• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senators exclude end-of-life provision from bill

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,041
Reaction score
33,367
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Link

Thu Aug 13, 1:55 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Key senators are excluding a provision on end-of-life care from health overhaul legislation after language in a House bill caused a furor.
Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement Thursday that the provision had been dropped from consideration because it could be misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly.
A health care bill passed by three House committees allows Medicare to reimburse doctors for voluntary counseling sessions about end-of-life decisions. But critics have claimed the provision could lead to death panels and euthanasia for seniors.
The Senate Finance Committee is still working to complete a bill.

So all us rightwingers were full of ****? We didn't understand the truth?
 
Link



So all us rightwingers were full of ****? We didn't understand the truth?

No you didn't. The end-of-life provision in the bill was created by Johnny Issakson, a Georgia Republican Senator. And no, it would not have euthanized the elderly.
 
When my 103 year old Grandmother passed away in her own home with all her grandchildren around it was nice to to have compassionate caring professionals around.
 
No you didn't. The end-of-life provision in the bill was created by Johnny Issakson, a Georgia Republican Senator. And no, it would not have euthanized the elderly.

No one ever said that anyone getting euthanized. That's an invented statement that has been added to the comments from the Liberal side of the argument.
 
When my 103 year old Grandmother passed away in her own home with all her grandchildren around it was nice to to have compassionate caring professionals around.

My grandmother is 94 and she's ready to go. She's said she's ready. That's a decision for her to make, not the government. She has caring professionals to help her, too. Obviously, there's no need for this provision, as these services are already available.
 
No one ever said that anyone getting euthanized. That's an invented statement that has been added to the comments from the Liberal side of the argument.

So the Republican Senator from Georgia, Johnny Issakson, is now a Liberal?:rofl
 
My grandmother is 94 and she's ready to go. She's said she's ready. That's a decision for her to make, not the government. She has caring professionals to help her, too. Obviously, there's no need for this provision, as these services are already available.

When to die is not a choice.
 
No one ever said that anyone getting euthanized. That's an invented statement that has been added to the comments from the Liberal side of the argument.

False.

Chain email said:
On Page 425 of Obama’s health care bill, the Federal Government will require EVERYONE who is on Social Security to undergo a counseling session every 5 years with the objective being that they will explain to them just how to end their own life earlier. Yes…They are going to push SUICIDE to cut medicare spending!!!

former Republican lieutenant governor of New York Betsy McCaughey said:
the Congress would make it mandatory … that every five years, people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner, how to decline nutrition, how to decline being hydrated, how to go into hospice care … all to do what’s in society’s best interest … and cut your life short.

Boehner/McCotter statement said:
Section 1233 of the House-drafted legislation encourages health care providers to provide their Medicare patients with counseling on “the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration” and other end of life treatments, and may place seniors in situations where they feel pressured to sign end of life directives they would not otherwise sign. This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted into law.

I got those from just one article: False Euthanasia Claims | FactCheck.org. There are more. What is hilarious is that the entire objections to this bill come from lies propagated about it.
 
My grandmother is 94 and she's ready to go. She's said she's ready. That's a decision for her to make, not the government. She has caring professionals to help her, too. Obviously, there's no need for this provision, as these services are already available.

And offering to pay for the counseling to set her desires on paper so they can be respected is wrong how?
 
My grandmother is 94 and she's ready to go. She's said she's ready. That's a decision for her to make, not the government. She has caring professionals to help her, too. Obviously, there's no need for this provision, as these services are already available.

And guess what... the end-of-life provision had no baring on your grandmother... have you even read it?
 
Isaakson said that Section 1233 supported euthanizing elderly Americans?

That statement is so disingenuous, I don't know where to begin.

1) Issakson put the end-of-life provision in the Bill.

2) The fruitcakes then scream that the provision is proof of Obama death camps.

3) It is then brought up that it was a Republican provision.

4) The fruitcakes then say "Tell me where Issakson ever said "Death Camps".

5) But it was the fruitcakes that said "Death Camps", and now attempt to deflect the responsibility for "nuttiness" from themselves by asking others "Where did Issakson ever say that?".

6) For the record, Issakson never said that. The deather fruitcakes did. When are they going to man up and admit they screwed up?
 
Last edited:
And guess what... the end-of-life provision had no baring on your grandmother... have you even read it?

Yes, I have read it and it doesn't have any baring on her, because she's fully prepared to check out. Were she willing to hang for a few more years, it would be a different story.


That statement is so disingenuous, I don't know where to begin.

1) Issakson put the end-of-life provision in the Bill.

2) The fruitcakes then scream that the provision is proof of Obama death camps.

3) It is then brought up that it was a Republican provision.

4) The fruitcakes then say "Tell me where Issakson ever said "Death Camps".

5) But it was the fruitcakes that said "Death Camps", and now attempt to deflect the responsibility for "nuttiness" from themselves by asking others to say "Where did Issakson ever say that?".

6) For the record, Issakson never said that. The deather fruitcakes did. When are they going to man up and admit they screwed up?

Link supporting your comments, please?
 
Last edited:
Yes, I have read it and it doesn't have any baring on her, because she's fully prepared to check out. Were she willing to hang for a few more years, it would be a different story.

Then why exactly are you against it? Do people who have no insurance for whatever reason, do not deserve to have access to councilling and help if they are terminal?

Let me guess.. you are one of those that would rather keep people alive as long as possible for any and all costs.. right?
 
My grandmother is 94 and she's ready to go. She's said she's ready. That's a decision for her to make, not the government. She has caring professionals to help her, too. Obviously, there's no need for this provision, as these services are already available.
No one's saying that the government would be making that decision.

Look, folks. There are many people out there laying up in hospital beds who are on their last leg. We all know this. Some of these people require no additional extensive medical care (i.e., surgery) that will change the eneavitable. It's a harsh statement, but it's also the reality for some. They're just nothing can be done for them. But there are others who there IS a question as to what can and cannot be done to prolong their lives or atleast provide them with the best medical care and attention possible to make their final days as comfortable as possible.

Currently, what we have are decisions ultimately being made between the hospital and the insurance company w/little regard (in some cases) for the concerns of the beloved family members. All this provision will do is give the caregivers (or the patient if there is no caregiver and the patient is still able to comprehend what's taking place on his or her behalf) the opportunity to discuss options in greater details possibly with a third party and have said counseling session paid for whereas currently there is no "outside second opinion". All "options" are strictly between the hospital (attending physician) and the insurance company. And that's it!

My mother died of cancer earlier this year. It literally ate away at her from the inside. My siblings watched her die a slow death. (Because I am the only one of my sibling that's married w/children and my mother was hospitalized several states away, I could hardly afford to stay w/her over the extended time she was in the hospital until her death. It pains me til this day that I couldn't be with her in the end, but I know she was in good hands with my older sisters their comforting her.) Point here is we had very good and thorough counseling w/the medical staff and the Hospic agency to ensure my mother was properly cared for in her final days. Some people don't have that luxury.
 
Last edited:
I thought you would never ask. I have been holding it back, just for you.

Here is the interview of Johnny Issakson by the Washington Post.

Court is adjourned.

So, you DON'T ahve anything to show all those Connies saying that the bill will put maw-maw down?


Then why exactly are you against it? Do people who have no insurance for whatever reason, do not deserve to have access to councilling and help if they are terminal?

1) This isn't a provision that provides for end of life counceling for those who want it. It mandates end of life counceling, want it, or not. If you'll notice in the bill, it specifically states that the secretary will issue and order to, "sustain life", should he deem it neccessary. It says that, read it.

2) Why should there be a special provision for something that already exists, if in fact what you're saying is true and why is there only a provision for end of life care and nothing else?

3) I don't think I should have the government digging in my pocket book to pay for nothing else but a giant entitlement program. The only people that are going to benefit from this bill are the Welfare Class. The rest of us are going to have to dig deep into our pockets to pay for it. Redistribution of wealth.

Let me guess.. you are one of those that would rather keep people alive as long as possible for any and all costs.. right?


Wrong. I believe that people should be able to make their own decisions, without government interfearence. That's my American side coming out. I don't expect you to understand.
 
you didn't understand, obviously. it's a shame, really. voluntary counseling sessions seem so, i don't know, unbelievably evil.

wow.
 
No one's saying that the government would be making that decision.

Look, folks. There are many people out there laying up in hospital beds who are on their last leg. We all know this. Some of these people require no additional extensive medical care (i.e., surgery) that will change the eneavitable. It's a harsh statement, but it's also the reality for some. They're just nothing can be done for them. But there are others who there IS a question as to what can and cannot be done to prolong their lives or atleast provide them with the best medical care and attention possible to make their final days as comfortable as possible.

Currently, what we have are decisions ultimately being made between the hospital and the insurance company w/little regard (in some cases) for the concerns of the beloved family members. All this provision will do is give the caregivers (or the patient if there is no caregiver and the patient is still able to comprehend what's taking place on his or her behalf) the opportunity to discuss options in greater details possibly with a third party and have said counseling session paid for whereas currently there is no "outside second opinion". All "options" are strictly between the hospital (attending physician) and the insurance company. And that's it!

My mother died of cancer earlier this year. It literally ate away at her from the inside. My siblings watched her die a slow death. (Because I am the only one of my sibling that's married w/children and my mother was hospitalized several states away, I could hardly afford to stay w/her over the extended time she was in the hospital until her death. It pains me til this day that I couldn't be with her in the end, but I know she was in good hands with my older sisters their comforting her.) Point here is we had very good and thorough counseling w/the medical staff and the Hospic agency to ensure my mother was properly cared for in her final days. Some people don't have that luxury.

The bill says it. Check it out.
 
Te end of life counseling is NOT the death panel referred to. I don't know were the heck THAT came from.. Someone fumbled thinking counseling was the DP Sarah referred to. So as usual Congress got it WRONG, jumped the gun and fell on their face. I hope no one here is surprised!

The death panel is the panel that will be making the decision to provide service or not depending on age and ability to contribute to society.

They can (and will) NOT take that provision out as long as they intend to manage our healthcare. If they did, it would simply be left open for future incorporation as it will most assuredly require....

....are you listening "flag" ?? Contrary to your belief we are NOT idiots and WE can do the math you can't seem to manage!
 
Te end of life counseling is NOT the death panel referred to. I don't know were the heck THAT came from.. Someone fumbled thinking counseling was the DP Sarah referred to. So as usual Congress got it WRONG, jumped the gun and fell on their face. I hope no one here is surprised!

The death panel is the panel that will be making the decision to provide service or not depending on age and ability to contribute to society.

They can (and will) NOT take that provision out as long as they intend to manage our healthcare. If they did, it would simply be left open for future incorporation as it will most assuredly require....

....are you listening "flag" ?? Contrary to your belief we are NOT idiots and WE can do the math you can't seem to manage!

Care to support this accusation? No one has actually been able to show where in the bill these panels are.
 
Then why exactly are you against it? Do people who have no insurance for whatever reason, do not deserve to have access to councilling and help if they are terminal?

Let me guess.. you are one of those that would rather keep people alive as long as possible for any and all costs.. right?

Interesting you would say that.

My coworker and I were discussing this very issue. You see, her grandson died about 3 years ago from an inoperabable brain tumor. The surgeons and professional medical personnel who, according to my coworker, originally gave her grandson 6 weeks to live decided to place him on experimental treatments that included radiation treatments and a host of other medications, etc., etc. He lived for another 6 months. But here's the interesting part according to my coworker...

Once her daughter (the mother of the child) decided to end the treatments, it took exactly 6-weeks before her child died...the same 6-week period the doctors gave the child in the first place. So, what's the point here?

All the treatments and radiation this 6 year old boy received didn't change the enivitable. He still died within the very 6-weeks period originally prescribed. So, I ask the same question my coworker - the child's grandmother - asked: "Who was that additional 6-months for?" The child? According to my coworker, the boy suffered throughout the treatment period. His parents? Yes, they had their child with them among the living for 6 more months, but according to them (I spoke with them periodically when they'd visit my place of employment) and my coworker, the child wasn't the same bright and loveable boy they knew. He was alwasy heavily medicated and weak, and his personality changed so dramatically. Was it for the hospital and/or the insurance company who I'm sure made alot of money for the extended period this child lived. Who truly benefited?

I'm not saying pull the plug on every individual who is in an end-of-life situation, but I am saying get a second, outside opinion to ensure you're making a well-informed, non-bias opinion as to how to best handle the situation once you take your emotions out of the equation, if at all possible.
 
And offering to pay for the counseling to set her desires on paper so they can be respected is wrong how?
Why should I pay for her desires to be put on paper, let her or her family pay for it.
 
Back
Top Bottom