Healthcare

[sybarite]

Originally Posted by hortysir

Out of his own mouth last week, referring to opponents of the massive government take-over of the health care industry that accounts for 7% of our economy:
"need to shut up and get out of the way"

[hortysir]

[sybarite]

Panel sees race bias in health care bill
By Jennifer Haberkorn |Tuesday, August 11, 2009

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights says some little-noticed provisions in the House health care bill are racially discriminatory, and it intends to ask President Obama and Congress to rewrite sections that factor in race when awarding billions in contracts, scholarships and grants.

The commission also fears the programs, which are designed to improve health care in underserved areas, will not be effective.

In a draft of a letter the commission approved Friday, the group raises constitutional questions about giving preferential treatment to minority students for scholarships, and about favoring medical schools and organizations that have a record of sending graduates to areas with inadequate health care services.

"These programs are unlikely to reduce health care disparities among racial and ethic groups," according to the draft letter obtained by The Washington Times. "A growing body of evidence indicates that increasing access to high-quality physicians - whatever their racial or ethnic ancestry - is the best way to mitigate such disparities."

The draft letter also cites testimony from Dr. Amitabh Chandra of Harvard University who said the idea that expanding the number of minority physicians and providing "cultural competence training" will bridge the health status gap is "grounded in hope more than science," according to the draft language.

[Itsnotgonnaspankitself...]

Luckily for America, this will be the first time in its history that there's ever been a race bias...

[hortysir]

IF the reccomendations of the letter are followed

[Itsnotgonnaspankitself...]

Oh, and it will be...at gunpoint, if need be...


haha...if I'm to believe the alarmist far-right nutjobs...

[indianajoe]

MSNBC.com


No ‘death panel’ in health care bill
Provision would finance end-of-life care counseling — if patient wants it

The Associated Press
updated 6:18 p.m. ET, Mon., Aug 10, 2009
WASHINGTON - Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin says the health care overhaul bill would set up a "death panel." Federal bureaucrats would play God, ruling on whether ailing seniors are worth enough to society to deserve life-sustaining medical care. Palin and other critics are wrong.

Nothing in the legislation would carry out such a bleak vision. The provision that has caused the uproar would instead authorize Medicare to pay doctors for counseling patients about end-of-life care, if the patient wishes. Here are some questions and answers on the controversy:

Q: Does the health care legislation bill promote "mercy killing," or euthanasia?

A: No.

Q: Then what's all the fuss about?

A: A provision in the House bill written by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., would allow Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling sessions that address end-of-life issues. The conversations between doctor and patient would include living wills, making a close relative or a trusted friend your health care proxy, learning about hospice as an option for the terminally ill and information about pain medications for people suffering chronic discomfort.

The sessions would be covered every five years, more frequently if someone is gravely ill.

Q: Is anything required?

A. Monsignor Charles Fahey, 76, a Catholic priest who is chairman of the board of the National Council on Aging, a nonprofit service and advocacy group, says no.

"We have to make decisions that are deliberative about our health care at every moment," Fahey said. "What I have said is that if I cannot say another prayer, if I cannot give or get another hug, and if I cannot have another martini — then let me go."

Q: Does the bill advocate assisted suicide?

A: No. It would block funds for counseling that presents suicide or assisted suicide as an option.

Q: Who supports the provision?

A: The American Medical Association, the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization and Consumers Union are among the groups supporting the provision. AARP, the seniors' lobby, is taking out print advertisements this week that label as false the claim that the legislation will empower the government to take over life-and-death decisions from individuals.

Q: Should the federal government be getting involved with living wills and end-of-life questions — decisions that are highly personal and really difficult?

A: It already is.

The government requires hospitals to ask adult patients if they have a living will, or "advance directive." If the patient doesn't have one, and wants one, the hospital has to provide assistance. The mandate on hospitals was instituted during a Republican administration, in 1992, under then-President George H.W. Bush.

Q: How does a living will work, and how is it different from a health care proxy?

A: A living will — also called an advance directive — spells out a patient's wishes if he or she becomes incapacitated. Often people say they don't want to be kept alive on breathing machines if their condition is terminal and irreversible.

A health care proxy empowers another person to make medical decisions should the patient become incapacitated.

There's also a power-of-attorney, which authorizes another person to make financial decisions for someone who is incapacitated.

Such legal documents have become standard estate-planning tools in the last twenty years.

Q: Would the health overhaul legislation change the way people now deal with making end-of-life decisions?

A: It very well could.

Supporters of the provision say the main consequence would be to formally bring doctors into a discussion that now takes place mainly among family members and lawyers.

"When you execute a legal document with your lawyer, it ends up in your files and in the lawyer's files," said John Rother, a senior policy and strategy adviser for AARP. "Unless the doctor is part of this discussion, it's unlikely that your wishes will be respected. The doctor will be the one involved in any decisions."

The American Medical Association says involving doctors is simple commonsense.

"There has been a lot of misinformation about the advance care planning provisions in the bill," AMA President Dr. James Rohack said in a statement. "It's plain, old-fashioned medical care."

Q: So why are some people upset?

A. Some social conservatives say stronger language is needed to protect seniors from being pressured into signing away their rights to medical treatment in a moment of depression or despair.

"I'm not aware of 'death panels' in the bill," said David O'Steen, executive director of the National Right to Life Committee. "I'm not aware of anything that says you will be hauled before a government bureaucrat. But we are concerned ... it doesn't take a lot to push a vulnerable person — perhaps unwittingly — to give up their right to life-sustaining treatment."


Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: No ‘death panel’ in health care bill - More politics- msnbc.com



MSN Privacy . Legal
© 2009 MSNBC.com

[indianajoe]

MSNBC.com


NYT: ‘Death panel’ rumor has familiar roots
Assertion was not born of anonymous e-mailers or partisan bloggers
By Jim Rutenberg and Jackie Calmes
The New York Times
updated 2:37 a.m. ET, Fri., Aug 14, 2009
WASHINGTON - The stubborn yet false rumor that President Obama’s health care proposals would create government-sponsored “death panels” to decide which patients were worthy of living seemed to arise from nowhere in recent weeks.

Advanced even this week by Republican stalwarts including the party’s last vice-presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, and Charles E. Grassley, the veteran Iowa senator, the nature of the assertion nonetheless seemed reminiscent of the modern-day viral Internet campaigns that dogged Mr. Obama last year, falsely calling him a Muslim and questioning his nationality.

But the rumor — which has come up at Congressional town-hall-style meetings this week in spite of an avalanche of reports laying out why it was false — was not born of anonymous e-mailers, partisan bloggers or stealthy cyberconspiracy theorists.

Rather, it has a far more mainstream provenance, openly emanating months ago from many of the same pundits and conservative media outlets that were central in defeating President Bill Clinton’s health care proposals 16 years ago, including the editorial board of The Washington Times, the American Spectator magazine and Betsy McCaughey, whose 1994 health care critique made her a star of the conservative movement (and ultimately, New York’s lieutenant governor).

There is nothing in any of the legislative proposals that would call for the creation of death panels or any other governmental body that would cut off care for the critically ill as a cost-cutting measure. But over the course of the past few months, early, stated fears from anti-abortion conservatives that Mr. Obama would pursue a pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia agenda, combined with twisted accounts of actual legislative proposals that would provide financing for optional consultations with doctors about hospice care and other “end of life” services, fed the rumor to the point where it overcame the debate.

On Thursday, Mr. Grassley said in a statement that he and others in the small group of senators that was trying to negotiate a health care plan had dropped any “end of life” proposals from consideration.

A pending House bill has language authorizing Medicare to finance beneficiaries’ consultations with professionals on whether to authorize aggressive and potentially life-saving interventions later in life. Though the consultations would be voluntary, and a similar provision passed in Congress last year without such a furor, Mr. Grassley said it was being dropped in the Senate “because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly.”

'Opportunity to weaken the president'
The extent to which it and other provisions have been misinterpreted in recent days, notably by angry speakers at recent town hall meetings but also by Ms. Palin — who popularized the “death panel” phrase — has surprised longtime advocates of changes to the health care system.

“I guess what surprised me is the ferocity, it’s much stronger than I expected,” said John Rother, the executive vice president of AARP, which is supportive of the health care proposals and has repeatedly declared the “death panel” rumors false. “It’s people who are ideologically opposed to Mr. Obama, and this is the opportunity to weaken the president.”

The specter of government-sponsored, forced euthanasia was raised as early as Nov. 23, just weeks after the election and long before any legislation had been drafted, by an outlet decidedly opposed to Mr. Obama, The Washington Times.


In an editorial, the newspaper reminded its readers of the Aktion T4 program of Nazi Germany in which “children and adults with disabilities, and anyone anywhere in the Third Reich was subject to execution who was blind, deaf, senile, retarded, or had any significant neurological condition.”

Noting the “administrative predilections” of the new team at the White House, it urged “anyone who sees the current climate as a budding T4 program to win the hearts and minds of deniers.”

The editorial captured broader concerns about Mr. Obama’s abortion rights philosophy held among socially conservative Americans who did not vote for him. But it did not directly tie forced euthanasia to health care plans of Mr. Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress.

When the Democrats included money for family planning in a proposed version of the stimulus bill in January, the socially conservative George Neumayr wrote for the American Spectator: “Euthanasia is another shovel ready job for Pelosi to assign to the states. Reducing health care costs under Obama’s plan, after all, counts as economic stimulus, too — controlling life, controlling death, controlling costs.”


Ms. McCaughey, whose 1994 critique of Mr. Clinton’s plan was hotly disputed after its publication in The New Republic, weighed in around the same time.

She warned that a provision in the stimulus bill would create a bureaucracy to “monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost-effective,” was carried in a commentary she wrote for Bloomberg News that gained resonance throughout the conservative media, most notably with Rush Limbaugh and the Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck.

The legislation did not direct the coordinator to dictate doctors’ treatments. A separate part of the law — regarding a council set up to coordinate research comparing the effectiveness of treatments — states that the council’s recommendations cannot “be construed as mandates or clinical guidelines for payment, coverage or treatment.”

But Ms. McCaughey’s article provided another opportunity for others to raise the specter of forced euthanasia. “Sometimes for the common good, you just have to say, ‘Hey, Grandpa, you’ve had a good life,’ ” Mr. Beck said.

The syndicated conservative columnist Cal Thomas wrote, “No one should be surprised at the coming embrace of euthanasia.” The Washington Times editorial page reprised its reference to the Nazis, quoting the Aktion T4 program: “It must be made clear to anyone suffering from an incurable disease that the useless dissipation of costly medications drawn from the public store cannot be justified.”

The notion was picked up by various conservative groups, but still, as Mr. Obama and Congress remained focused on other matters, it did not gain wide attention. Former Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, an advocate for the health care proposals, said he was occasionally confronted with the “forced euthanasia” accusation at forums on the plans, but came to see it as an advantage. “Almost automatically you have most of the audience on your side,” Mr. Daschle said. “Any rational normal person isn’t going to believe that assertion.”



But as Congress developed its legislation this summer, critics seized on provisions requiring Medicare financing for “end of life” consultations, bringing the debate to a peak. To David Brock, a former conservative journalist who once impugned the Clintons but now runs a group that monitors and defends against attacks on liberals, the uproar is a reminder of what has changed — the creation of groups like his — and what has not.

“In the 90s, every misrepresentation under the sun was made about the Clinton plan and there was no real capacity to push back,” he said. “Now, there is that capacity.”

Still, one proponent of the euthanasia theory, Mr. Neumayr, said he saw no reason to stop making the claim.

“I think a government-run plan that is administered by politicians and bureaucrats who support euthanasia is inevitably going to reflect that view,” he said, “and I don’t think that’s a crazy leap.”

Robert Pear contributed reporting.

This story, "False 'Death Panel' Rumor Has Some Familiar Roots," originally appeared in The New York Times.


Copyright © 2009 The New York Times
URL: NYT: ‘Death panel’ rumor has familiar roots - The New York Times- msnbc.com



MSN Privacy . Legal
© 2009 MSNBC.com

[hortysir]

I agree that there isn't any mention of a "death panel" in the House bill
But i can't be convinced that, when times get tougher (and they will), they won't ration who gets what treatments.
Rahm Emanuel's brother, Ezekial, has already quantified values to infants, teens, young adults, and elderly in his recently published paper enitled "Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions"
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdf

This is Obama's Health Advisor
Obama has told us before that when faced with financial issues, he depends on advice from Warren Buffet, etc... Foriegn Affairs, he would turn to Biden, etc....
We need only to look at his advisers when we wonder what he will do in situations....
Read it for yourself

[sybarite]

The Social Security Act that is mentioned on page 425 does not require an end of life or advanced care discussion every five years. It appears to me that it DOES require an end of care discussion based on cost. Paragraph 3, goes out of the way to close a possible loop hole. Here’s paragraph (3):

“(3)(A) An initial preventive physical examination
21 under subsection (WW), including any related discussion
22 during such examination, shall not be considered an ad23
vance care planning consultation for purposes of applying
24 the 5-year limitation under paragraph”

What is an Advance care planning consultation? According the the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Research in Action, Issue 12
"Research can help physicians and other health care professionals guide patient decision making for care at the end of life. Findings resulting from research funded by the Agency for Health care Research and Quality (AHRQ) are discussed."

Define, "guide." What are these "findings?"

If I read the bill correctly, it refers to paragraph 2, 3 and 4 of SSA 1861, which discuss the cost of long-term care and so forth. Basically, if Social Security deems that you do not need long term care in the hospital, they will pay for cheaper care in home, IF YOU QUALIFY!
I believe the Health Care Bill is stating that if you haven’t had an advanced care discussion with your physician, when you hit the point of needing long term care you WILL have that discussion with a physician.

‘‘(iv) the use of artificially administered nutri-
tion and hydration.’’. (Page 430, line 23)

Who “defines” the word “artificially administered”? Terri Schiavo was alive until they defined “artificially administered” for her.

READ pages 425-430 — Consultation can and will result in a ORDER regarding life sustaining treatment — in other words the government CAN GIVE THE ORDER DETERMINING WHETHER YOU LIVE OR DIE– in the event of a life threatening injury/illness. As all bills, it is written in legalese and cross reference other parts of the bill so one must read it in it’s entirety. (NO CHERRY PICKING HERE!!!) Here is part one must read subparagraph 12:

‘‘(B) The level of treatment indicated under subpara12
graph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treat13
ment to an indication to limit some or all or specified
14 interventions.”

Limiting (some or all) interventions by government order — is limiting life.
It cannot be spun any other way.

Page 430:
‘An advance care planning consultation with respect to an individual may be conducted more frequently than provided under paragraph (4).....

So what does this mean? Can they "guide" you now monthly, weekly, daily, hourly? Can they come knocking on your door?

......if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or a hospice program. A consultation under this subsection may include the formation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order.’

Formation of a government ORDER – regarding life sustaining treatment. The GOVERNMENT can decide who lives and who dies if the patient is terminally ill or injured.

True: You will have the option of private insurance opposed to National Health Care.

Do any of you here really think that private insurance (limited funding) can compete with government insurance(unlimited funding)? It takes only a basic grasp of economics, to know they can’t compete.

So when you are told “you’ll have a choice” – it’s true. But only until the private insurance companies go under, by a more affordable gov’t HC system.

Even if private insurance is offered, how many people can take a hit with substantially increased taxes to provide the rest of America with National Health Care and try to afford your own private insurance policy?

I believe this is one of the most opened ended, dangerous parts of the bill:

"(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items—

"(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;

Who determines this? Under this bill anyone coming into E.R. with heart, pulmonary, cardiac, or having episodes of apnea can be limited or refused treatment. Who is up to playing God here???

Death Panels, mandatory suicide, soylent green, are all over the top!!! I think people making these statements are just being sarcastic, HOWEVER, I believe there is legitimate concern over this bill and it should not be taken lightly.

There are just too many unanswered questions and concerns for it to be pushed through without careful consideration. Nancy Pelosi called all in opposition to the bill, "astroturf." In all fairness, did she actually read the bill? Does she know what it says? Is she willing to agree to put herself and her family on the same plan as the rest of America? I'm thinking not! I do not think our founding fathers would approve of it. They came to America to get away from government involvement in their lives. This is reverting back to, what they came over here to get away from. Anytime the government gets involved with anything it turns out to be a disaster. I don't want them making my health care decisions period.