have also seen a lady receive chemo for breast cancer, when she was in the last stages of dementia, and couldn't even remember she had received chemo or that she had breast cancer by the time she got home from the appointment. Like I said, you have no clue what you are talking about.
One of the ladies who received a hip replacement, died a week later. She had end stage dementia and cogestive heart failure. The place I used to work for, turned the doctor in for medicare fraud. The doctor should have proved end of life counceling for her and her and her family, instead of performing a hip replacement.
This bill also does not mean they cannot decide to receive certain care, it just means the doctor will explain their options, and what the proper plan should be.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 26, 2010)

"WHEREAS, the Foundation for End of Life Care in Juneau, Alaska, and other organizations throughout the United States have endorsed this event and are committed to educating the public about the importance of discussing healthcare choices and executing advance directives."

Doesn't sound exactly like (and this is from memory so I could get a few words wrong)

"Maybe Grandma doesn't need a pacemaker or an operation, maybe she only needs a pill."


----------



## Luissa (Dec 26, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> "WHEREAS, the Foundation for End of Life Care in Juneau, Alaska, and other organizations throughout the United States have endorsed this event and are committed to educating the public about the importance of discussing healthcare choices and executing advance directives."
> 
> Doesn't sound exactly like (and this is from memory so I could get a few words wrong)
> 
> "Maybe Grandma doesn't need a pacemaker or an operation, maybe she only needs a pill."



If grandma is going to die in six months anyways, and is already on hospice, she probably only needs a pill. This plan, doesn't mean she can't get a pacemaker if she wants one. It just means the doctor will inform her of her options, and what would be her best option.


----------



## Stephanie (Dec 26, 2010)

Luissa said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



I  don't give a shit about your sob stories. I watched My mother die last year and had to make decisions about her. And guess what, we did it all WITHOUT the stinking Guberment sticking their friggen noses in it.
now you are dismissed.


----------



## Luissa (Dec 26, 2010)

Stephanie said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



You are a moron.
The government wouldn't have anything to do with it, they would just be compensating the doctor for work he will do. If the person is on medicare, he will be compensated for work that doctors already do. Get a clue.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 26, 2010)

My Father had a living will. He insisted that he was not to be a burden to any of us and that he was to have no artificial prolonged life. When he decided not to eat (he was conscious and speaking) And the Hospital wanted to place him on life support and force feed him through a tube, we moved him from the Hospital to a Hospice. A week later he was eating and doing so much better we had to move him back to a full service assisted living. He died a week later from a blood clot. But the Government had no bearing on what actions we took or the decisions he had earlier made.


----------



## Stephanie (Dec 26, 2010)

Luissa said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



WTF? speaking of Morons. go spew your crap at someone else.


----------



## Luissa (Dec 26, 2010)

By the way Stephanie, I have many sob stories(shows how much you care), because I have actually provided end of life care for many people, and work in the health care field. Like I said, you have no clue what you are talking about.


----------



## Luissa (Dec 26, 2010)

Stephanie said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...


Like I said,you have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## Stephanie (Dec 26, 2010)

Luissa said:


> By the way Stephanie, I have many sob stories(shows how much you are), because I have actually provided end of life care for many people, and work in the health care field. Like I said, you have no clue what you are talking about.



you know what, you are an idiot.
go back and READ the article to find out wtf it is about.


----------



## Luissa (Dec 26, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> My Father had a living will. He insisted that he was not to be a burden to any of us and that he was to have no artificial prolonged life. When he decided not to eat (he was conscious and speaking) And the Hospital wanted to place him on life support and force feed him through a tube, we moved him from the Hospital to a Hospice. A week later he was eating and doing so much better we had to move him back to a full service assisted living. He died a week later from a blood clot. But the Government had no bearing on what actions we took or the decisions he had earlier made.



What is so hard to get? The government will have no bearing on your decisions.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Dec 26, 2010)

Luissa said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > My Father had a living will. He insisted that he was not to be a burden to any of us and that he was to have no artificial prolonged life. When he decided not to eat (he was conscious and speaking) And the Hospital wanted to place him on life support and force feed him through a tube, we moved him from the Hospital to a Hospice. A week later he was eating and doing so much better we had to move him back to a full service assisted living. He died a week later from a blood clot. But the Government had no bearing on what actions we took or the decisions he had earlier made.
> ...



My mom was in the hospital all last week for congestive heart failure.  She's home now on oxygen 24/7, hospital bed in the den, nurse coming several times a week to check on her. The nurse was there on Friday when I got there. She told me that as of 1/1/11, due to the enactment of Obamacare, if you are hospitalized for xxx and need to be rehospialized for xxx within a month of release, Medicare will not pay for it.  Medicare, which they have paid into their whole lives (my parents are 88 and 83), will not cover another hospital stay within a 30 day period.  Now, you tell me . . . who made that decision?  Certainly not my mom or her doctors.  

Gee, I sure hope my mom doesn't need to go into the hospital twice in a 30 day period if the c.h.f. can't be managed at home.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 26, 2010)

Luissa said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > My Father had a living will. He insisted that he was not to be a burden to any of us and that he was to have no artificial prolonged life. When he decided not to eat (he was conscious and speaking) And the Hospital wanted to place him on life support and force feed him through a tube, we moved him from the Hospital to a Hospice. A week later he was eating and doing so much better we had to move him back to a full service assisted living. He died a week later from a blood clot. But the Government had no bearing on what actions we took or the decisions he had earlier made.
> ...



Actually, discussing this new "Obamacare" with my family doctor (and good friend) he made one statement that you have to wonder about. When the subject of rationed health care came up he said " That's already being done."


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 26, 2010)

Zoom-boing said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



I believe that nurse is WRONG.


----------



## rdean (Dec 26, 2010)

I never want to end up a vegetable, laying in a hospital bed, staring at the ceiling, hooked to machines.  

Is this what right wingers are advocating?


----------



## Luissa (Dec 26, 2010)

Zoom-boing said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



The nurse doesn't know what she is talking about.


----------



## Luissa (Dec 26, 2010)

Stephanie said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > By the way Stephanie, I have many sob stories(shows how much you are), because I have actually provided end of life care for many people, and work in the health care field. Like I said, you have no clue what you are talking about.
> ...



I know exactly what it was about, and what happens during end of life care. How about you get a clue.


----------



## Mr Natural (Dec 26, 2010)

rdean said:


> I never want to end up a vegetable, laying in a hospital bed, staring at the ceiling, hooked to machines.
> 
> Is this what right wingers are advocating?




There's BIG difference between living and being alive.

The don't seem to get that.


----------



## Granny (Dec 26, 2010)

Luissa said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...





Luissa said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > "WHEREAS, the Foundation for End of Life Care in Juneau, Alaska, and other organizations throughout the United States have endorsed this event and are committed to educating the public about the importance of discussing healthcare choices and executing advance directives."
> ...





Luissa said:


> By the way Stephanie, I have many sob stories(shows how much you are), because I have actually provided end of life care for many people, and work in the health care field. Like I said, you have no clue what you are talking about.



From the bitterness of some of your posts and your ignorance, I'm going to take a stab and say that you're a 3rd shift employee in a nursing home.  Your attitude about the elderly is really shitty and you should find another profession.

As a matter of course, doctors generally DO explain to patients what their problem is and what the options are - and it's all inclusive in charges for his services.  This is not a new thing to doctors.  Unless you were actually present with a particular doctor you have no idea what options he discussed with his patient and/or family members.  The government should have absolutely no say whatsoever in these personal matters.  And as to Medicare or Medicaid paying doctors for doing this is absolutely absurd - and a waste of tax payer money.  Doctors have been advising patients for years as a part of their medical care - and the co-pays and insurance pay for this as a matter of routine.  Why the hell should the government dole out more money to doctors who have already been doing this for years?


----------



## Stephanie (Dec 26, 2010)

SNIP:

Surprise! End-of-life advisory incentives return  through regulationShare40posted at 12:00 pm on December 26, 2010 by Ed Morrissey 
printer-friendly Better get used to this process, because its how President Obama will be pushing his agenda on all fronts.  The New York Times reports today that the White House will create incentives for doctors to discuss options for end of life care through regulation, after Congress removed the incentives from ObamaCare:
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.
The final version of the health care legislation, signed into law by President Obama in March, authorized Medicare coverage of yearly physical examinations, or wellness visits. The new rule says Medicare will cover voluntary advance care planning, to discuss end-of-life treatment, as part of the annual visit.
Under the rule, doctors can provide information to patients on how to prepare an advance directive, stating how aggressively they wish to be treated if they are so sick that they cannot make health care decisions for themselves.
While the new law does not mention advance care planning, the Obama administration has been able to achieve its policy goal through the regulation-writing process, a strategy that could become more prevalent in the next two years as the president deals with a strengthened Republican opposition in Congress.
There is nothing wrong with patients planning for contingencies through advance directives.  There is also nothing wrong with doctors discussing those options with patients ahead of those decisions


SNIP:
There is, however, something at least vaguely disturbing about a government incentivizing doctors to do so as part of an expansive regulatory program that has, as one of its primary goals, cost reduction.  The process used by Obama and Kathleen Sebelius to get this into ObamaCare is more disturbing, and in a very specific way.  Congress made it clear that it didnt want this incentive as part of the new law.  However, thanks to the miles and miles of ambiguity in the final version of ObamaCare, with its repetitive the Secretary shall determine language, Congress has more or less passed a blank check for regulatory growth to Obama and Sebelius.
read it all and comments at.
Surprise! End-of-life advisory incentives return  through regulation  Hot Air


----------



## Zoom-boing (Dec 26, 2010)

Hmmm, perhaps the nurse was wrong.  Looks like that won't happen until 2013.



> The First Stick
> Excessive Readmissions
> In addition to the financial incentives noted above, Healthcare Reform also contains* financial reductions in Medicare payments as disincentives*. For example,* beginning in fiscal year 2013, if a hospital experiences excessive readmissions when compared to expected levels of readmissions for certain conditions, the hospitals Medicare inpatient payments will be reduced. *Healthcare Reform identifies three initial conditions to evaluate for excessive readmissions: (1) heart attack; (2) heart failure; and (3) pneumonia. The reduction in Medicare payments would be the larger of a floor adjustment factor established under the Healthcare Reform laws2 and the excess readmissions ratio.3 Beginning with fiscal year 2015, HHS is instructed to expand the list of applicable conditions beyond the three noted above to include the conditions identified by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission in its report to Congress in June of 2007 and also include other conditions and procedures as determined appropriate by [HHS]. HHS is also instructed to make all of the readmission rate information available to the public. Hospitals will be provided with the opportunity to review and comment on their hospital-specific data prior to this information being made public.



http://www.wahcnews.com/newsletters/whn-gsb0710.pdf

Isn't this saying that Medicare payments will be reduced if a patient is admitted excessively for heart attack, heart failure, or pneumonia? And this list will be expanded starting in 2015.  Who is determining what is 'excessive'?  The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.  Isn't that the government?  Or am I reading this wrong?


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 26, 2010)

Zoom-boing said:


> Hmmm, perhaps the nurse was wrong.  Looks like that won't happen until 2013.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Death Panels.


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 26, 2010)

Luissa said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



So, tell us what are the facts?


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 26, 2010)

Zoom-boing said:


> Isn't this saying that Medicare payments will be reduced if a patient is admitted excessively for heart attack, heart failure, or pneumonia? And this list will be expanded starting in 2015.  Who is determining what is 'excessive'?  The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.  Isn't that the government?  Or am I reading this wrong?



The payment amount for all hospital discharges is changing. So, for example, starting in FY 2013, reimbursements for hospital discharges at a given hospital will be either:


_99_ percent of what they would've been in the absence of reform, or 
_1 - (total payments for excess readmissions at that hospital/total payments for all discharges)_ percent of what they would've been in the absence of reform.

Payments to that hospital will be based on whichever of those two numbers is greater (i.e. somewhere between 99 and 100 percent of the base value). Excess readmissions are defined by looking at those three conditions identified by the National Quality Forum and the National Quality Forum will (and, in fact, already does) take the helm on deciding how to calculate expected readmissions mathematically.

This is very different than suggesting Medicare won't be paying for a particular patient to be readmitted. What they're doing is using payment, not for a particular patient with a particular condition but for every discharge, to encourage hospitals to get a handle on preventable readmissions.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 26, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't this saying that Medicare payments will be reduced if a patient is admitted excessively for heart attack, heart failure, or pneumonia? And this list will be expanded starting in 2015.  Who is determining what is 'excessive'?  The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.  Isn't that the government?  Or am I reading this wrong?
> ...



Bullshit. I had 5 Angioplasties inside of 4 months. 5 different trips to the Hospital and 4 of them in an ambulance. This tells me I will not get the same care as I did 3 years ago.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 26, 2010)

Luissa said:


> Stephanie quit while you are ahead, you have no clue what you are talking about.
> 
> First off this programs would be good, especially now that baby boomers are starting to get dementia and alzheimers. These doctors will only be ADVISING on what a patient should do when they are close to death, so maybe they don't waste large amounts of money on treatments that will not help, or could speed up the death process.



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS2kUY6j73s&feature=recentlik[/ame]


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 26, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Well sure it is, in ER's and hospital triage centers.  No big secret, is it?


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 26, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> My Father had a living will. He insisted that he was not to be a burden to any of us and that he was to have no artificial prolonged life. When he decided not to eat (he was conscious and speaking) And the Hospital wanted to place him on life support and force feed him through a tube, we moved him from the Hospital to a Hospice. A week later he was eating and doing so much better we had to move him back to a full service assisted living. He died a week later from a blood clot. But the Government had no bearing on what actions we took or the decisions he had earlier made.



To me, the provision does not seem to involve the government in the decision making process. It seems rather to give incentive to inform the patient of a multitude of options and realistic prognoses thereof, rather than just trying to sell the most profitable treatment...Which I think we can all agree is something that is now done.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 26, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Wrong


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 26, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Oh, how profound!

Anything informative to add to that, parasite?  

Or maybe you just meant "Wrong, it IS a big secret?"


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 26, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



oh wow, I think I have beat you down on this very subject, slug.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 26, 2010)

Stephanie said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > By the way Stephanie, I have many sob stories(shows how much you are), because I have actually provided end of life care for many people, and work in the health care field. Like I said, you have no clue what you are talking about.
> ...



I've applied for a position in the Death Panel.

And when I am given the position, one of my first orders of business will be to summon _YOU _before the panel for TERMINIAL STUPIDITY.


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 26, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Mmm.... Nah.  You've never beat me down on anything.  You too stooooopid.

Look up the word triage, then tell me if American hospitals have them, and get back to me.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 26, 2010)

Luissa said:


> Stephanie quit while you are ahead, you have no clue what you are talking about.
> 
> First off this programs would be good, especially now that baby boomers are starting to get dementia and alzheimers. These doctors will only be ADVISING on what a patient should do when they are close to death, so maybe they don't waste large amounts of money on treatments that will not help, or could speed up the death process.



I would expect that my family doctor would already provide me a road map to help me   consider such...


----------



## Trajan (Dec 26, 2010)

Advance care planning improves end-of-life care and patient and family satisfaction and reduces stress, anxiety and depression in surviving relatives, the administration said in the preamble to the Medicare regulation, quoting research published this year in the British Medical Journal. 
from the link.


I smell Berwick.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 26, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



So we have never discussed this subject?

Let's start with your exact words



> Well sure it is, in ER's and hospital triage centers. No big secret, is it?


Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act
Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And moron you already lost


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 27, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
> 
> I told you guys



When did you tell us that the "Death panels" were actually real?


----------



## Stephanie (Dec 27, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



well bully for you


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 27, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



As long as you don't decide on if my dad should get that 4th heart surgery or just go on pain pills and die peacefully...........ahem ahem


----------



## Luissa (Dec 27, 2010)

Stephanie said:


> SNIP:
> 
> Surprise! End-of-life advisory incentives return &#8212; through regulationShare40posted at 12:00 pm on December 26, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
> printer-friendly Better get used to this process, because it&#8217;s how President Obama will be pushing his agenda on all fronts.  The New York Times reports today that the White House will create incentives for doctors to discuss &#8220;options&#8221; for end of life care through regulation, after Congress removed the incentives from ObamaCare:
> ...





> *voluntary advance care planning,&#8221;*





> *Under the rule, doctors can provide information to patients on how to prepare an &#8220;advance directive,&#8221; stating how aggressively they wish to be treated if they are so sick that they cannot make health care decisions for themselves.
> *



Like I said Stephanie, you have no idea what you are talking  about.
You do realize that  doctors  already do  this?


----------



## Luissa (Dec 27, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie quit while you are ahead, you have no clue what you are talking about.
> ...



You do realize that doctors already have end of  life counceling, and provide information on what a patient should do? I love how people who have no clue what goes into providing end of life care, try to act like they know what this means.
You do realize filling out your DNR status falls under end of life counceling?


----------



## Luissa (Dec 27, 2010)

Trajan said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie quit while you are ahead, you have no clue what you are talking about.
> ...



And if you are on medicare, he will be paid  for providing that road map.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 27, 2010)

Luissa said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Doctors maybe, but the governments version will consist of no doctors but buracrats.



> I love how people who have no clue what goes into providing end of life care, try to act like they know what this means.


I was thinking the same thing about you.


----------



## Luissa (Dec 27, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I have provided end of life care for 30+ people, how about you?


----------



## Luissa (Dec 27, 2010)

Hey Bigrig, it only mentions doctors be compensated in the article. Where  does it say otherwise?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 27, 2010)

Luissa said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



ok, I have leaped over tall building in a single bond on the internet.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 27, 2010)

Luissa said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > SNIP:
> ...



agreed. but I believe there in an incentive now  to provide this now.....*shrugs*. I am not too hot about it, but I am wondering why every time its brought up the admin. does a  flip and backs off, they should explain this clearly and plainly.


----------



## Luissa (Dec 27, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



So, how many people have you provided end of life care for? How many "care" meetings have you been apart of?


----------



## Luissa (Dec 27, 2010)

Trajan said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



Actually there is more incentive to  provide care they don't need, or that could make their  condition worse.
Having done this work for a few years now, I know there is a need to educate the patient and the families on what should probably be done. I also knows this means they don't have to  follow the doctors recommendation. 
When I see a lady with end stage dementia receiving chemo for cancer, a cancer she can't even remember she has, there is a problem. Her doctor obviously didn't educate the family or guardian well enough, so they knew she only had about a year to live anyways. 
The lady couldn't even remember she had cancer or that she was going through chemo. It was also quite fun watching her throw up every day and choke down 16 pills at a time.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 27, 2010)

Just for starters

SEC. 3209. AUTHORITY TO DENY PLAN BIDS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1854(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395w-24(a)(5)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
                    ``(C) Rejection of bids.--
                          ``(i) In general.--Nothing in this section 
                      shall be construed as requiring the Secretary to 
                      accept any or every bid submitted by an MA 
                      organization under this subsection.
                          ``(ii) Authority to deny bids that propose 
                      significant increases in cost sharing or decreases 
                      in benefits.--The Secretary may deny a bid 
                      submitted by an MA organization for an MA plan if 
                      it proposes significant increases in cost sharing 
                      or decreases in benefits offered under the 
                      plan.''.

    (b) Application Under Part D.--Section 1860D-11(d) of such Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395w-111(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(3) Rejection of bids. <<NOTE: Applicability.>> --
        Paragraph (5)(C) of section 1854(a) shall apply with respect to 
        bids submitted by a PDP sponsor under subsection (b) in the same 
        manner as such paragraph applies to bids submitted by an MA 
        organization under such section 1854(a).''.

http://origin.www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/html/PLAW-111publ148.htm


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 27, 2010)

Luissa said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



over the internet trillions with a T


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 27, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Just for starters
> 
> SEC. 3209. AUTHORITY TO DENY PLAN BIDS.
> 
> ...



Do you have any idea what you're posting?


----------



## The Infidel (Dec 27, 2010)

Luissa said:


> Stephanie quit while you are ahead, you have no clue what you are talking about.
> 
> First off this programs would be good, especially now that baby boomers are starting to get dementia and alzheimers. These doctors will only be ADVISING on what a patient should do when they are close to death, *so maybe they don't waste large amounts of money on treatments that will not help, or could speed up the death process*.




Death Panel..... right?

Thought there were'nt any..... 

An out & out lie that Sarah was rediculed for.....



Luissa said:


> *The doctors were not be compensated before.*
> When someone is in the last year of their life, they can have more than one care meeting. If the doctor can help  the family come to the conclusion  that their mother doesn't need chemo, because she is going to die from dementia anyways, and the doctor then comes up with a directive for their end of life care, they should be compensated for their work.





Yes they were.... you have ALWAYS been able to discuss end of life options with your family physician.
The govt just wasnt obligated to pay for it before.
Now they will have to.... and the govt will decide if you are worth the treatment, not you and your physician.
This is sick and we were lied to yet AGAIN!


----------



## The Infidel (Dec 27, 2010)

Luissa said:


> You do realize that doctors already have end of  life counceling, and provide information on what a patient should do? I love how people who have no clue what goes into providing end of life care, try to act like they know what this means.
> *You do realize filling out your DNR status falls under end of life counceling?*



Now the gov't will be able to cecide whether or not to DNR..... right?

Yep.... they will.

In order to save money....


----------



## The Infidel (Dec 27, 2010)

Luissa said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...





Trust me... that roadmap will have a very short track to death.

In order to save money..... 

Just sayin'


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 27, 2010)

The Infidel said:


> Yes they were.... you have ALWAYS been able to discuss end of life options with your family physician.
> The govt just wasnt obligated to pay for it before.
> Now they will have to.... and the govt will decide if you are worth the treatment, not you and your physician.
> This is sick and we were lied to yet AGAIN!



Some leaps of logic there.


----------



## The Infidel (Dec 27, 2010)

Luissa said:


> I have provided end of life care for 30+ people, how about you?




I have been in dialysis for almost two decades and there will be folks who will not qualify for this treatment b/c they are too far gone and the gov't beaurocracy will see to it that these folks just take a pain pill or.... morphine (which they already do for those who choose not to dialize any longer) in order to save us, as a whole, the expense of the treatments that will only prolong the inevitable.
You'd be surprised and shocked perhaps the amount of patients we have, that have NO idea they are even on dialysis.... in other words, dimensia.... and they are not turned away. We treat them like every other patient knowing full well, they (the family) should just let them go.
The gov't beaurocrats will now just say.... no more.

That is something ONLY the family should have the say in.


----------



## The Infidel (Dec 27, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > Yes they were.... you have ALWAYS been able to discuss end of life options with your family physician.
> ...



How?


The way I see it.... This lying regime will do anything.


They dont give a flying crap about what our rights are. They are going to do what ever they want.

So tell me how on earth I just leaped anywhere?


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 27, 2010)

The Infidel said:


> How?
> 
> 
> The way I see it.... This lying regime will do anything.



Right there. You reached a conclusion and the only argument you can make to get from A to B is basically "I believe this."

In other words, it doesn't follow.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 27, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Just for starters
> ...



I don't; and I'll bet the idiots who voted for it didn't either.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 27, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Just for starters
> ...



Yes I do and I also said just for starters.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 27, 2010)

Not that any of this matters, the first court case has already started to dismantle this BS unconstitutional piece of garbage.


----------



## The Infidel (Dec 27, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > How?
> ...



OK.... How does this sound?

"I have seen THIS regime lie about one thing after another, and *I know *they are'nt planning on stopping anytime soon."

There,
That better?

You are still skirting around every one of my points and bringing semantics into it.

Nice job....


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 27, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> I don't; and I'll bet the idiots who voted for it didn't either.



It's about Medicare Advantage bids. Private companies submit bids against certain benchmarks to contract with Medicare to provide managed care plans to Medicare beneficiaries. The quoted bit just clarifies that bids of a Medicare Advantage organization can be rejected, particularly "if it proposes significant increases in cost sharing or decreases in benefits offered under the plan."

Why this is showing up in a thread on end-of-life care is unclear.


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 27, 2010)

The Infidel said:


> You are still skirting around every one of my points and bringing semantics into it.



Pointing out that your belief here is baseless isn't semantics. Allowing providers to bill Medicare for the time they spend discussing end-of-life issues with patients doesn't somehow mean Medicare is no longer reimbursing for various treatments. There's no argument there and on its face the suggestion doesn't make sense. You're simply saying that you believe someday this will happen. And that's fine, believe what you wish. But this policy change doesn't entail all the rest.


----------



## The Infidel (Dec 27, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > You are still skirting around every one of my points and bringing semantics into it.
> ...



thanks for letting me know you know nothing about the original subject.

Im done with you.

I KNOW I'm right about it, and when the end does come for you.... I hope for Gods sake YOU and your family get to make the choices, not some gov't blowhard and a commitee.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 27, 2010)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



I leave that up to him and his family.

But terminal stupidity has to be taken care of by the government.


----------



## Luissa (Dec 27, 2010)

The Infidel said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie quit while you are ahead, you have no clue what you are talking about.
> ...



Where did I say they couldn't op to have the treatment, anyways?
And the article she posted never said the decisions would be made by a panel, just that a doctor will be compensated for giving end of life counceling. So, like you said, now they will be compensated for work they are already doing.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 27, 2010)

The Infidel said:


> Yes they were.... you have ALWAYS been able to discuss end of life options with your family physician.
> The govt just wasnt obligated to pay for it before.
> *Now they will have to.... and the govt will decide if you are worth the treatment, not you and your physician.*
> This is sick and we were lied to yet AGAIN!



Not true at all.  This discussion will remain voluntary and the decisions that are made as the result of the discussion will exclusively be made by the patient and the physician.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 27, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...



And you think putting the government in charge is not terminal stupidity in itself?

I may have to knock you down a peg or 2 on my "who is smart and reasonable on the forum" ladder you were up near the top....... .


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 27, 2010)

I'm just curious, what sorts of medical treatments and procedures do Republicans plan to deny patients when they submit their big cuts in Medicare and Medicaid in their upcoming budget?


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 27, 2010)

Compensating doctors for their expert medical opinion on end of life matters (which they deal with as a matter of course in their profession) so that people can think about these matters and make their wishes known is just good sense.  

You guys act like people aren't going to die but for this conversation, which is now considered to be a standard of care.

Guess what?  You are wrong.  Whether you plan for it or not, you are going to die someday.  

I swear, I think half of the knee jerk stupidity that surrounds this issue is really just baby boomers struggling to come to grips with their own mortality.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 27, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Compensating doctors for their expert medical opinion on end of life matters (which they deal with as a matter of course in their profession) so that people can think about these matters and make their wishes known is just good sense.
> 
> You guys act like people aren't going to die but for this conversation, which is now considered to be a standard of care.
> 
> ...



Seems to me that this "counseling" is little more than the Doctor giving you your treatment options. Which he is already paid to do. Do you go see your doctor just to talk about dying?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 27, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> I'm just curious, what sorts of medical treatments and procedures do Republicans plan to deny patients when they submit their big cuts in Medicare and Medicaid in their upcoming budget?



Doesn't it get old defending a lie?


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 27, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Seems to me that this "counseling" is little more than the Doctor giving you your treatment options. Which he is already paid to do. Do you go see your doctor just to talk about dying?



First: discussing Advanced Directives is not discussing "treatment options".  Unless you are at the end of life and the pathology is known, there is no way to know what your treatment options are.  It's more basic (i.e. would you want to be intubated?  How long would you want your life to be prolonged?).  Discussing this topic with patients is part of good medical care.  Guess what?  Death is a medical issue that every person will face and Physicians will be the ones who see you to the end in the vast majority of cases.  

Second:  Patients still maintain the autonomy (rightfully) to change their mind, even if it is up to the last days of their life.  The verbal directive from a patient trumps all previous documentation.  

As a medical student, I see it from the other end.  Ever walk through an ICU?  What about hospice?

There is absolutely nothing wrong (short of the histrionics of people who are scared to frigging death about their own mortality) with coming up with a pragmatic plan so that, when the time comes, your wishes are articulated and respected.  

As, I said, this is becoming a standard of care.  Furthermore, since it will be a primary care doctor that does this, it is doubtful that it will be the same Doctor that sees that your wishes are executed.

Either way, whether you choose to die on your own terms or not, it won't matter in the end.  If you refuse to put your decisions down on paper, then someone else will decide for you.  Either way, you aren't going to cheat death by utilizing the defense mechanism of denial.

To make things even worse, if someone else makes that decision for you, it's either going to be a physician who may not be acting in what you would truly want to happen or your family members who are trying to act in what they think your wishes would be (and this usually results in inter-family fighting).  

You would think that after Quinlin, Cruzan, and now Schiavo, we would realize how devastating this issue can be for families and move beyond the idiotic hyperbole and have a rational debate about it.  

However, the outrage pimps (I am talking about the politicians and pundits here) are more interested in seeing the matter turn into a food fight so they can gin up votes.  In the end, they aren't going to be the ones that make the decision to pull the plug.  Your health is just a cynical campaign issue for them.

Wake up guys.  Seriously.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 27, 2010)

Everyone after a certain age (18 or 21) would be smart enough to make out a will of some sort as to what happens with their body in case of a terrible accident where they are put into a coma, on a feeding tube, etc. 

Edit: GTH is completely right and articulates the right answer in the post above mine.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 27, 2010)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> And you think putting the government in charge is not terminal stupidity in itself?
> 
> I may have to knock you down a peg or 2 on my "who is smart and reasonable on the forum" ladder you were up near the top....... .



The government is not "in charge".  The patient has autonomy over their own health care decisions. 

The government is just going to reimburse physicians for their time and expert medical opinion.  

I thought you free marketers were all for people being fairly paid for their work?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 27, 2010)

Again, this may all be for nothing as the lawsuits stack up and the bill is dismantled piece by piece.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 27, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Again, this may all be for nothing as the lawsuits stack up and the bill is dismantled piece by piece.



Here is the irony.  

Regardless of what happens to this bill, the issue is still there.

Everyone of us is going to die someday.  

You can either do it on your terms or not.  Either way, it's going to happen and if you fail to act on your own behalf, someone else will do that for you.  

Look past the politics of the Sciavo matter for a second and assume that everyone was acting in good faith, both her husband and the Schindlers (I realize that may not have been the case, but let's just assume for hypothetical reasons that is a true statement).

Now look at the result. 

Now imagine you in that position.  Would you want to lay in a bed and be fed by a tube for ten years?  

The answer to that is actually irrelevant.  If that is what you want, you'd had better make sure you have articulated that wish.  If that is not what you want, then you'd better make sure you've articulated that wish as well.  

Because, the Schiavo case is an example of just how bad it can get.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 27, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Again, this may all be for nothing as the lawsuits stack up and the bill is dismantled piece by piece.
> ...



Her parents were idiots. Still it is not something the Government should be involved in in any way shape or form.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 27, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Pragmatically, re-imbursing Doctors for this simple conversation (and that is all that is being proposed) is the best way to see that every patient is allowed to consider their options (and in the end, believe it or not, this is in the patient's best wishes).  In a primary care visit, there is just so much going on that it will get pushed to the periphery.  

Here's a good example of it.  A "Review of systems":

Review of systems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For a clinic visit is just good care that allows you to practice preventative medicine and catch problems the patient (or you) might have missed.  In our state, if you don't do at least five of them and document that you've asked, it affects reimbursement.  If this were not the case, a "Review of Systems" would become one of those "nice to do things".  

Re-imbursing physicians for their efforts is the best way to ensure something get's done.

It's only fair too.  Drs. "sell" their knowledge and this discussion is part of that "product".


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 28, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Seems to me that this "counseling" is little more than the Doctor giving you your treatment options. Which he is already paid to do. Do you go see your doctor just to talk about dying?
> ...



All that is well and good until you change your mind and decide you want a treatment and a government bureaucrat decides you don't have enough "intrinsic value to society" for them to perform said treatment.

Thats the part your ignoring.   You are talking about something very similar, but not the same, as the issue most have with this.   That issue being a government official will be the one deciding what treatments are and are not available based on your societal worth.


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 28, 2010)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> All that is well and good until you change your mind and decide you want a treatment and a government bureaucrat decides you don't have enough "intrinsic value to society" for them to perform said treatment.
> 
> *Thats the part your ignoring. *



Actually, that's the part you're making up.


----------



## jillian (Dec 28, 2010)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> All that is well and good until you change your mind and decide you want a treatment and a government bureaucrat decides you don't have enough "intrinsic value to society" for them to perform said treatment.
> 
> Thats the part your ignoring.   You are talking about something very similar, but not the same, as the issue most have with this.   That issue being a government official will be the one deciding what treatments are and are not available based on your societal worth.



is the quote "intrinsic value to society" in the statute? or is that your slant on the subject?

perhaps you would rather a claims adjuster from an insurance company with a financial interest in cutting off your medical care make those assessments as to what is cost beneficial since that is the status quo.

and claims adjusters are instructed to deny as many claims as possible. so i'm afraid the reasons for the hysteria aren't resonating for me.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 28, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > All that is well and good until you change your mind and decide you want a treatment and a government bureaucrat decides you don't have enough "intrinsic value to society" for them to perform said treatment.
> ...


 

Not exactly

Medicare - Health - The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/politics/26death.html?_r=3&ref=robertpear






Right there the government is getting involved, monetarily, with end of life care.   

Read the 2 links from a liberal source you might be interested.  If you want balance I'll posts something from a conservative source but I know you dont believe those sites.


----------



## jillian (Dec 28, 2010)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



well, yes, exactly.... all it says is that they want to go back to paying for end of life counseling.

why do you have a problem with people doing living wills?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 28, 2010)

jillian said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



When were we discussing living wills again? Lets try and not throw strawmen at each other.

Read both links, along with the HC bill and the parts of the stimulus bill that have HC in them, and you will see that the doctors only get paid if they give the advice the government official reccomends.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Dec 28, 2010)

Government is interested in cost reduction.  Insurance companies are interested in profit.  Is there really a difference?  Probably not.  Still, government has become too involved in too many facets of . . . . everything.  

Ah well, someday we will all be dead. That there is a fact, Jack. Off to the mall!


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 28, 2010)

Zoom-boing said:


> Government is interested in cost reduction.  Insurance companies are interested in profit.  Is there really a difference?  Probably not.  Still, government has become too involved in too many facets of . . . . everything.
> 
> Ah well, someday we will all be dead. That there is a fact, Jack. Off to the mall!



Not really zoom, they are basically the same thing.

Where the difference is comes in efficiency.  What is more efficient a private company or the federal government?  With all the inherent waste that comes with government, in the end, we will have less money available for care and more going to waste.


----------



## jillian (Dec 28, 2010)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



you need to start reading with some understanding. end of life counseling is about how people should plan their medical care at the end. the PURPOSE is for them to prepare living wills to state their intent.

a lot of loons are running around calling that death panels.

that's what.

doctors NOW don't get paid if the insurance company tells them not to perform a procedure. i'm not quite sure what is so difficult about this.

Jacksonville woman dies after insurer repeatedly denies her a liver transplant | jacksonville.com

Family Attorney Says He'll Sue Insurance Company That Initially Denied 17-Year-Old Girl a Liver Transplant - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News - FOXNews.com

MAKING A KILLING - Chapter 5 - Getting Away With Murder - Why You Can't Sue Your HMO


----------



## jillian (Dec 28, 2010)

Zoom-boing said:


> Government is interested in cost reduction.  Insurance companies are interested in profit.  Is there really a difference?  Probably not.  Still, government has become too involved in too many facets of . . . . everything.
> 
> Ah well, someday we will all be dead. That there is a fact, Jack. Off to the mall!



perhaps, but insurance companies are way better at making a profit than government is at cutting costs.

have fun at the mall.


----------



## theHawk (Dec 28, 2010)

Stephanie said:


> well well
> 
> By ROBERT PEAR
> Published: December 25, 2010
> ...




The liberals health care plan: You're not one of the lucky few chosen to receive rationed end-of-life care, go smoke some medical marijauna and die.


----------



## logical4u (Dec 28, 2010)

rdean said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Where does it say there is financial incentive for this "education"?
Currently, you can talk to your doctor about this.  Obama's plan will encourage doctors to "discuss" this by paying them for it (every year doctors will want to get the extra money from the government, so it will be done).  That is what is currently being written into the administrative rules for health care (will those rules change to syphon more of the money paid into health care to the fed gov?).


----------



## logical4u (Dec 28, 2010)

Luissa said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > "WHEREAS, the Foundation for End of Life Care in Juneau, Alaska, and other organizations throughout the United States have endorsed this event and are committed to educating the public about the importance of discussing healthcare choices and executing advance directives."
> ...



You are right.  There is waste.
Some of us are looking back at history: when the Nazis took the mentally ill out of small towns for "re-education", they all mysteriously died within a few months.  When the US government was responsible for the "health care" of native Americans, many died of "ill health" or starvation (it wasn't that they didn't want to feed them, it was that the bureaucracy took so long to get the food there).  We see this "bill" as an infringement on our rights.  We know where rules like this have led in the past and are very fearful the same type of power will lead to widespread abuse and neglect.  
You have seen some "wasteful" medical treatments.  Systems similar to this "new system" of ours has resulted in people laying in the hospitals in their own filth, dead, because of bureaucracy.  Systems where broken limbs are allowed to heal, unset, because, the medical "permissions were not given by the almighty government.
I would rather see a ton of medical care thrown at those that are dying, than to be withheld from the living.


----------



## logical4u (Dec 28, 2010)

Stephanie said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



Sorry for your loss, may she rest with the Lord.


----------



## jillian (Dec 28, 2010)

Stephanie said:


> I  don't give a shit about your sob stories. I watched My mother die last year and had to make decisions about her. And guess what, we did it all WITHOUT the stinking Guberment sticking their friggen noses in it.
> now you are dismissed.



sorry for your loss.

but because you did it without the doctor being PAID to help you want to deprive others.

who gives a rat's patoot what you did with or without.

now *you* are dismissed.


----------



## TossObama (Dec 28, 2010)

This "end of life" crap is exactly the same nazi scheme that was used in WWII to exterminate those the Vatican, Hitler and the nazis considered "useless eaters".


Tell you what, folks. Another thing they did was yank a retarded guy out of an institution and dress him in street clothes. Then the nazis burned down one of their own buildings, killed the guy and threw his body where it appeared he had done the "crime". It was one of the many ways those nazi freaks manipulated the public feeling against the sick, the poor, the elderly, and the disabled.


----------



## Meister (Dec 28, 2010)

If they took this out of the Bill to help get it passed, why in the hell are they putting it back in?  It disengenuous at best, also....if they are paying the doctors for this needless service, it's just going to cost more.  WTF?


----------



## logical4u (Dec 28, 2010)

rdean said:


> I never want to end up a vegetable, laying in a hospital bed, staring at the ceiling, hooked to machines.
> 
> Is this what right wingers are advocating?



I am a conservative.  I would advocate paying for your own health care.  If you are 80 years old and get pneumonia, and you can afford antibiotics, you should be able to get them without the government saying "okay".  If you are 60 years old and still working and have heart problems, if you are paying the bills, you should be able to have heart surgery without the government "weighing" the costs.  If you are seventy years old and active and you need a hip or knee replacement and can pay the costs, you should not need government approval.
If you cannot pay for your own healthcare, then you do not have a choice, the government (or who ever is paying the bills) has a big sayso in your care.
If you are a vegetable, and your money is paying for the hospital bed, then you should be allowed the hospitable bed for as long as your family agrees to pay (in this way, hospitals can accually make up some of their losses for providing discount and free services).
I am a conservative.  I believe that your personal care should be up to you and the person that agrees (for a price) to provide that care.  The government is an additional middleman that will add layers of bureaucracy and costs to a relatively simple issue.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 28, 2010)

Meister said:


> If they took this out of the Bill to help get it passed, why in the hell are they putting it back in?  It disengenuous at best, also....if they are paying the doctors for this needless service, it's just going to cost more.  WTF?



You actually thought they were going to leave anything out?


----------



## logical4u (Dec 28, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie quit while you are ahead, you have no clue what you are talking about.
> ...



Yes, this will be good because in most incidents where the government took control of the population, huge numbers of people didn't die...like Russia, Nazi Germany, USSR, Cambodia, China, Vietnam, Cuba....

It will be different this time..... (famous last words, before history repeats itself).


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 28, 2010)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Right there the government is getting involved, monetarily, with end of life care.
> 
> Read the 2 links from a liberal source you might be interested.  If you want balance I'll posts something from a conservative source but I know you dont believe those sites.



It's not a matter of belief. Medicare _already_ does this. It covers a one-time "Welcome" visit for preventative care and physicians billing for that visit have to offer end-of-life-planning (beneficiaries, of course, can decline it if they wish). What the ACA does is add coverage for an _annual_ wellness visit so seniors can get a check-up every year and have it covered. Just as with the existing Welcome visit, the annual wellness visits must (under this new rule) also offer end-of-life planning services.

Your claim is that end-of-life planning offered by the physician must result in physician recommendations that some unnamed government official allows them to recommend. Well, this shouldn't be a matter of speculation, as end-of-life consultation is already covered in the existing Medicare wellness visit--show us where the physician is required to give only government-approved advice, please. I'll wait, I'm genuinely curious.


----------



## Meister (Dec 28, 2010)

rdean said:


> I never want to end up a vegetable, laying in a hospital bed, staring at the ceiling, hooked to machines.
> 
> Is this what right wingers are advocating?



No, it's not, you can sign a paper at the hospital, or tell your loved ones that you don't want any extraordinary care.  This is what's known as self responsibility, deen'o.  It's a concept that's been around for along time, until the government told you they can do better.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 28, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Right there the government is getting involved, monetarily, with end of life care.
> ...



Its not in the old medicare laws like that.  Its part of the new bills (notice the S on bills) that the doctors wont get paid unless the perscribe a corse of action that falls in line with what some government panel decides based on factors including your age.

If the panel deems you are too old for certain treatments then the doctor will not be able to peform them and get paid for it......this could lead to you dying from whatever you need treatment from which has led to the term "death panel" being applied to the "health benefits advisory council" which is part of the health care and stimulus bills.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 28, 2010)

Meister said:


> If they took this out of the Bill to help get it passed, why in the hell are they putting it back in?  It disengenuous at best, also....if they are paying the doctors for this needless service, it's just going to cost more.  WTF?



And that is what should be discussed here because this is just the beginning. Mr Obama is resorting to writing the new rules to get what he wants. And as long as there is no law forbidding the rule he can write whatever he likes. They took this out of the legislation but did not say it couldn't be done. So Obama is having it written in as a rule.

Look for a lot more of these as he loses his agenda to the new congress.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Dec 28, 2010)

The Infidel said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > You do realize that doctors already have end of  life counceling, and provide information on what a patient should do? I love how people who have no clue what goes into providing end of life care, try to act like they know what this means.
> ...



No, they won't.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Dec 28, 2010)

Meister said:


> If they took this out of the Bill to help get it passed, why in the hell are they putting it back in?  It disengenuous at best, also....if they are paying the doctors for this needless service, it's just going to cost more.  WTF?



They took it out because Sarah Palin is an idiot fearmongerer, and Americans as a whole are pretty fucking gullible.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Dec 28, 2010)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Except that's *decidedly not the case*. You're talking about something that simply has NOTHING to do with these "end of life care" conversations. 

All of your claims about government denying treatment based on "societal worth" is fear-mongering bullshit with no basis in reality.


----------



## Meister (Dec 28, 2010)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > If they took this out of the Bill to help get it passed, why in the hell are they putting it back in?  It disengenuous at best, also....if they are paying the doctors for this needless service, it's just going to cost more.  WTF?
> ...



I guess you would rather miss my point completely and point a finger at someone.  Got it.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Dec 28, 2010)

Meister said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



If I missed your point, I apologize. 

What exactly was your point?


----------



## boedicca (Dec 28, 2010)

jillian said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > I  don't give a shit about your sob stories. I watched My mother die last year and had to make decisions about her. And guess what, we did it all WITHOUT the stinking Guberment sticking their friggen noses in it.
> ...




This is one of the most hateful responses I have seen on this board.

Congratulations on achieving a New Low.


----------



## Meister (Dec 28, 2010)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...



with a response like that, I'm sure it went right over your head.  Sorry to confuse you.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Dec 28, 2010)

Meister said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



So you didn't have a point?

I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm trying to understand what you were saying.


----------



## Meister (Dec 28, 2010)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...



I was being very clear in my post which you responded to.  If it WAS TAKEN OUT TO GET THE VOTES TO PASS THE SENATE and CONGRESS, THEN IT SHOULD BE LEFT OUT.  It's not that difficult of a concept.  
Then you come in crying PALIN....for the love of GOD, does it always have to be someone elses fault?  
What is it about the left?


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Dec 28, 2010)

Meister said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Well, I guess you missed my point as well then.

My point is there's two sides to this: What is *right*, and what is *politically feasible*. Palin's comments made it _infeasible _to be included in the bill - but it is _right _to be included.

Now, you're welcome to disagree with my opinion - but there's no need to be a dick about it.

Rather than saying that it "shouldn't be put in later because it was already taken out for votes", tell me what you disagree with about this provision?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 28, 2010)

Meister said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



I told people that when the government get a healthcare legislation passed no matter how watrered down they will add everything that has been said about obamacare. This monster must be repealed in whole


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 28, 2010)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> All that is well and good until you change your mind and decide you want a treatment and a government bureaucrat decides you don't have enough "intrinsic value to society" for them to perform said treatment.
> 
> Thats the part your ignoring.   You are talking about something very similar, but not the same, as the issue most have with this.   That issue being a government official will be the one deciding what treatments are and are not available based on your societal worth.



Nowhere in this initiative is this an issue.  It exists in paranoid minds only.  

This is fairly simple.  Compensating Doctors for their time in helping patients make a plan for how they want the end of their life to go.  This is going to cover counseling during annual exams with a primary care provider.  Both the time, location, and doctor will not be the same as the "end of your life".  

Counseling on advanced directives is done (though hap-hazardly) now anyways, this just ensures that physicians will be compensated for their time and opinions.  It leads to better patient outcomes.  As I said before, either you can make your wants known or someone else will decide for you.  Either way, you are going to die.  You might as well do it on your terms.

I can't decide if this insistence about inserting "rationing" into every facet of the health care issue (even ones that make good sense like this) is subterfuge, paranoia, or simple ignorance by the right. 

But by all means, show me how this measure will lead to rationing.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 28, 2010)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



You have no idea what an "Advanced Directive" really is, do you?


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 28, 2010)

jillian said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



This whole argument is about as idiotic as claiming that estate lawyers who put together wills and trusts are secret agents of the government who exists to facilitate the death tax.

Again, I can't figure out if this is simple ignorance, paranoia, or an attempt to attentional muddy the waters.  

If it is simple ignorance, it's a prime example of why our media should be ashamed for giving a fuck-wit like Sarah Palin a platform on an issue she clearly knows nothing about.


----------



## jillian (Dec 28, 2010)

boedicca said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



so she can be a pig and say whatever she wants?

congratulations for never missing an opportunity to be a hack and a lowlife.


----------



## jillian (Dec 28, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



exactly. but if they repeat a lie often enough, they think it becomes the truth.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 28, 2010)

jillian said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...




Low class as always, jillian.

Kicking a person when she is discussing her mother's death is beyond the pale.

I would have thought that even you would recognize this, but that would be giving you too much credit.

Here's a clue:  a decent person would have limited his or her response to an "I'm sorry for your loss", and then refocused in a non-insulting manner upon the topic.  

Instead, you did what is typical of you - acted like a foul bully.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 28, 2010)

Stephanie said:


> I  don't give a shit about your sob stories. I watched My mother die last year and had to make decisions about her. And guess what, we did it all WITHOUT the stinking Guberment sticking their friggen noses in it.
> now you are dismissed.



Sorry for your loss. 

However, this ironically, goes to the heart of this issue.  

Who made decisions about your mother's end of life care?  You did.  

What did your mother want?  I would assume you can only guess.  Maybe you were lucky and she verbalized some intent to you.  Or maybe you had to simply guess.

End of life planning is simply asking a patient to make their wants and desires in their last days known so that families (or doctors) aren't stuck making decisions that the patient wouldn't have wanted. 

The sad situation you were stuck with, is the very thing that the Obama Administration is trying to prevent.  

Furthermore, your advanced directive is your own decision.  If your wish is to "be kept on the respirator until I die of sepsis from the inevitable hospital acquired infection", then that will be respected. 

The point is, people won't have to try and guess what you wanted.

Why this is a bad thing, I still can't figure.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 28, 2010)

boedicca said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



If you were going for consistency, you should also castigate Stephanie, as she was just as abrasive to Luissa who first mentioned a family member in Hospice Care.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 28, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > I  don't give a shit about your sob stories. I watched My mother die last year and had to make decisions about her. And guess what, we did it all WITHOUT the stinking Guberment sticking their friggen noses in it.
> ...




Now this is a proper response.  Thank you.

I do disagree with your conclusions, however.

Government encouragements and recommendations often end up being compulsory.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 28, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...




I did not read that exchange - I don't read every comment on the board.  If you feel it worth calling out, please go ahead.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 28, 2010)

Meister said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > I never want to end up a vegetable, laying in a hospital bed, staring at the ceiling, hooked to machines.
> ...





Dammit.  The stupidity level on this thread is high.  This initiative is trying to get people to "sign a paper" before they present to the hospital with a tube down their damn throats or so demented that they lack decisional capacity.  

If people were "responsible" enough to not wait until the last minute to address this, then obviously this wouldn't be a policy issue right now.  

I really don't think you guys understand what you are arguing against.


----------



## jillian (Dec 28, 2010)

boedicca said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



of course you didn't read the exchange you ignorant twit. because she's a rightwingnut loon just like you.

talk about bullies. you're the one who's low class.

hack.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 28, 2010)

jillian said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...




You really are a sad case.  Get help.

You could learn something from the way GTH responded, but I doubt you will.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 28, 2010)

So the left sees no problem with a program being removed from a bill because it does not have the backing of enough congressmen/senators to pass, and then waiting 8 months and writing it back into the bill without any vote.

We'll have to make a note of this tactic. We can fix so much stuff this way.....


----------



## jillian (Dec 28, 2010)

boedicca said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



he's free to respond to you any way he wishes. as far as i'm concerned, you were answered the way a pissant with an overly inflated ego like you deserves to be answered. you're one of the most bitter people i've ever seen and i don't tolerate schoolyard bullies in real life or on the internet, little girl.

now run along and play.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 28, 2010)

boedicca said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



So basically you oppose this because you feel "the government will fuck it up, regardless of how good the intentions"?

Thanks for at least being honest and not making up a bunch of bullshit about rationing that is nowhere to be found in this initiative.  

I think the cognitive dissonance on this matter comes from the fact that most people won't experience ICU hospital care until they are at the end of their lives.  

I don't think people with no prognosis for recovery would opt to be hooked to a ventilator, in a diaper, with a catheter in place, with the bed at a 45 degree angle so they don't get aspiration pneumonia (if they are lucky), and being turned every 12 hours to prevent bed sores until God decides to take them, be it a month or a year.

This wasn't an issue in previous years.  People simply died and we made our peace with it.  Now technology has allowed us to basically keep de-facto corpses artificially breathing.  

If you want to go out that way, it's your prerogative.  Put it in your Advanced Directive.  I don't.  Nothing scares me more than the notion of being demented beyond any cognition and on life support.  What if I am trapped in a mental existence of suffering conjured up by my own mind because I had some sort of unresolved guilt about this or that and my Judeo-Christian upbringing has conditioned my mind to make me believe I am going to hell?


----------



## boedicca (Dec 28, 2010)

jillian said:


> he's free to respond to you any way he wishes. as far as i'm concerned, you were answered the way a pissant with an overly inflated ego deserves to be answered. you're one of the most bitter people i've ever seen and i don't tolerate schoolyard bullies in real life or on the internet, little girl.
> 
> now run along and play.





This is one of the best examples of psychological projection ever posted on this board.

Absolutely Classic!


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 28, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> So the left sees no problem with a program being removed from a bill because it does not have the backing of enough congressmen/senators to pass, and then waiting 8 months and writing it back into the bill without any vote.
> 
> We'll have to make a note of this tactic. We can fix so much stuff this way.....



Politics are politics.

It doesn't change the fact that this is a good idea and doesn't even begin to approximate "death panels".


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 28, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > So the left sees no problem with a program being removed from a bill because it does not have the backing of enough congressmen/senators to pass, and then waiting 8 months and writing it back into the bill without any vote.
> ...



So even though this did not have the required votes it's a good Idea?

 Politics must make it alright....

As someone on here once said, "It's bullshit and it's not good for you."


----------



## boedicca (Dec 28, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> So basically you oppose this because you feel "the government will fuck it up, regardless of how good the intentions"?
> 
> Thanks for at least being honest and not making up a bunch of bullshit about rationing that is nowhere to be found in this initiative.
> 
> ...




Personally, I plan to have an AD.  I just don't think the government should be in the business of paying doctors a bounty to recommend them while also controlling our health care system.    

Berwick is making noise that we need to "do something" about the 80% of health care spending being upon Old & Sick people.    One way to "do something" is to rig the system so that the government encourages doctors and families to put pressure on the elderly along the lines of "having a duty to die".

No thank you.


----------



## jillian (Dec 28, 2010)

boedicca said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > he's free to respond to you any way he wishes. as far as i'm concerned, you were answered the way a pissant with an overly inflated ego deserves to be answered. you're one of the most bitter people i've ever seen and i don't tolerate schoolyard bullies in real life or on the internet, little girl.
> ...



 

hack.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 28, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




This gets to the real heart of the issue:   regulators subverting Congress and making their own law outside of the rule of law.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 28, 2010)

jillian said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...




Wow.  You're on a roll.   This thread is a petri dish with examples of all your typical posts.

1. Vile personal insults
2. Psychological projection
3. Over use of smilies in lieu of an actual comment

Congratulations!


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 28, 2010)

rdean said:


> I love the hypocrisy of Republicans.  It's so expected, so normal, so "them".
> 
> Remember when Sarah Palin endorsed April 16th 2008 as Healthcare Decisions Day for the state of Alaska?  It was the same end of life counseling that Republicans now call euthanasia.
> 
> ...





And you think the shit we're going through is good compared to the last 30 years?

We're in deep shit and the Dems put us there and all you have to say is, "I bet you can't do any better"

We did better and now the Dems are doing their best to screw everything up....permanently.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 28, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Politics are the way things run in this country.  Right or wrong.  There is a reason I drove around Afghanistan in a HUMVEE with now doors and a blast blanket on the floor.  

Was it ideal?  No.  Was it the reality of the matter?  Yes.

The fact that this is a political issue doesn't change the fact that this is good medicine.  

If you guys are smart, you will ensure your wishes for the end of your life are made known so people don't have to guess.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 28, 2010)

Just because something is personally smart for a person to do doesn't justify the government wielding power over the individual to do it.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 28, 2010)

boedicca said:


> Personally, I plan to have an AD.  I just don't think the government should be in the business of paying doctors a bounty to recommend them while also controlling our health care system.
> 
> Berwick is making noise that we need to "do something" about the 80% of health care spending being upon Old & Sick people.    One way to "do something" is to rig the system so that the government encourages doctors and families to put pressure on the elderly along the lines of "having a duty to die".
> 
> No thank you.



I can't even force people to get a flu shot.  If people are that resistant to the concept of an AD, they can simply refuse to talk about it.  It's not really that nefarious. 

It's just compensating Doctors to talk about this issue with their patients.  It's not really any different than the other "health maintenance" issues we'd ideally cover if we didn't have clinics jam packed with people with 12 problem list assessment and plans.  

I didn't get into this business to try and hasten people's demise.  Believe me, there are easier ways to make a buck than medicine.  I did it to try and help people and relieve suffering.  That includes at the end of life (especially the end of life, where people suffer the most).  

So, if you guys see this as some sort of peer pressure program to force granny to put down that she wants to be unhooked on paper, I won't argue against your paranoia. 

Why? 

Because it's silly.  Whether you make the decision or leave it to your kids, either way it will be made.  You might as well do it on your own terms. 

Once again, you aren't going to cheat death by ignoring it.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 28, 2010)

You are talking about the way it is now.

Under ObamaCare, there are dozens of agencies that will decide what is covered.   It's quite clear that where this is headed is that certain procedures will be denied to people over a certain age.

It's happened in the UK.
It's happened in Canada.
It will happen here.

Read up on Dr. Berwick.   His philosophical bias is apparent.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 28, 2010)

boedicca said:


> Just because something is personally smart for a person to do doesn't justify the government wielding power over the individual to do it.



They aren't.  All this does is compensate the physician for their time in discussing the matter with the patient.  It doesn't mandate the patient make any sort of decision.  In the end, the patient always has the autonomy to say:  "Y don't want to talk about that" (just as they have over anything to include their sexual history, etc).

Frankly, I am glad that someone is, for the first time, trying to bring the nation into the "end-of-life-care-issues" debate.

Welcome aboard.  Those of us in Medicine have been discussing it since the Quinlin case.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 28, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > I love the hypocrisy of Republicans.  It's so expected, so normal, so "them".
> ...



Both parties put us there.  Unless you've developed dissociative amnesia and want to forget 2000-2006 when the GOP had complete control.  

If that is the case, I won't try and begrudge you your delusions.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 28, 2010)

boedicca said:


> You are talking about the way it is now.
> 
> Under ObamaCare, there are dozens of agencies that will decide what is covered.   It's quite clear that where this is headed is that certain procedures will be denied to people over a certain age.
> 
> ...



Again, I won't try and argue hypotheticals with you guys. 

As it stands, this is a damn smart policy issue.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 28, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > You are talking about the way it is now.
> ...



And above all else;  dirty politics and a stab in the back to those who fought against it.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 28, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



And who was that?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 28, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Most Republicans and some democrats. Since so much was done behind closed doors who knows? This is one thing I believe the people voted against last month. You know the secret deals and special deals for votes. All the back room meetings, Generally the dirty politics. But hey, I could be wrong, maybe there was another reason the republicans picked up over 60 seats......


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 28, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Oh.  As I wouldn't trust the GOP to pick up trash in my neighborhood, I see that I am not among the "we".


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 28, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Did I say "we"?


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 28, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Apologies.  "Those".


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Dec 29, 2010)

boedicca said:


> Just because something is personally smart for a person to do doesn't justify the government wielding power over the individual to do it.



I agree completely. 

It's a shame that the legislation in question has nothing to do with your statement. 

It doesn't "wield power over the individual". It "wields power" over Medicare to make sure it pays for it.


----------



## jillian (Dec 29, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> And above all else;  dirty politics and a stab in the back to those who fought against it.



things get brought up again all the time.  calling this 'dirty politics' seems to miss the point of how things get done. sometimes there are wording changes; sometimes  it's taken off of another bill; or put on another bill.

in this case, i don't actually think it *was* ever voted on. i think it got pulled because of the  propagandists calling it 'death panels'.

now which would you say is dirty politics? people lying about what the bill says? or actually bringing it up for a vote? or even bringing it up AGAIN for a vote.


----------



## midcan5 (Dec 29, 2010)

End of life decisions are tough. We have some sense of this complex issue as our parents are still living, but all are in their eighties or above. My mom recently told the doctors she wants not another test or scan or drug or anything. She is 90 and while she can get around realizes they ain't gonna make her 35 again. Doctors are interested in prolonging life even against the wishes of the person and family, and sadly they are into money too, as hospitals do one expensive test after another. One fact of life that conservatives somehow fail to realize is without some regulatory structure life would be chaos. Dignity lost as the body exists, but the person is gone. There is nothing wrong with having these talks before that final breath and eternity. 

"The new Medicare regulation covering physicians discussions with their patients about end-of-life issues is once again under attack by right-wing ideologues. The new rule is specifically designed to give patients the opportunity to explain their wishes about end-of-life care to their personal physicians. It represents a thoughtful and valuable step toward allowing patients to control decisions about their own health care."  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/29/opinion/l29medicare.html


Why end-of-life planning is smart, necessary - CNN.com


----------



## Zoom-boing (Dec 29, 2010)

Question . . . . if my mom or dad (83 and 88) went to the doctor for whatever and in the course of that appointment discussed end-of-life plans, Medicare wouldn't pay for that (pre any of this)?


----------



## Samson (Dec 29, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...





So, is he holding up your Viagra refills?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 29, 2010)

Samson said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Nope, he has strict instructions that should I ever need viagra to take me out back and shoot me.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 29, 2010)

jillian said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > And above all else;  dirty politics and a stab in the back to those who fought against it.
> ...



Well, that's interesting. I suppose it's all dirty politics, and it needs to end (we know it won't). But then again How can one lie about what's in it when "We have to pass it to see what's in it."

 It's a bad bill.


----------



## Samson (Dec 29, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...





I wonder if Medicare or Obamacare will cover that.


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 29, 2010)

Zoom-boing said:


> Question . . . . if my mom or dad (83 and 88) went to the doctor for whatever and in the course of that appointment discussed end-of-life plans, Medicare wouldn't pay for that (pre any of this)?



Medicare pays for it now as part of the "Welcome" visit. That's the one-time wellness visit Medicare beneficiaries get when they first become eligible for Medicare. Before health care reform, Medicare didn't pay for an annual wellness visit. Now it will. The regulation this thread is about just ensures that end-of-life planning is offered as part of that visit, if the beneficiary wants it.


----------



## TossObama (Dec 29, 2010)

Luissa said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > "WHEREAS, the Foundation for End of Life Care in Juneau, Alaska, and other organizations throughout the United States have endorsed this event and are committed to educating the public about the importance of discussing healthcare choices and executing advance directives."
> ...



*******All right Luissa, I've read all your postings I can stomach. Now I'm commenting.

You are the very LAST person I'd ever want taking care of my loved one or me, in any situation. You obviously think nobody can see through the smoke and whistles in your postings. Kiddo, you are no Nurse. Real Nurses have been rescuing Patients from scum like you in so-called "hospice". And golly, isn't it amazing that once a Patient is taken care of properly BY NURSES, they are no longer targets for medical murder. Real Nurses actually protect their Patients from people like Luissa.

To the rest of you, let me explain what Luissa appears to be. Luissa is what real Nurses call a "Certified Tootsie Girl". What is that? She/he is likely "certified", not educated.

Their job is simply to murder patients.

Those "certified" murderers are usually psychological sickies, by the way, and this alone prevents them from participating in valid Patient Care. They are considered "unemployable" in any level of valid Nursing. Why? They kill Patients. It's "hospice" who sniffs those sickies out for employment.

And Luissa, what's that you said about little chats about "end of life"???? Do you really want me to go there, Luissa?????????? Well, to hell with what you want. I'm goin there.

Folks, what Luissa doesn't want you to know is this: If you or your loved one has been forced into Medicare, you are not considered anything but government property. You and your family cannot refuse or stop the harvesting of your body, nor can you refuse medical experimentation. You cannot even refuse the "free" Medicare, nor can you send your Medicare card back. 

This trash that's in office will force you to pay back all the Social Security monies you've received if you send back your Medicare card. You are allowed to refuse the Medicare you have to pay additionally for.

They don't consider that all those forced salary withdrawals from your paychecks were "payments" for the Medicare card you are forced to accept. Anyway, that Medicare card is actually akin to what the nazis forced the Jews and Jehova Witnesses to sew on their coats. It is NOT medical insurance, it is not medical care. Our own government regards it as ownership of your body. 

Luissa and psychotics who get their kicks murdering patients, aren't found anywhere in a hospital EXCEPT the Chaplains office. Do What?? Tootsie girls aren't medical personnel, remember? The god-guy is who comes in with his "spiritual" b.s., gets the patient to sign the end of life document, and 15 minutes later in prances the Tootsie Girl with the kill meds. 

There is absolutely no verbage whatsoever in those documents that would give any clue whatsoever to any patient, that they just gave permission for the Tootsie Girl to kill them. It's what the "democrats" (particularly the Netherlands pod of crazies) call "interpretation".

What this means, folks, is someone has to pay the god-guy for getting you to sign that paper. It isn't about paying a Medical Doctor to explain medical issues to you. The dang "doctor" in this picture is a DOCTOR OF DIVINITY, a god-guy with a Tootsie Girl in tow.

I can't wait for your responses to me Luissa. I can't wait.

By the way folks, there's a LOT more to this issue. A LOT MORE. 

I'm waiting for your response, Luissa.


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 29, 2010)

For reference, the offending piece of the regulation (p. 238), regarding components of the new Medicare annual wellness visit.



> _Comment:_ We received a number of comments from physicians, health care providers, and others urging us to add voluntary advance care planning as an element to the definitions of both the first annual wellness visit and the subsequent annual wellness visit. They base their recommendation upon a number of recent research studies, and the inclusion by statute of a similar element in the existing initial preventive physical examination (IPPE) benefit. One commenter noted that the new wellness visit was wisely designed to build on the initial preventive physical exam, providing an ongoing, systematic focus on wellness and prevention by harmonizing Medicare services into a coordinated benefit. Another commenter stated that the AWV provides an appropriate setting for providers to initiate voluntary conversations about future care wishes, as they counsel beneficiaries on other aspects of their health and achieving their personal health goals. The commenter added that the care plans discussed in the Welcome to Medicare visit should not be frozen in time, but revisited as an important component of patient wellness.
> 
> _Response:_ We agree that voluntary advance care planning should be added as an element of the definitions of both the first annual wellness visit and the subsequent annual wellness visit based on the evidence described below, and the inclusion of a similar element in the IPPE benefit (also referred to as the Welcome to Medicare visit), since January 1, 2009. We believe that this will help the physician to better align the personal prevention plan services with the patients personal priorities and goals.
> 
> ...


----------



## Revere (Dec 29, 2010)

Any agency that can write a regulation like this without the oversight of a real representative goverment needs to be de-funded.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 29, 2010)

TossObama said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



I'm sorry, but my father spent a week in a hospice where he was cared for as a human being should be. He actually improved enough that they told us he should go back to a constant care facility as it wasn't his time yet. I saw nothing from the staff but caring and understanding.


----------



## Ropey (Dec 29, 2010)

jillian said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > And above all else;  dirty politics and a stab in the back to those who fought against it.
> ...



There's the reality. With highly reworked material often what is left out or modified shows more about the drafting intentions than what is left in.


----------



## Revere (Dec 29, 2010)

The dirty politics is removing it from a bill, only to have unelected bureaucrats write it back in as agency rules.


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 29, 2010)

Revere said:


> Any agency that can write a regulation like this without the oversight of a real representative goverment needs to be de-funded.



I realize American Government isn't covered well in schools anymore but this is how your government works. Congress explicitly delegates implementation responsibilities to the executive branch in its legislation. HHS was given authority in the law to do this.

`Annual Wellness Visit

`(hhh)
(1) The term `personalized prevention plan services' means the creation of a plan for an individual--
`(A) that includes a health risk assessment (that meets the guidelines established by the Secretary under paragraph (4)(A)) of the individual that is completed prior to or as part of the same visit with a health professional described in paragraph (3); and
            `(B) that--
`(i) takes into account the results of the health risk assessment; and
                  `(ii) may contain the elements described in paragraph (2).​      `(2) Subject to paragraph (4)(H), the elements described in this paragraph are the following:
`(A) The establishment of, or an update to, the individual's medical and family history.
            `(B) A list of current providers and suppliers that are regularly involved in providing medical care to the individual (including a list of all prescribed medications).
            `(C) A measurement of height, weight, body mass index (or waist circumference, if appropriate), blood pressure, and other routine measurements.
            `(D) Detection of any cognitive impairment.
            `(E) The establishment of, or an update to, the following:
`(i) A screening schedule for the next 5 to 10 years, as appropriate, based on recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, and the individual's health status, screening history, and age-appropriate preventive services covered under this title.
                  `(ii) A list of risk factors and conditions for which primary, secondary, or tertiary prevention interventions are recommended or are underway, including any mental health conditions or any such risk factors or conditions that have been identified through an initial preventive physical examination (as described under subsection (ww)(1)), and a list of treatment options and their associated risks and benefits.​            `(F) The furnishing of personalized health advice and a referral, as appropriate, to health education or preventive counseling services or programs aimed at reducing identified risk factors and improving self-management, or community-based lifestyle interventions to reduce health risks and promote self-management and wellness, including weight loss, physical activity, smoking cessation, fall prevention, and nutrition.
            `(G) *Any other element determined appropriate by the Secretary.*​.
.
.
`(4)       (H) *The Secretary shall issue guidance that--*
`(i) *identifies elements under paragraph (2) that are required to be provided to a beneficiary as part of their first visit for personalized prevention plan services*; and
            `(ii) establishes a yearly schedule for appropriate provision of such elements thereafter.'.​
The bolded bits are the source of the authority (granted by Congress) for CMS (inside HHS) to decide what the components of the annual wellness visit will be. Indeed, that guidance ordered by the law is what this regulation _is_. And regs _are_ subject to Congressional oversight.


----------



## Revere (Dec 29, 2010)

Congress should not so delegate.

The authority needs to be taken away.


----------



## Revere (Dec 29, 2010)

Is it a representative republic when Congress explicitly strips or votes down provisions like death panels or legislation like cap and tax, and unelected bureucrats implement them anyway?

No, that is not representative government.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 29, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Any agency that can write a regulation like this without the oversight of a real representative goverment needs to be de-funded.
> ...



did the democrats strip the provision out, or not when it became the topic du jour during the bills run up etc.?


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 29, 2010)

Trajan said:


> did the democrats strip the provision out, or not when it became the topic du jour during the bills run up etc.?



It was never in the ACA.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 29, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Any agency that can write a regulation like this without the oversight of a real representative goverment needs to be de-funded.
> ...



I do believe that if Obama shit on your dinner you would believe it was good for you.


----------



## TossObama (Dec 29, 2010)

Revere said:


> Is it a representative republic when Congress explicitly strips or votes down provisions like death panels or legislation like cap and tax, and unelected bureucrats implement them anyway?
> 
> No, that is not representative government.



***How about the unspoken part of this mess that forces us to accommodate their dope addictions by making dope "legal", rampant and deadly psychosis in what was once actually Medical Care and stripping away any and all protections that once kept all of us safe from scumbags like the Netherlands mentality? Normal decent people suddenly find themselves in violation of the "law" when they protest this garbage.

How about that "Christmas Gift" Planned Parenthood handed out this year -- a pre-paid Abortion card.

What we've got in positions of authority now seem to have serious Frontal Lobe damage to their brains FROM CHRONIC DRUG ABUSE. Nothing about ANYTHING that's being done is FOR the benefit of the American people, and we are being dragged around by the tail by a bunch of crazies.

I'll tell you one thing, Texas is Ticked Off. We've had enough and we are going to send Rick Perry to D.C. to clean this stinking mess up. And I guarantee you he ain't nobody a scumbag wants to deal with. This country is in such a mess Rick Perry is the only person in the country who can clean it up. And watch 'em duck and run when he shows up.


----------



## TossObama (Dec 29, 2010)

midcan5 said:


> End of life decisions are tough. We have some sense of this complex issue as our parents are still living, but all are in their eighties or above. My mom recently told the doctors she wants not another test or scan or drug or anything. She is 90 and while she can get around realizes they ain't gonna make her 35 again. Doctors are interested in prolonging life even against the wishes of the person and family, and sadly they are into money too, as hospitals do one expensive test after another. One fact of life that conservatives somehow fail to realize is without some regulatory structure life would be chaos. Dignity lost as the body exists, but the person is gone. There is nothing wrong with having these talks before that final breath and eternity.
> 
> "The new Medicare regulation covering physicians discussions with their patients about end-of-life issues is once again under attack by right-wing ideologues. The new rule is specifically designed to give patients the opportunity to explain their wishes about end-of-life care to their personal physicians. It represents a thoughtful and valuable step toward allowing patients to control decisions about their own health care."  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/29/opinion/l29medicare.html
> 
> ...



I don't know what 3rd world country you spewed from, but in this country our Doctors have NEVER been confined by any law that forces them or their Patients into any type of medical care. Furthermore, every Doctor that's worth his/her salt WANTS the Patient and the Family involved in the care.

So you tell me what this "end of life" crap is all about. It's about legalizing medical murder.


----------



## TossObama (Dec 29, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> For reference, the offending piece of the regulation (p. 238), regarding components of the new Medicare annual wellness visit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## TossObama (Dec 29, 2010)

Meister said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



*** Excuse me. Patients are being advised NOT to go in for the "Welcome to Medicare" visit and there are valid reasons why.

All that info goes into a central data base, and if the Patient records show there are no diseases to prevent harvesting, guess what -- upon expiration, that Patient gets harvested.

I have never seen a more dangerous and deadly "law" aimed at the American people, and it should not be tolerated.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 29, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > did the democrats strip the provision out, or not when it became the topic du jour during the bills run up etc.?
> ...



I see, so I'll ask the Q 2 different ways;

 it was never considered as part of the bill before it was voted upon, at any time? 

or- 

did the dems not go through with putting it the final bill for vote, when it became a question that garnered public review and became rightly or wrongly a source of consternation?


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 29, 2010)

TossObama said:


> Real Nurses have been rescuing Patients from scum like you in so-called "hospice". And golly, isn't it amazing that once a Patient is taken care of properly BY NURSES, they are no longer targets for medical murder.



You consider hospice care to be "medical murder"? 

That's stupid.

I take it you are involved the medical profession to some extent.  Have you ever visited a hospice and talked to hospice patients?  

You apparently wanted to attack another poster in your rant, you came off looking stupid in the process.

And this:  



> Folks, what Luissa doesn't want you to know is this: If you or your loved one has been forced into Medicare, you are not considered anything but government property. You and your family c*annot refuse or stop the harvesting of your body, nor can you refuse medical experimentation.* You cannot even refuse the "free" Medicare, nor can you send your Medicare card back.



Is beyond stupid.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 29, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> I'm sorry, but my father spent a week in a hospice where he was cared for as a human being should be. He actually improved enough that they told us he should go back to a constant care facility as it wasn't his time yet. I saw nothing from the staff but caring and understanding.



I have no idea what T.O.B. does in the medical profession (though I am sure they will tell us), but I haven't encountered anyone in healthcare who has such a low regard for hospice care.  It seems to be more in line of the "old school" mentality from the late 70's that made it so hard for hospice to gain credibility in the medical industry.  We are now decades away from that debate.

God forbid we try and alleviate suffering in a terminal patient.  They should just suffer excruciating pain until they die.  That's the way God would have wanted it.  

I am glad your father had access to hospice care.  I've spent some time in our local hospice talking with the patients.  I haven't met any of them (or their families) that weren't thankful for hospice.  That makes sense, as with any care, patients can refuse hospice if they want.  It's not forced on anyone.


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 29, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



Are you suggesting I'm giving Obama credit for the invention of the executive branch? Really, I'm not.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 29, 2010)

Here's a good example of the rationing employed by the NHS which their biggest fan, Dr. Berwick, will likely emulate.

The NHS will pay for the treatment of macular degeneration in only one eye of an elderly patient in order to save £1,500.

_Thousands of patients will be condemned to blindness because of a decision to ration the NHS treatment which could save their sight, leading charities warned last night.

They said that patients with macular degeneration, the most common cause of blindness in the elderly, would effectively have to lose the use of an eye before qualifying for therapy to save their remaining vision.

Their condemnation came as the NHS drug rationing body, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), recommended restrictions on funding a treatment for the condition.

Macular degeneration affects two million people in Britain. One version, wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD), can mean loss of sight in the affected eye within three to five months of diagnosis.

It is the principal cause of irreversible blindness in Britain but the sight of many sufferers can be saved at a cost of around £1,500 per patient if treated early enough.

AMD is caused by blood vessels growing under the central part of the retina. When they leak fluid, scar tissue forms and vision can be destroyed. Photodynamic-therapy (PDT) uses laser light to activate a drug, Visudyne, which seals the blood vessels and stops further damage.

It is routinely available in most European Union countries and in North America.

The treatment has been available in Britain for 18 months at 100 hospitals and 500 patients have been treated.

But now NICE's ruling says Visudyne should be used to maintain vision in only one eye in cases of age-related macular degeneration - either the better seeing one or the remaining functioning one where sight has been lost in the other...._

You must go blind in one eye before NHS will treat you | Mail Online



So after years of working and paying taxes, one's reward is half blindness in order to save the NHS £1,500.  If that's the government's attitude over a small amount of money, just think about how they will treat very expensive protocols.


----------



## Revere (Dec 29, 2010)

What is the Constitutional authority of the exectuve branch to order agencies to write rules which were explicitly voted down by the Legislative branch?


----------



## logical4u (Dec 29, 2010)

boedicca said:


> You are talking about the way it is now.
> 
> Under ObamaCare, there are dozens of agencies that will decide what is covered.   It's quite clear that where this is headed is that certain procedures will be denied to people over a certain age.
> 
> ...



That is the point.

Every time the government is given the power to control something that was controlled by the market, it messes it up.  It doesn't make it better.  It doesn't make it less expensive.  It ruins it.  All we are asking is that you take a serious look at the history of government-run or any other health-care that is administered by people that can subvert medical funds to another place and see what has happened.

When Hitler took office, everyone said that it was great.  He "fooled" the majority of the people.  After they continued to "give him" power and he showed his "real intentions", it was too late to stop him.  This "healthcare bill" is Hitler in the beginning stages.  If you stomp all over it now, and make sure the "power" is "limited", then we will not re-live history.  If you continue to support the government being able to tell you what you "must buy" and what you "must accept" for health care, you are welcoming that attitude into EVERY aspect of citizens' lives.  Personally, no thank you, I do not want some political hack that owes a hospital in my area a favor, so it directs all citizens within a 100 mile radius to "use" that hospital.  I do not want my care to be "earmarked" by any in congress.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 29, 2010)

TossObama said:


> I'll tell you one thing, Texas is Ticked Off. We've had enough and we are going to send Rick Perry to D.C. to clean this stinking mess up. And I guarantee you he ain't nobody a scumbag wants to deal with. This country is in such a mess Rick Perry is the only person in the country who can clean it up. And watch 'em duck and run when he shows up.



Oh, yeah.  That's just what America needs.  Another fucking president from Texas, because the last two were so great for our country.  

I am continually amused by the delusions of grandeur that some Texans have about their state.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 29, 2010)

boedicca said:


> Here's a good example of the rationing employed by the NHS which their biggest fan, Dr. Berwick, will likely emulate.
> 
> The NHS will pay for the treatment of macular degeneration in only one eye of an elderly patient in order to save £1,500.
> 
> ...



Thats an apocalyptic and marginal example. 

and, : "in the land of the  blind" and all that


----------



## logical4u (Dec 29, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > You are talking about the way it is now.
> ...



That is great, can we list you as one of the great "heroes" that condemned us into servitude, instead of citizenry.


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 29, 2010)

Revere said:


> What is the Constitutional authority of the exectuve branch to order agencies to write rules which were explicitly voted down by the Legislative branch?



What was voted down?


----------



## logical4u (Dec 29, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Would you trust the "GOP" to run "your" health care?


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 29, 2010)

logical4u said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



Look kids!  Hyperbole!


----------



## Revere (Dec 29, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> TossObama said:
> 
> 
> > I'll tell you one thing, Texas is Ticked Off. We've had enough and we are going to send Rick Perry to D.C. to clean this stinking mess up. And I guarantee you he ain't nobody a scumbag wants to deal with. This country is in such a mess Rick Perry is the only person in the country who can clean it up. And watch 'em duck and run when he shows up.
> ...



What's so delusional about a 4 Congressional seat shift to their state after the census?

Someone must be voting with their feet.


----------



## Meister (Dec 29, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



He's a paid goon, Ollie.  He's just doing his job


----------



## Revere (Dec 29, 2010)

Why have elections about government run health care if government can do whatever the hell it wants no matter the outcome of elections?


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 29, 2010)

Revere said:


> Why have elections about government run health care if government can do whatever the hell it wants no matter the outcome of elections?



Rule of law. Seats change hands, laws remain on the books. Did you think on November 3 all U.S. law would magically have disappeared?


----------



## Revere (Dec 29, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Why have elections about government run health care if government can do whatever the hell it wants no matter the outcome of elections?
> ...



If they are repealed or defunded, yes.


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 29, 2010)

Revere said:


> If they are repealed or defunded, yes.



What was the point of your question again?


----------



## Revere (Dec 29, 2010)

I forgot. Greenbeard is one of the whack jobs who think voters don't act in their best interest.  So you need agencies sneaking around to make people do what they would not otherwise want for themselves.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 29, 2010)

Trajan said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



???


----------



## Granny (Dec 29, 2010)

Maybe a little off-topic, but I heard a little about this on the news today - Meghan Kelly speaking with Alan Colmes.  Let's try to find a name that will disguise the problem for the sleeping masses.  Found this little piece regarding Obamacare:

Rebranding 'Obamacare' - Kaiser Health News


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 29, 2010)

Granny said:


> Maybe a little off-topic, but I heard a little about this on the news today - Meghan Kelly speaking with Alan Colmes.  Let's try to find a name that will disguise the problem for the sleeping masses.  Found this little piece regarding Obamacare:
> 
> Rebranding 'Obamacare' - Kaiser Health News



Nice story, and they are right, the rising health care premiums have nothing to do with the bill. Problem is that; wasn't this bill supposed to make health care* More* affordable?

I think somebody forgot all about that part of it.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 29, 2010)

Global warming= climate change, so why not?


----------



## boedicca (Dec 29, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Granny said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe a little off-topic, but I heard a little about this on the news today - Meghan Kelly speaking with Alan Colmes.  Let's try to find a name that will disguise the problem for the sleeping masses.  Found this little piece regarding Obamacare:
> ...




The only way this bill will reduce the cost of health care is to limit how much is spent on a person - which means denial of services which the patient and doctor agree are necessary.

The biggest target are elderly deemed to be in their last years of life. 30% of medicare is spent on caring for the last year of an elderly person's life.   This is Berwick's target.


----------



## Samson (Dec 29, 2010)

boedicca said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Granny said:
> ...



Pre-Qual to _Logan's Run_.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 30, 2010)

interesting article this morning;


'Death Panels' Come Back to Life
The FDA's restrictions on the drug Avastin are the beginning of a long slide toward health-care rationing.

Earlier this month, the Food and Drug Administration banned doctors from prescribing Avastin, a potent but costly drug, to patients with advanced-stage breast cancer. According to the FDA, the drug doesn't offer "a sufficient benefit in slowing disease progression to outweigh the significant risk to patients." Yet in some clinical trials Avastin has halted the spread of patients' cancer for months, providing respite to women and their families wracked by physical and psychological pain.

Ponder the FDA's justificationthere wasn't "sufficient" benefit in relation to Avastin's risks. Sufficient according to whom? For your wife, mother or daughter with terminal breast cancer, how much is an additional month of good-quality life worth? And what costs should be weighed? Like all drugs, Avastin has side effects including bleeding and high blood pressure. But isn't the real cost to these women a swifter, less dignified death? The FDA made a crude cost calculation; as everyone in Washington knows, it wouldn't have banned Avastin if the drug cost only $1,000 a year, instead of $90,000.

The Avastin story is emblematic of the government's broader agenda to ration care based on cost and politics. Once ObamaCare comes into full force, such rationing will be pervasive. When the government sees insufficient benefit, all but the wealthiest and most politically connected will have to go without.

Think it can't happen here? Think again. The 2009 stimulus bill spent $1.1 billion to research "comparative effectiveness." That's the same approach used by Britain's National Health Service to ration care, weighing cost against factors such as the ever-elusive concept of quality of life. And in an interview that year, President Obama confessed that "the tougher issue . . . is what do you do around things like end-of-life care." Pushed to articulate a solution, he replied, "It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels." He asserted that we needed "some independent group" to "give [us] some guidance."

He got that wish. ObamaCare created a commissionthe Independent Payment Advisory Boardtasked with limiting spending on Medicare. Its recommendations will be binding, unless Congress can come up with equivalent cost-savings of its own. For the first time, an unelected group will be empowered to limit health spending for the vulnerable elderly.

ObamaCare proponents derided fears of "death panels" as a product of tea partiers' fevered imagination, and they lamented when Congress removed the provision that would have provided for end-of-life counseling that might coax the elderly away from life-sustaining but expensive treatments. Not to fear: The administration has resurrected that provision through regulations, and Medicare will now pay for such counseling as part of elderly "wellness assessments." Yes, the "death panels" charge is somewhat crude, but combine cost-based rationing with end-of-life counseling and, well, here we are.

There's an enormous difference between government-imposed rationing and treatment decisions in the private sector. When insurance companies deny coveragefor example, on grounds that treatment is "experimental" or not "medically necessary"they do so based on contract language agreed to in advance by subscribers. If you don't like what a particular insurer offers, you're free to shop around. Moreover, you and your doctor have extensive rights to appeal the insurer's denial, and wealthy patients can pay for the care out of their own pockets.

But when the government denies approval of a medication, there will often be no appeal and no escape. For example, while doctors can still prescribe Avastin for other kinds of cancerallowing them to prescribe it "off-label" to breast-cancer patientsthis is merely fortuitous, something that's not the case with many other drugs. The next time the FDA bans a drug because its benefits are not "sufficient," patients may not be so lucky. FDA disapproval will be the equivalent of the emperor's thumbs-down.

more at-
Rivkin and Foley: 'Death Panels' Come Back to Life - WSJ.com


----------



## Trajan (Dec 30, 2010)

Samson said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



yup.....when the crystal flickers its time to go....


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 30, 2010)

Samson said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSnLU9nyFSA[/ame]


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

Trajan said:


> interesting article this morning;
> 
> 
> 'Death Panels' Come Back to Life
> ...



This has been covered before.  Private insurance companies adhere to the "5%, 5 Year" rule too.  Meaning that if a drug doesn't give you a 5% chance at a 5 year mortality, they won't pay for it either.


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 30, 2010)

> Earlier this month, the Food and Drug Administration banned doctors from prescribing Avastin...





It's so hard to tell idiocy from dishonesty these days.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 30, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> > Earlier this month, the Food and Drug Administration banned doctors from prescribing Avastin...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe they misspoke.
FDA Delays Breast Cancer Drug Avastin Decision
FDA Delays Breast Cancer Drug Avastin Decision - CBS News


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 30, 2010)

Trajan said:


> interesting article this morning;
> 
> 
> 'Death Panels' Come Back to Life
> ...



Did you see where this "article" was published?

In the OPINION section.

And in the first two paragraphs, there are multiple examples of why this is _opinion_ not based on _facts_.



> Earlier this month, *the Food and Drug Administration banned doctors from  prescribing Avastin*, *(doctors were not banned from prescribing the medication)* a potent but costly drug, to patients with  advanced-stage breast cancer. According to the FDA, the drug doesn't  offer "a sufficient benefit in slowing disease progression to outweigh  the significant risk to patients." Yet *in some clinical trials Avastin  has halted the spread of patients' cancer for months*, *(it wasn't some trials.  It was one trial, that was paid for by the manufacturer and used to get accelerated approval.  Four subsequent studies showed no benefit in halting the spread of patient's cancer)* *providing respite  to women and their families wracked by physical and psychological pain* *(Avastin does not treat pain and I do not know of any study which showed that the use of Avastin compared to not using Avastin resulted in improved pain relief)*.
> 
> Ponder the FDA's justificationthere wasn't "sufficient" benefit in  relation to Avastin's risks. Sufficient according to whom? For your  wife, mother or daughter with terminal breast cancer, how much is an  additional month of good-quality life worth? And what costs should be  weighed? Like all drugs, Avastin has side effects including *bleeding* *(fatal hemorrhage)* and  high blood pressure. But isn't the real cost to these women a swifter,  less dignified death? *The FDA made a crude cost calculation; as everyone  in Washington knows, it wouldn't have banned Avastin if the drug cost  only $1,000 a year, instead of $90,000.* *(I have yet to be seen any FDA document or statement which mentions the cost of this medication.)*



This is a perfect example of what happens when people _FEEL _instead of _THINK_.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 30, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > interesting article this morning;
> ...



I am well aware of what section of the paper I  am reading,  did you see my comment?

and they are correct btw , it can still be prescribed for other forms of cancer but NOT breast cancer....


----------



## Trajan (Dec 30, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> > Earlier this month, the Food and Drug Administration banned doctors from prescribing Avastin...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



tell me about it...wanna take a shot at this or stand on your original deflection?

Quote: Originally Posted by Greenbeard View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Trajan View Post

trajan-


> did the democrats strip the provision out, or not when it became the topic du jour during the bills run up etc.?




greenbeard-
It was never in the ACA.

Trajan-


> I see, so I'll ask the Q 2 different ways;
> 
> it was never considered as part of the bill before it was voted upon, at any time?
> 
> ...


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 30, 2010)

There's an active thread right now about how the Medicare bill containing the original end-of-life planning consultation provisions that this month's reg extends garnered two-thirds of the vote in _each_ chamber of Congress. And in the previous session, when Democrats held slimmer majorities. Your controversy's as phony as your error-laden WSJ opinion pieces.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 30, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> There's an active thread right now about how the Medicare bill containing the original end-of-life planning consultation provisions that this month's reg extends garnered two-thirds of the vote in _each_ chamber of Congress. And in the previous session, when Democrats held slimmer majorities. Your controversy's as phony as your error-laden WSJ opinion pieces.





uh huh. To bad I have not created any controversy,  in fact I have said here before,  a couple times now that I don't see a huge problem with end of life yada yada, but how it looks may be problematic, providing an incentive etc.,  to the public at large. In that its not exactly above board in some eyes, considering it was pulled when it became an issue. So keep the smoke screen. 


you know what Iam  asking, 3 posts now,  its plain and you can answer plainly, no obfuscation, yes or no. Did they pull it? 




remember this Q?



> One last Q if you will- how would you describe the HHR&#8217;s and Sebelius explanations of, detail, general output and honesty as it applies to Obama care?
> 
> Lets consider 10 being primo?
> 
> ...




why do you think I asked you this? 

Now we know.
This is exactly what I am referring to. Your apparent obfuscation exemplifies the poor job the the gov is doing and are apparently unable to cope with the fact the gov. is its own worse enemy.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > interesting article this morning;
> ...



Damn.  You have to go and get all evidenced based medicine on us.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 30, 2010)

Trajan said:


> and they are correct btw , it can still be prescribed for other forms of cancer but NOT breast cancer....



It CAN be prescribed for breast cancer.  It is just not FDA approved.

We prescribe a whole shitload of things that are not FDA approved.

All that approval does is allow a drug company to list that indication on the medications package insert.  No approval, no indication.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 30, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > and they are correct btw , it can still be prescribed for other forms of cancer but NOT breast cancer....
> ...



I understand that. I believe that without the fda blessing it will not be approved by ins. co's....(?)

there are prices out there btw for avastin, and no I have not seen the fda speak to the price.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 30, 2010)

Trajan said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



Correct.  It will not be approved by insurance companies because they will not approve any medications that has been proven to be ineffective.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 30, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...



do they approve payments for other drugs that are not approved by the fda?

Q-
what do you think of the Euro. reg. comm. still believing that avastin should remain an option when combined with  paclitaxel(sp?) for breast cancer patients?


----------



## boedicca (Dec 30, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...





It hasn't proven to be ineffective.

The FDA found that the benefits may not be outweighed by negative side effects.

The women with advanced stages of breast cancer likely disagree.  Avastin has improved length and quality of life for such women; and it is quite reasonable to assume that if Avastin cost  $100 per year instead of $90,000, the FDA would not be making this type of benefit vs. risk assessment.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 30, 2010)

boedicca said:


> and it is quite reasonable to *assume *that if Avastin cost  $100 per year instead of $90,000, the FDA would not be making this type of benefit vs. risk assessment.



However, if you did that, you would make an ass out of you and me (well, only you), since you haven't ever shown me any proof that the FDA has considered the cost of the medication.

And if you think that the FDA just ignores ineffective cheap medicines, how do you explain the fact that, in 2009, the FDA removed all of the indications for use of over the counter cold medications for children under age 12?


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Dec 30, 2010)

boedicca said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



Actually, it has been proven ineffective, which you'd know if you actually read the information, rather than spitting out talking points. The FDA is removing their approval for it because... (drumroll) it doesn't keep people alive longer.

FDA Ruling On Avastin A 'Critical Test' For Agency, New York Times Editorial Says


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 31, 2010)

theDoctorisIn said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...



Damn, now you've got to go all "Evidenced Based Medicine" on us too!

It's like you jokers actually know a little bit of something about this as opposed to spitting out lame talking points!

God forbid we demand a medication be able to show that it actually works for an indication.


----------



## Jackson (Dec 31, 2010)

Stephanie said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



Stephanie, I had to do the same thng with my mother after years of Alzheimers.  I could no more speak so offensively when speaking about my mother than I could anyone.  Was I angry?  No.  Does it stay with me? Yes.  But I don't blame any one for that was her choice.  Both my mother and father had discussed this with me.  So lay off with the rudeness and faux anger.  Now, YOU are dismissed.


----------



## Rozman (Dec 31, 2010)

You gotta know when the family leaves the Hospital the staff we be in the old persons room with the forms." Are you sure Mrs.Smith you want apple sauce for desert? Please sign here we need the room.I mean you have a nice room"

The family returns the next day to see someone else is in Nannah's room....


----------



## boedicca (Dec 31, 2010)

theDoctorisIn said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...




That's not what the press release says.

FDA begins process to remove breast cancer indication from Avastin label


----------



## Revere (Dec 31, 2010)

boedicca said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



And they waited until after the election for a reason.


----------



## TossObama (Dec 31, 2010)

Zoom-boing said:


> Hmmm, perhaps the nurse was wrong.  Looks like that won't happen until 2013.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



***They WANT heart attack readmissions because heart attack victims are on the organ harvesting list. That is per the disgusting Medicare committee that happens to be in charge of all this mess. Some Fire Department ambulance services have already been ordered to target heart attack victims. They want more organs harvested.

And none of that translates to proper care of heart attack patients in hospitals that are going along with that heinous crap.

If your loved one or if you suffer a heart attack, make sure a family member is with your loved one day and night in the hospital and make it clear no organ harvesting is to be done. The problem with Medicare patients is that they don't have the legal right to refuse harvesting. Hopefully you have a Nurse in the family who can monitor the medical care because the hospitals who have signed onto this heinous garbage will indeed deliberately kill the heart patient just to harvest the organs.

You do have the right to remove and transport your loved one to a different medical facility that does not engage in harvesting and medical murder. Right now is when you need to find out which hospitals do, and which don't and won't and/or find a doctor who can and will treat the patient at home.

Heart patients are the goodie bag for organ harvesters. They don't want liver disease, kidney disease, cancer, AIDS or addicts and drunks. They are picky. And they know 
heart disease is a top disease in the USA, so there you go with their goodie goodie.


----------



## TossObama (Dec 31, 2010)

I should have also added smokers to the list they don't want for harvesting.

Now you know why they are demanding everyone quit smoking.

I'm not quitting.


----------



## jillian (Dec 31, 2010)

yes... that's it... 

it's a conspiracy


----------



## TossObama (Dec 31, 2010)

Who said any of this was a conspiracy? We are talking facts.

You might want to reconsider using the "conspiracy" word in your political banter. Particularly on subjects you obviously know nothing about.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 31, 2010)

TossObama said:


> ***They WANT heart attack readmissions because heart attack victims are on the organ harvesting list. That is per the disgusting Medicare committee that happens to be in charge of all this mess. Some Fire Department ambulance services have already been ordered to target heart attack victims. They want more organs harvested.



You are full of shit.



> And none of that translates to proper care of heart attack patients in hospitals that are going along with that heinous crap.
> 
> If your loved one or if you suffer a heart attack, make sure a family member is with your loved one day and night in the hospital and make it clear no organ harvesting is to be done. The problem with Medicare patients is that they don't have the legal right to refuse harvesting. Hopefully you have a Nurse in the family who can monitor the medical care because the hospitals who have signed onto this heinous garbage will indeed deliberately kill the heart patient just to harvest the organs.



You are full of shit.



> You do have the right to remove and transport your loved one to a different medical facility that does not engage in harvesting and medical murder. Right now is when you need to find out which hospitals do, and which don't and won't and/or find a doctor who can and will treat the patient at home.
> 
> Heart patients are the goodie bag for organ harvesters. They don't want liver disease, kidney disease, cancer, AIDS or addicts and drunks. They are picky. And they know
> heart disease is a top disease in the USA, so there you go with their goodie goodie.



You are full of shit.



TossObama said:


> I should have also added smokers to the list they don't want for harvesting.
> 
> Now you know why they are demanding everyone quit smoking.
> 
> I'm not quitting.



You haven't said what it is you do in healthcare (if anything), but if you think the reason that the medical establishment is trying to reduce smoking is for some massive, illegal, immoral, unethical organ harvesting operation than................

You are full of shit.

Happy New Year.  Consider getting back on your meds.


----------



## TossObama (Dec 31, 2010)

I wish I were "full of shit". This is a way bigger problem than that.

I also wish you were smart enough to do research.

But you aren't ...


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 31, 2010)

TossObama said:


> I wish I were "full of shit". This is a way bigger problem than that.
> 
> I also wish you were smart enough to do research.
> 
> But you aren't ...



And I wish you'd stop lying.  Under the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984, organ donation is left up to the states.  This isn't a federal program.

Organs have to be donated.  That means someone has to consent to donate an organ.  Under law, if no consent is given, organs can not be harvested.  

What you are describing are illegal activities that you claim are going on across the entire nation.

You are full of shit.  

Do some of your own research.  You can track down the original bill, if you want.  

If what you claim is happening is indeed happening, you should have a little more than your word to back it up.

You keep insinuating that you have experience in health care.

I doubt it.

But keep smoking.  Also, per your previous post, if you really want to keep your organs from being harvested; catch HIV and pound a fifth of whiskey every night.  Then you'll have all your organ systems covered.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Dec 31, 2010)

boedicca said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



Wow, you're right. The press release says "We're dropping Avastin cause it's too expensive and we want to kill Granny".

Wait. No, it *does* say exactly what I said...



> The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced today that the agency is recommending removing the breast cancer indication from the label for Avastin (bevacizumab) because the drug has not been shown to be safe and effective for that use.
> 
> The agency is making this recommendation after reviewing the results of four clinical studies of Avastin in women with breast cancer and determining that the data indicate that the drug does not prolong overall survival in breast cancer patients or provide a sufficient benefit in slowing disease progression to outweigh the significant risk to patients.


----------



## AquaAthena (Dec 31, 2010)

Luissa said:


> Stephanie quit while you are ahead, you have no clue what you are talking about.
> 
> First off this programs would be good, especially now that baby boomers are starting to get dementia and alzheimers. These doctors will only be ADVISING on what a patient should do when they are close to death, so maybe they don't waste large amounts of money on treatments that will not help, or could speed up the death process.



While I do agree with the bottom line, I disagree that the government should be involved with it *at all.*  It would be a step towards the ambitions of Karl Marx and the progressive agenda.

I love the "Death with Dignity Law" Oregon has. If I am diagnosed with a terminal illness, and with the agreement of two clinicians,  that within six months I, or my beloved aunt, would die, we would have the assistance of our physician, as long as no "help" was involved other than writing a prescription for meds that would help us, at our will, "die with dignity." We would have to be able to hold and to swallow our own pills without assistance from our docs. They cannot, as of this posting, assist in any other way. It is very humane and offers the freedom many people desire. Peaceful and kind and "so long."


----------



## TossObama (Dec 31, 2010)

Oh by the way, how much of the Bill have your read? I'm guessing not a page of it.

And how many of the committee meetings have you personally witnessed?? I'm guessing two things on this question; none, or you joined with the psychotics.

As for meds, that's an interesting point you brought up. That matter appears to be a psychological projection on your part. I do not take meds. Don't need any. And YOU???

But lets ask you a simple question. The Board members of the "committee" who makes all the decisions for all of us supposed ignoramuses and those perceived to be "full of shit" -- which one, if any, was actually appointed to that committee because of brilliance rather than political affiliations??

And the Chair of that committee is what? She claims to be a worm hunter who also claims SHE did the research on a dire illness associated with worms?? You gotta be kidding me. Show me exactly what she personally DID in that research. What she did was link in with Jimmy Carter and all of a sudden she's an "expert" on Medicare and national health care issues? I don't think so, pal.

If you think for one moment that brilliant researchers are happy about idiots dragging all of us around by the tail with their wild and wooly claims, you are sadly mistaken. A bunch of loosers are on that committee -- people who in no way could get a job in a legit research facility anywhere. So they end up in politics on seemingly impressive committees making decisions that are, in any mans language, grossly harmful to all of society. The very lives of innocent people are on the line, buster, and I don't like that b.s. one bit. Not a smidgen of it. 

And by the way, since you obviously aren't up on what's going on, the issue of some Fire Departments being ordered to target Heart Patient transport for the gross and disgusting organ harvesting, to such participating hospitals -- was on the news.

YOU need to do some research, pal.


----------



## TossObama (Dec 31, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> TossObama said:
> 
> 
> > I wish I were "full of shit". This is a way bigger problem than that.
> ...



*** That all changed under the new Medicare law. 

READ IT.


----------



## TossObama (Dec 31, 2010)

AquaAthena said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie quit while you are ahead, you have no clue what you are talking about.
> ...



***You sound like you've been terrorized by really bad medical care -- or someone you love has been.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Dec 31, 2010)

TossObama said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > TossObama said:
> ...



I did. And you're full of shit.

Care to point out the relevant points in the bill that you claim do this? 

Of course not.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Dec 31, 2010)

AquaAthena said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie quit while you are ahead, you have no clue what you are talking about.
> ...



Please feel free to point out where government is "involved", except for paying your doctor for the advice _if you're on medicare_.

Don't believe everything the noise machine spits out.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 31, 2010)

theDoctorisIn said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



why the skullduggery? why did they pull it when it became an issue just to slip it back in now? why didn't they make a stand and explain that they are providing  an incentive for such?


----------



## AquaAthena (Dec 31, 2010)

TossObama said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



 Nooo, not even. lol.


----------



## TossObama (Dec 31, 2010)

theDoctorisIn said:


> TossObama said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



***No you did not read the Bill nor have you followed the Committee actions. Who do you think you are kidding?

READ ALL OF THE BILL AND THE MEDICARE BILL(S) AND ADDENDUMS.

If you had a valid point of contention, you would not be using terms such as "full of shit" or calling me a "liar".


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Dec 31, 2010)

TossObama said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > TossObama said:
> ...



If it actually was in the bill, you'd have no problem pointing it out. Since you can't seem to do that, I'll stick with my reading of the bill, which of course has NOTHING like that in it.

Therefore, you are a liar.

Or just incredibly gullible, and heard Alex Jones talking about it (or someone else like him).


----------



## TossObama (Dec 31, 2010)

Folks, regarding the claim that "a doctor" will be paid for discussing your end of life choices with you, do any of you have a clue how many people call themselves "a doctor"?? You are assuming an M.D. is going to do that (which they already do now) and that this Bill just "pays" the doctor to do that. 

The County hospital we sent a team into to check out this claim turned up some interesting things. M.D.s were not involved in such little chats. Hospital Chaplains were -- Doctors of Divinity. They also had the forms for the patient to sign giving others the right to make decisions about their medical care.

Nothing in those little chats was noted that in any way made mention of medical murder or harvesting yet it is happening in that hospital.

Everyone needs to make the effort to find out for yourself what the heck is going on in Patient Care RIGHT NOW. Go to your local private hospitals and your local county hospitals and find out, and take someone smart with you who knows mumbo jumbo and can and will ratchet anyone trying to mumbo jumbo you, so you can get to the truth. 

Your private physicians have way too much to loose by killing off their patients, and those with successful practices don't participate in the Obama programs. But, hospitals are out of their control. And beware of those clinics that "treat the elderly". You might decide to stay away from those places. Choose wisely, and when you make an appointment with a Doctor, and a Physician's Assistant comes in to "treat" you, walk out the door and never go back. 

One step further, this business of medical murders under so-called hospice care -- it's a sad state of affairs to note that way too many families refuse to care for their loved ones and in fact WANT them knocked off. 

One of the most outrageous things I've seen families do is ask or tell the Patient they want to "go see Jesus". It is no understatement to say Medical Professionals have seen and heard so many idiotic family manipulations and designs to medically knock off their sick loved ones, that it can be determined easily, and early on, who is going to be demanding the medical murder of their loved one.

And it's always a harp about "dignity" or "suffering" or "Jesus" when in the background they are checking out google to see what overdose will work the best, and demanding that the doctor prescribe that dangerous garbage.

I've seen and heard family members ask how long a Patient is going to live, and nobody with a brain or ethics can or would answer that question. What such a question is about is, the family member wants out from under that business of caring for a family member -- or wants the will read. What kind of people have we got in this country now? I can tell you exactly. People who have lost their humanity and have no clue what family is about and many if not most are indeed psychotic -- whether you want to believe or hear that, it's a fact. Love is not an option for those people. 

All Patients have to be well treated and protected. No if's ands or butts. They must be. It is the duty and responsibility of every American to deliberately choose proper care and see that proper care is carried out. Proper care is not ever defined as medical murder or harvesting the body.

We have a really bad situation in the country right now where significant information has been withheld from the public on these very ugly issues of medical murder, organ harvesting, medical experimentation -- all of it without the knowledge or consent that is normally required, and in fact consent is prohibited in Medicare which gives unbridled liberties for crazies to do as they please to any Medicare patient.

If you are a Medicare patient, and you have a good trusted doctor, stay with that doctor. But also find out, as I have stated previously, if your community Fire Department, and your private and county hospitals are participating in any medical action that is not authorized by you, the Patient -- such as medical murder, harvesting and medical experiments, by any term or action.  

This is serious and it's as real as it gets, and it has to stop. If the lines continue to be blurred on murder, it is nothing short of our fault. 

You can stop this.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jan 1, 2011)

TossObama said:


> READ ALL OF THE BILL AND THE MEDICARE BILL(S) AND ADDENDUMS.



Anyone else remember when "read the bill!" first became the refrain for idiots who couldn't back up their absurd insinuations? Ah, memories.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 1, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> TossObama said:
> 
> 
> > READ ALL OF THE BILL AND THE MEDICARE BILL(S) AND ADDENDUMS.
> ...



You mean like, last year when Pelosi told us we had to pass it to see what was in it?


----------



## Greenbeard (Jan 1, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> You mean like, last year when Pelosi told us we had to pass it to see what was in it?



"Us"? You're a county-level health official?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 1, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > You mean like, last year when Pelosi told us we had to pass it to see what was in it?
> ...



US, the people of the United States of America. Why must you be a smart ass? Emphasis on ass.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jan 1, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> US, the people of the United States of America. Why must you be a smart ass? Emphasis on ass.



Why must you use quotes with no regard for their context or audience?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 1, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > US, the people of the United States of America. Why must you be a smart ass? Emphasis on ass.
> ...



How can you defend this statement? Regardless of who she was talking to. It's one of the most stupid things any Speaker has ever said. But go ahead and shove your head in further, I'm sure there's a little room left.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jan 1, 2011)

AquaAthena said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie quit while you are ahead, you have no clue what you are talking about.
> ...



I agree with the Death with Dignity act as well and wish more states would adopt it.  It's been around for about a decade.  Relatively few patient's have used it.  However, the ones that did were in obvious pain.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jan 1, 2011)

TossObama said:


> Oh by the way, how much of the Bill have your read? I'm guessing not a page of it.
> 
> And how many of the committee meetings have you personally witnessed?? I'm guessing two things on this question; none, or you joined with the psychotics.
> 
> ...



You keep claiming to have some inside scope about this.  You don't.  You also claim hospice is some sort of evil phenomenum.  It's not.  You don't sound like anyone who actually does anything in health care.  You sound like some crazy-assed uber-uber-uber pro-life zealot who can't wrap their mind around the fact that other people's decisions about the end of their life are none of your business.  

You also claim that organs can be harvested without a person's consent.

That's an illegal act.

You are full of shit.



> And by the way, since you obviously aren't up on what's going on, the issue of some Fire Departments being ordered to target Heart Patient transport for the gross and disgusting organ harvesting, to such participating hospitals -- was on the news.



Well that should be easy to prove.



> YOU need to do some research, pal.



And you need to stop spouting bullshit and thinking you are going to fool people who know better.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jan 1, 2011)

TossObama said:


> Folks, regarding the claim that "a doctor" will be paid for discussing your end of life choices with you, do any of you have a clue how many people call themselves "a doctor"?? You are assuming an M.D. is going to do that (which they already do now) and that this Bill just "pays" the doctor to do that.



Dumbfuck:

While anyone with a doctoral degree can call themselves "doctor", only the only "doctors" with PRACTICE RIGHTS to conduct this are M.D.s or D.O.s.  



> The County hospital we sent a team into to check out this claim turned up some interesting things. M.D.s were not involved in such little chats. Hospital Chaplains were -- Doctors of Divinity. They also had the forms for the patient to sign giving others the right to make decisions about their medical care.



That should be easy to support.  



> Nothing in those little chats was noted that in any way made mention of medical murder or harvesting yet it is happening in that hospital.
> 
> Everyone needs to make the effort to find out for yourself what the heck is going on in Patient Care RIGHT NOW. Go to your local private hospitals and your local county hospitals and find out, and take someone smart with you who knows mumbo jumbo and can and will ratchet anyone trying to mumbo jumbo you, so you can get to the truth.



I think I see the problem here......... 



> Your private physicians have way too much to loose by killing off their patients, and those with successful practices don't participate in the Obama programs. But, hospitals are out of their control. And beware of those clinics that "treat the elderly". You might decide to stay away from those places. Choose wisely, and when you make an appointment with a Doctor, and a Physician's Assistant comes in to "treat" you, walk out the door and never go back.



Why?  PA's provide care to a lot of people in the country.  They also don't claim to be "Doctors".  PA's introduce themselves to patient's as such.  As do Nurse Practitioners.



> One step further, this business of medical murders under so-called hospice care -- it's a sad state of affairs to note that way too many families refuse to care for their loved ones and in fact WANT them knocked off.



Utter bullshit.  Patients don't go to hospice unless they are terminal.  Do you think they would live but for hospice care?

Your a frigging idiot.



> One of the most outrageous things I've seen families do is ask or tell the Patient they want to "go see Jesus". It is no understatement to say Medical Professionals have seen and heard so many idiotic family manipulations and designs to medically knock off their sick loved ones, that it can be determined easily, and early on, who is going to be demanding the medical murder of their loved one.



Family members with ulterior motives have nothing to do with medical care and medical care providers don't get in the middle of the decision making process that families go through.  They just do their best to respect everyone's wishes.

You would know that if you were actually in health care.



> And it's always a harp about "dignity" or "suffering" or "Jesus" when in the background they are checking out google to see what overdose will work the best, and demanding that the doctor prescribe that dangerous garbage.



LMAO!  Yes.  Physicians take medical advice from family members.  That's exactly how it works.  



> I've seen and heard family members ask how long a Patient is going to live, and nobody with a brain or ethics can or would answer that question. What such a question is about is, the family member wants out from under that business of caring for a family member -- or wants the will read. What kind of people have we got in this country now? I can tell you exactly. People who have lost their humanity and have no clue what family is about and many if not most are indeed psychotic -- whether you want to believe or hear that, it's a fact. Love is not an option for those people.
> 
> All Patients have to be well treated and protected. No if's ands or butts. They must be. It is the duty and responsibility of every American to deliberately choose proper care and see that proper care is carried out. Proper care is not ever defined as medical murder or harvesting the body.
> 
> ...



Damn right.  Call your state Attorney General.  Which is what you should be doing instead of wasting our times with this utter bullshit.  If you've got the evidence, contact the authorities.  

The activities you are describing are illegal.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jan 1, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> How can you defend this statement?



She was speaking to operational folks: policy implementers. These are indeed people who will become familiar with the tools made available to them in the ACA primarily through experience, not through the tit-for-tat bullshit that so fascinates most of the posters here. It's only a stupid statement if you misrepresent it, as you do, as some kind of taunt at the electorate instead of a speech to boots-on-the-ground folks represented by NACo. Insofar as there's no dearth of dishonest folks like yourself out there, I'll agree that it was stupid of her to say something whose meaning is so easily distorted.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jan 1, 2011)

TossObama said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm, perhaps the nurse was wrong.  Looks like that won't happen until 2013.
> ...





I seriously doubt anyone wants to harvest any organ of my 83 year old mother.  No offense but you're coming across as a paranoid dork.


----------



## Trajan (Jan 1, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > How can you defend this statement?
> ...



you should really think twice before casting aspersions ala "dishonest folks". Post #225 , still waiting for an answer.


----------



## Meister (Jan 1, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > How can you defend this statement?
> ...



I'm trying to figure out just how much you get paid for your bullshit?  Your no hobbyist on this subject, and this isn't the only forum which you post on.  You are very disengenuous with the the bottom line of this Bill.  There is a lot to this Bill that can be manipulated because it's vague as to the wording.  One would think that with 2400 pages, all the I's would have been dotted and all the T's would have been crossed....but they're not....and for a very good reason, and you know it.  If anybody on this board misrepresents, is dishonest, and distorts, that would be the hired goon, known as "greenbeard".


----------



## geauxtohell (Jan 2, 2011)

Meister said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Ah, the old "anyone who disagrees with me must be a paid shill" bit.  

Nice.


----------



## Meister (Jan 2, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



So YOU don't read his posts.
Nice


----------



## geauxtohell (Jan 2, 2011)

Meister said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Oh, he admitted to being a paid poster in a post?

Because, short of that, my original snarkness still stands.


----------



## Meister (Jan 2, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



I disagree with you, but I don't call you a paid goon, G.  Feeling left out? 
Like I said....he is no hobbyist with this Bill.


----------



## jillian (Jan 2, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



there are far more people on this board i would think are paid shills before i would think of greenbeard.


----------



## jillian (Jan 2, 2011)

Meister said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



maybe he's actually read it... unlike the people talking about 'death panels'.

how much do you think TPS gets paid per post? or USArmyRetard?


----------



## geauxtohell (Jan 2, 2011)

Meister said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



You shouldn't accuse people of things unless you have more than your own paranoid suspicions to back them up.

It's bad form.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jan 2, 2011)

jillian said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Yeah.  Now educating yourself about a piece of information = being a paid shill.

Nice.

I love the conceit that drives this stupidity:  "I can't argue against you, so I'll accuse you of being hooker to undermine your credibility!"


----------



## Meister (Jan 2, 2011)

jillian said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



TPS, and USA.R. I would call wingnuts...I would never call greenbeard a wingnut.  I doubt that anyone who has read the bill has the details down the way greenbeard does, Jillian.  My feelings about this bill with the number of pages, and still so much left for interpretation because of lack of wording is a failure, but an intended failure which most from the left will never admit to.


----------



## Meister (Jan 2, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



I think I will decide what "I" should or shouldn't do and not leave it up to a person such as yourself to tell me what "I" should or shouldn't do.  I certainly don't tell "YOU" what "YOU" should or shouldn't do.  It's a political message board.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jan 2, 2011)

Meister said:


> I think I will decide what "I" should or shouldn't do and not leave up to a person such as yourself to tell me what "I" should or shouldn't do.  I certainly don't tell "YOU" what "YOU" should or shouldn't do.  It's a political message board.



Yeah, no shit.

I am just telling "YOU" that a poster looks like a dumbass when they pull this crap.  

Obviously, "YOU" can do whatever "YOU" want.


----------



## Meister (Jan 2, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > I think I will decide what "I" should or shouldn't do and not leave up to a person such as yourself to tell me what "I" should or shouldn't do.  I certainly don't tell "YOU" what "YOU" should or shouldn't do.  It's a political message board.
> ...



"You" have a right to "your" opinion, gotohell.
"I" have my opinion about you, also.  Ironically, they are about the same.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jan 2, 2011)

Meister said:


> I doubt that anyone who has read the bill has the details down the way greenbeard does, Jillian.



It helps to read it more than once. But thanks!


----------



## Trajan (Jan 2, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


----------



## geauxtohell (Jan 2, 2011)

Meister said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Aren't we melodramatic?  You don't know me, save for what I post on here.  

At any rate, get down with your bad-self if you want to play the lightweight.


----------



## jillian (Jan 2, 2011)

Meister said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



i'll respectfully disagree. they act like paid shills, posting thread after thread of trash, imo as do a couple of others. i know there was one person who absolutely mentioned that they got paid per post and per hit on their troll threads. i can't remember offhand who it was, but it might have been USARetard.

do you know what greenbeard does for a living? is he an attorney in the health field? a hospital administrator? an attorney who took a class that dealt with the subject in CLE? in the insurance business? is he a law student? a college student?

all you have to do is read the section of the bill in question and you know that the whole 'death panel' argument is a fraud.

there isn't "so much left for interpretation", my friend. there is just propaganda distorting what it is because the terms 'death panel' and 'obamacare' resonate.


----------



## Trajan (Jan 2, 2011)

jillian said:


> maybe he's actually read it... unlike the people talking about 'death panels'.



I am sure he has, I am not sure this is really in question, but reading it doesn't make his opinion of its 'affect' or 'effect' any more or less credible than mine or yours,  philosophical outlook vis vis big gov. etc. is irreconcilable and thats fine, we are past that. 

There's a lot lost in translation here.......the constant claims of misunderstanding and the spooky death panel diatribe are due to the lack of ability of some to communicate  effectively AND with intellectual honestly.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jan 2, 2011)

Trajan said:


> theres a difference between say education and 'advocation' btw.



You're right, I'm the only one on the board with an opinion about the value of the provisions in this law. I'll try to be as impartial as the rest of you in the future.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jan 2, 2011)

Trajan said:


> theres a difference between say education and 'advocation' btw.



You educate yourself to advocate.  Just because you advocate doesn't mean you are doing so for financial interest.  That is the point.  Accusing someone of doing so, short of some real evidence, is idiotic.  



> and this is new? or exclusive?



Just new to this thread.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jan 2, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > theres a difference between say education and 'advocation' btw.
> ...



Greenbeard,

You fucked this all up.  Next time try to appear a little more ignorant and stick to the pre-approved talking points (i.e. "Death Panals") and you will be given the credibility you deserve.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jan 2, 2011)

jillian said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



I just find it funny that, apparently, ignorance is the new standard for being taken seriously on this matter.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



the new way of looking at things is a liberal way of doing things care to try again?


----------



## Meister (Jan 2, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



One would have to be ignorant to take you seriously.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jan 2, 2011)

Meister said:


> One would have to be ignorant to take you seriously.



Who paid you to make that comment? Who's bankrolling your attempts to discredit geauxtohell? The people deserve to know!


----------



## geauxtohell (Jan 2, 2011)

Meister said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



To paraphrase you:

Have you been reading your own posts?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > One would have to be ignorant to take you seriously.
> ...



It doesn't take a genus to figure out geauxtohell discredits himself


----------



## Meister (Jan 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



And, it doesn't take a genius to figure out greenbeard, either.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jan 2, 2011)

Meister said:


> And, it doesn't take a genius to figure out greenbeard, either.



You're not fooling me, I've heard about you guys. What I'm wondering is if you get paid more for lowering the discourse more or if there's some other kind of system at work.

Unfounded silly accusations are fun!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

Meister said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



You can't fool anyone who has common sense.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jan 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Oh, look.

Poindexter showed up.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



ok pee wee go to your playhouse.


----------



## Modbert (Jan 2, 2011)

Meister said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



And it doesn't take a genius to see you're taking the opinion of a guy who has called for the mass genocide of Muslims seriously.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

Modbert said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



OK adolph.


----------



## Modbert (Jan 2, 2011)

Geaux and Greenbeard have made probably the most insightful and intelligent posts in this thread, but of course we all know how one should stick to simple political talking points instead.


----------



## Modbert (Jan 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> OK adolph.



So says the guy who openly believes innocent men, women, and children should be killed just because they are a believer in a specific religion.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

Modbert said:


> Geaux and Greenbeard have made probably the most insightful and intelligent posts in this thread, but of course we all know how one should stick to simple political talking points instead.



So you think their talking points are insightful and intelligent ?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

Modbert said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > OK adolph.
> ...



No but because a true muslim follows the quran and the quran has specifics as to how with non muslims, true muslims follow the quran. The only true muslims are the ones we are at war with  adolph


----------



## geauxtohell (Jan 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Common sense like calling people "white ******"?

Yeah, you are a bastion of that.


----------



## Modbert (Jan 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> No but because a true muslim follows the quran and the quran has specifics as to how a true muslims should deal with non muslims. The only true muslims are the ones we are at war with  adolph



There you go again trying to frame the debate to try and dehumanize those who wish to see killed. Too bad you have to keep trying to hold onto Godwin Law in order to try and discredit my points.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



You bet your ass.


----------



## jillian (Jan 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



and yet he knows what he's talking about... unlike you.

so who is it who's discrediting himself?


----------



## TossObama (Jan 2, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> TossObama said:
> 
> 
> > READ ALL OF THE BILL AND THE MEDICARE BILL(S) AND ADDENDUMS.
> ...



Medicare will even send you portions/pieces et al of the ABSURD regulations/laws they must now abide by.

By the way, that "Bill" is not just one bill, which those of you who claim to have read it (and didn't of course) seem to think.

Real quickly now, neysayers -- how many actual Bills and addendums were created by the Obama democrats regarding supposed health care, and NAME them.

Organ harvesting of designated patients most assuredly is in there, and the patient nor their family can refuse if the patient has Medicare A. One may not dis-enroll from Medicare A either. 

Keep your loved ones home, care for them at home, and have a doctor come to the house rather than office calls.

I would also advise that you avoid any doctor or nurse who is willingly going along with this new "health care" scheme.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

Modbert said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > No but because a true muslim follows the quran and the quran has specifics as to how a true muslims should deal with non muslims. The only true muslims are the ones we are at war with  adolph
> ...



You're the one that is doing that you made a statement, I gave my reason. You're the one that is trying to side step the debate by inserting another totally differant subject.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

jillian said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



the viilage is missing the idiot please return.


----------



## jillian (Jan 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



you know, you can keep calling the people who know what they're talking about names. it still makes you look like an idiot.

*shrug*


----------



## Modbert (Jan 2, 2011)

TossObama said:


> *Organ harvesting of designated patients most assuredly is in there,* and the patient nor their family can refuse if the patient has Medicare A. One may not dis-enroll from Medicare A either.



Oh yeah? Show me where. As for avoiding doctors and nurses, that'd be your own loss.


----------



## Trajan (Jan 2, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > theres a difference between say education and 'advocation' btw.
> ...



fair enough.

I'd trust someone more if they did it for financial interest frankly...

hes an advocate and a paid one.  *shrugs* you don't know me and have no reason to believe me, thats cool and I would probably feel same, its the internet after all.   

you can always ask him, if this is really an issue,  BUT,  if you do wording is important, pretend you're negotiating  for insurance and covere every imaginable out. 

I 'd interested in seeing his answer.


----------



## TossObama (Jan 2, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> TossObama said:
> 
> 
> > READ ALL OF THE BILL AND THE MEDICARE BILL(S) AND ADDENDUMS.
> ...



I actually remember when lazy arses thought everyone who had read the BILLS should hand them the data.

READ THE BILLS.

If you don't read all the bills and addendums you will only keep sitting there on your arse calling everyone else a liar.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jan 2, 2011)

TossObama said:


> I actually remember when lazy arses thought everyone who had read the BILLS should hand them the data.
> 
> READ THE BILLS.
> 
> If you don't read all the bills and addendums you will only keep sitting there on your arse calling everyone else a liar.



I have read the law. And you, sir, are a liar.


----------



## TossObama (Jan 2, 2011)

Modbert said:


> TossObama said:
> 
> 
> > *Organ harvesting of designated patients most assuredly is in there,* and the patient nor their family can refuse if the patient has Medicare A. One may not dis-enroll from Medicare A either.
> ...



You may contact Medicare either on the internet or by phone and ask them if you can dis-enroll from Medicare A. Tell them also that you want them to send you a copy of the law that says you cannot dis-enroll from Medicare A.

And actually, sugar plum, I've had to hire more help for for patient load.

You may also count on one other thing. I AM VERY PICKY ABOUT WHO I HIRE.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

jillian said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



You nit wit are doing the exact samething you are accussing me of. I am very informed on the obamacare. move along.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jan 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux and Greenbeard have made probably the most insightful and intelligent posts in this thread, but of course we all know how one should stick to simple political talking points instead.
> ...



Feel free to refute the actual content of our threads as opposed to going straight for the ad hominem.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jan 2, 2011)

Trajan said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



The absurd tack that this thread has taken is this assumption:

Poster A really knows what he's talking about (the opposite of being ignorant) => Poster A must be paid to research and post on this. => Poster A is discredited.  => Therefore, to be listened to on this debate, you have to be ignorant.  

I mean, that's the rational conclusion of the premise.

I don't think greenbeard is paid to post.  I'll go with Occam's razor:  he enjoys debating policy and likes to read up on it (so he doesn't look silly).  

However, even if he were a "paid poster", you can choose to attack the poster, but that doesn't change the content of his words which you guys have spent the past 100 posts avoiding in order to focus an a ridiculous assumption/accusation that you can't back up.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jan 2, 2011)

TossObama said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > TossObama said:
> ...



Hey, slappy.  

Let me tell you how this works, since you are obviously slow on the uptake:

You are the one making the wild eyed accusations, that means the burden of proof is on you.  

That means, it's up to you to provide the relevant citations.  If you want to be really cool, you'd provide the language ver batum.  However, at this point, I think we'd all just settle with just telling us where in the bill (section, etc) it is found so we can look for ourselves.  

As it stands, this bullshit of "look for yourself" isn't going to fly.  We have looked.  No one can find what you are talking about. 

Therefore, no one is believing your lies.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jan 2, 2011)

TossObama said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > TossObama said:
> ...



Oh.   You are a Doctor?  

What do you do?


----------



## geauxtohell (Jan 2, 2011)

TossObama said:


> Organ harvesting of designated patients most assuredly is in there, and the patient nor their family can refuse if the patient has Medicare A. One may not dis-enroll from Medicare A either.



Show us.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jan 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You nit wit are doing the exact samething you are accussing me of. I am very informed on the obamacare. move along.



Really?  Then why don't you contribute something to this thread beyond name calling?


----------



## Trajan (Jan 2, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



no, thats not the only  rational conclusion , another example of a  rational conclusion imho- he's a policy wonk/implementer/prm. mgr. who happens to believe in what he is doing and  that visiting  a myriad of sites and 'debating' the issues he can influence folks by explaining the bill etc. Great, power to him. 
However, as an uber-partisan, there is a basic fairness missing,  it wears quickly, there fore it becomes problematic.  



> However, even if he were a "paid poster", you can choose to attack the poster, but that doesn't change the content of his words



agreed, absolutely. 



> which you guys have spent the past 100 posts avoiding in order to focus an a ridiculous assumption/accusation that you can't back up.





I am not one of those guys, so..... *shrugs* ...and I don't attack posters personally , its a confession of  lack of an argument, _ unless _they have taken the gloves off, and have ignored requests not to, period. 

speaking of - "avoiding in order to focus " you have not witnessed all of the conversations I have had with him over several forums. We have examples right here over the past coupla off days, ask a question? You need to corral him, tie him down and waterboard him, it took me like 12 posts back and forth on one topic to get the answer he knew from post 1, and  he knew exactly what I was asking,  but I had to play 20 questions and in the end? The answer was what my original premise was, it was all for naught. Its on purpose and it  gets old. I have seen this to many times ......


----------



## geauxtohell (Jan 2, 2011)

Trajan said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



That was the conclusion made by Meister on this thread. I agree, there are many more rational explanations.  As it stands, I don't know that greenbeard spends his time frequenting multiple sites to talk about this one issue.  Most people on here are partisan, whether they want to admit it or not.  

Usually, a person (falsely) claims to be "bipartisan" to try and paint their opponent as partisan.  There are few people on this board who I would consider truly bipartisan (I, for one, don't claim to be bipartisan).  



> However, even if he were a "paid poster", you can choose to attack the poster, but that doesn't change the content of his words





> agreed, absolutely.



Fair enough.  So hopefully we can move beyond this silly turn of events.   



> > which you guys have spent the past 100 posts avoiding in order to focus an a ridiculous assumption/accusation that you can't back up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Apologies if I mistakenly lumped you in with the wrong crowed.  

I don't know what you are talking about:  "several forums", this is the only political forum I frequent.  I haven't seen you two in other places (if memory serves me).  

I can't really comment on your annoyances with the way another poster participates.  I generally avoid this, as most of us live in glass houses on the matter.


----------



## Trajan (Jan 2, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



fair enough, agreed, lets move on.Thx. 



to the topic.....let me ask you a Q please which I think is apropos-

how would you describe the Administration's- HHR,  Sibelius's etc.  explanations of, detail, general output and honesty etc.  as it applies to the Health care bill-

Lets consider 10 being primo?

Conceptual explanation-
General output-
Detail-
Honesty-




.


----------



## jillian (Jan 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



you're not informed about anything. and you're telling people who clearly know more about the statute that you know more.

you sound ridiculous.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jan 2, 2011)

Trajan said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



5,5,7,10.  I don't think they have been dishonest.  I think they have done a terrible job of explaining it, which is why it is poorly received.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 2, 2011)

jillian said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



sweetie I am a hell've alot more informed than you are. Don't just say that you are more informed, show me just how informed you are. I will beat everything you submit. True fucking story.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jan 2, 2011)

I find it hilarious that people are actually so full of themselves that they think anyone would be paid to post on this message board.

Do you really think that anyone would waste money trying to convince us of anything? What would be the point?

When has anyone actually changed someone's mind on this board?


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jan 2, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Well, every post you've made in this thread so far has been a personal attack.

Is that what you mean by "beat", internet tough guy?


----------



## Trajan (Jan 2, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



okay thx. we agree on the first 3. 

4 - honesty.  I can't agree. 

They need to have the rationing conservation. Its gonna be rough but they cannot go round it. Its a shadow that will hang over the bill till some hard truths are acknowledged. They took the easy way round, now that sppt. has eroded and the opposing party has some power, it won't get better or any easier.


----------



## Trajan (Jan 5, 2011)

welllllll that didn't take long. 

Its a goner ..again....so they have now pulled/ withdrawn/ 'revised'  it due to blow-back,  twice now. I have said it before and will say it again, they  are their own worst enemy.



U.S. Alters Rule on Paying for End-of-Life Planning
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: January 4, 2011

WASHINGTON &#8212; The Obama administration, reversing course, will revise a Medicare regulation to delete references to end-of-life planning as part of the annual physical examinations covered under the new health care law, administration officials said Tuesday. 


The move is an abrupt shift, coming just days after the new policy took effect on Jan. 1.

Many doctors and providers of hospice care had praised the regulation, which listed &#8220;advance care planning&#8221; as one of the services that could be offered in the &#8220;annual wellness visit&#8221; for Medicare beneficiaries.

While administration officials cited procedural reasons for changing the rule, it was clear that political concerns were also a factor. The renewed debate over advance care planning threatened to become a distraction to administration officials who were gearing up to defend the health law against attack by the new Republican majority in the House.

Although the health care bill signed into law in March did not mention end-of-life planning, the topic was included in a huge Medicare regulation setting payment rates for thousands of physician services. The final regulation was published in the Federal Register in late November. The proposed rule, published for public comment in July, did not include advance care planning. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/health/policy/05health.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 5, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> well well
> 
> By ROBERT PEAR
> Published: December 25, 2010
> ...



Sure, and you and the rest of the Conservatives would just prefer such people get no care at all. You have already proven that in Arizona and Indiania. And will shortly prove it in Texas. What hypocritical asses you people are.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jan 10, 2011)

jillian said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Rigth and we could just pass a few pages worth of regulations FIXING that problem instead of thousands of pages re-writing the whole system and transferring powers to federal bureaucracies.

Do you get it yet?    The government is not the solution to any problem like this, a law yes but government bureaucracy no.....look at amtrack, look at the DMV, look to the post office.


And what happens when the government, through its proved incompetence, starts running out of money.....this happens 2nd Ariz. patient dies after being denied transplant due to budget cuts -

You can trust the government if you want but Ill go with Albert Einstein "Insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different result"


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jan 10, 2011)

theDoctorisIn said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



No not evry post just the ones that an insult was given I returned it.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jan 19, 2011)

Bump for TossOff to explain how the government goes about harvesting organs without the consent of organ donors.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Jan 20, 2011)

rdean said:


> I love the hypocrisy of Republicans.  It's so expected, so normal, so "them".
> 
> Remember when Sarah Palin endorsed April 16th 2008 as &#8220;Healthcare Decisions Day&#8221; for the state of Alaska?  It was the same end of life counseling that Republicans now call euthanasia.
> 
> ...


I love the way you libturds turn things around. The left is the problem.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jan 20, 2011)

AmericanFirst said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > I love the hypocrisy of Republicans.  It's so expected, so normal, so "them".
> ...



Excellent post.  Very insightful.


----------

