• 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

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.

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?

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.

I've been reading the HCR bill whenever I have the time (or my wife isn't nagging me to spend more time with her. :mrgreen::doh:mrgreen: ) I have yet to come to that portion where this issue is addressed and read it for myself (althought it has been quoted to me a few times), but I assure you I'll get to it this afternoon. Nonetheless, as you've pointed out, as well as myself, some people don't have that luxury to sit down w/a third party and discuss the circumstances surround the end-of-life care for either themselves or on behalf of their loved ones. Obviously, this has been identified as a problem in this country and needs to be addressed. Some people apparently feel as thought their loved one didn't receive the right care (or enough thereof) before that loved one died. Others feel it's a personal matter and discussions should be limited to family members and their doctors. I say if you can't afford to have that 2nd opinion or atleast have an outside party review the treatments outlined for the care and well-being of your loved one, then somebody needs to make that option available and affordable.
 
Why should I pay for her desires to be put on paper, let her or her family pay for it.

You have actually made a good point here, and it's an honest one too. Bravo! I agree with you.
 
I say if you can't afford to have that 2nd opinion or atleast have an outside party review the treatments outlined for the care and well-being of your loved one, then somebody needs to make that option available and affordable.
Why? Why is it anybody's duty to make that either available or affordable?
 
Correct. They were either ignorant enough to fall for it, or intentionally using fraud. Take your pick.

Doctors whoe experience end of life issues with their loved ones are surprised at how difficult it is, and complex, even given that they themselves work in the profession. Having some professional consultation as an option, was simply good, and right.

Rejecting it for reasons, as you state, that are not actually real, is bad, and wrong.

It was rejected for political reasons, i.e. to make health care reform fail. That serves two interests:
Republican party
Big business

-Mach
 
Last edited:
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.

Does that mean that now people on the Obama plan will not be able to talk to their doctors about end-of-life decisions?

........congrats on the victory? :confused:
 
Does that mean that now people on the Obama plan will not be able to talk to their doctors about end-of-life decisions?

........congrats on the victory? :confused:

People already talk to their Doctors about end of life care and what options they have, including power of attorney, do not treat, do not resuscitate options, etc..... there was no reason for that provision in this bill other than to get the Government involved in your decision, who would have a monetary interest in hurrying you along so they could "lower health care costs".
 
Why should I pay for her desires to be put on paper, let her or her family pay for it.

In theory, I would think this saves more money than it costs. I suspect most people want a limit to how much care they are given while terminal and/or in a vegetative state, which is very expensive care.
 
I thought you would never ask. I have been holding it back, just for you. :mrgreen:

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

Court is adjourned.

The Senator disagrees:

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., today denounced comments made by President Obama and his spokesman regarding Isakson’s alleged connection to language contained in the House health care bill on “end-of-life counseling.”

Isakson vehemently opposes the House and Senate health care bills and he played no role in drafting language added to the House bill by House Democrats calling for the government to incentivize doctors by offering them money to conduct “end-of-life counseling” with Medicare patients every five years. Isakson also strongly opposed the House bill language calling for doctors to follow a government-mandated list of topics to discuss with patients during the counseling sessions.

Oops.
 
Reddress,

It is named the "Comparitive Effectiveness Review Panel" in the house version.

But I still like Death Panel!.... ; )
 
Reddress,

It is named the "Comparitive Effectiveness Review Panel" in the house version.

But I still like Death Panel!.... ; )

I have a PDF of HR3200 and that phrase isn't in that bill.... or maybe I should say that the "find" function couldn't find it in that bill, could you tell me where to find it?
 
People already talk to their Doctors about end of life care and what options they have, including power of attorney, do not treat, do not resuscitate options, etc..... there was no reason for that provision in this bill other than to get the Government involved in your decision, who would have a monetary interest in hurrying you along so they could "lower health care costs".

:spin:

The provision in the bill simply would reimburse Medicare patients to talk to a doctor, completely voluntarily. This has been a part of Medicare for some time. Without the provision, Medicare patients would not be reimbursed for this meeting, they only sought to insure that what is already covered would be covered in the new bill



Oh, Those Death Panels
You would think that if Republicans wanted to totally mischaracterize a health care provision and demagogue it like nobody's business, they would at least pick something that the vast majority of them hadn't already voted for just a few years earlier. Because that's not just shameless, it's stupid.

Yes, that's right. Remember the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, the one that passed with the votes of 204 GOP House members and 42 GOP Senators? Anyone want to guess what it provided funding for? Did you say counseling for end-of-life issues and care? Ding ding ding!!

Let's go to the bill text, shall we? "The covered services are: evaluating the beneficiary's need for pain and symptom management, including the individual's need for hospice care; counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning." The only difference between the 2003 provision and the infamous Section 1233 that threatens the very future and moral sanctity of the Republic is that the first applied only to terminally ill patients. Section 1233 would expand funding so that people could voluntarily receive counseling before they become terminally ill.

So either Republicans were for death panels in 2003 before turning against them now--or they're lying about end-of-life counseling in order to frighten the bejeezus out of their fellow citizens and defeat health reform by any means necessary. Which is it, Mr. Grassley ("Yea," 2003)?

I loved this:
or they're lying

It does come easy to the party of personal responsibility and morality to lie so craven and shamelessly. So, anyone want to guess how long it takes before a (R) stands up and takes some personal responsibility? We know Caribous Barbie continues with this charade, even though she herself is a lying hypocrite.
 
False ‘Death Panel’ Rumor Has Some Familiar Roots

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.

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.

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 party of dishonesty, hypocrisy, and lies, a party reliant almost solely on the stupidity and ignorance of a base easily swayed by the most childish of propaganda. I wonder, was there not in history another famous propogandizer that used the same tactics? Joe Goeb...something, can't seem to remember his name, but I do remember the shameless tactics used to play on the stupidity of a nation. Kudos (R)epugnants, kudos for being such craven losers. Judas sold his soul for a few silver pieces, nice to see the Rent-A-(R)epugnants at least ask for more from lobbyists.
 
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.

What is harder? Taking care of old people that are about to die. Or talking to old people that are about to die? Now if you use medicare to pay for this talking. Do you think more people are going to want to care or talk? Taking one penny away from actual care and handing it to counseling is taking away someones health care.

I doubt the government would allow the counseling to get so big that it depleted health funds... but... but...
 
I find it weird that the argument supporting Obama wanting to kill grandma is that it would save money. Can anybody point to even a single action on Obama's part that makes it seem like he's the least bit concerned about saving even a single dollar? He's taken the US's irresponsible spending to a whole new level, why would that stop when it comes to treating grandma?
 
Why should I pay for her desires to be put on paper, let her or her family pay for it.


So sayeth the not very compassionate and tragically uniformed conservative.

American: How much does it cost to keep a patient without family or medical directives alive on the various types of life support for 1 day? (Remember this is medicare, so it's your tax dime)

Now, how much does it cost for 1 counseling session to help that same person make sensible plans regarding EOL and quality of life that a hospital/Dr. can keep on file?

Tell you what, I'll pay for the counseling.

Compassion and dignity can be cost effective.
 
So sayeth the not very compassionate and tragically uniformed conservative.

American: How much does it cost to keep a patient without family or medical directives alive on the various types of life support for 1 day? (Remember this is medicare, so it's your tax dime)

Now, how much does it cost for 1 counseling session to help that same person make sensible plans regarding EOL and quality of life that a hospital/Dr. can keep on file?

Tell you what, I'll pay for the counseling.

Compassion and dignity can be cost effective.

Your assumption is that the person will of course choose to die and relieve you of the cost of their care... or are you admitting that the purpose of these counseling sessions is to get the person to agree to die, to relieve you of the cost of their care?
 
I have a PDF of HR3200 and that phrase isn't in that bill.... or maybe I should say that the "find" function couldn't find it in that bill, could you tell me where to find it?
Title IV, Subtitle A, Section 1401, et seq. It's actually titled the "Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission".
 
So sayeth the not very compassionate and tragically uniformed conservative.

American: How much does it cost to keep a patient without family or medical directives alive on the various types of life support for 1 day? (Remember this is medicare, so it's your tax dime)

Now, how much does it cost for 1 counseling session to help that same person make sensible plans regarding EOL and quality of life that a hospital/Dr. can keep on file?

Tell you what, I'll pay for the counseling.

Compassion and dignity can be cost effective.
Only if the person is ok with dying. What about someone who does not want to die?

Your "compassion" is for your wallet and nothing else--which drains any dignity from the decision.
 
Your assumption is that the person will of course choose to die and relieve you of the cost of their care... or are you admitting that the purpose of these counseling sessions is to get the person to agree to die, to relieve you of the cost of their care?

For those who choose not to have life extending techniques used, there is no significant change in cost. For those who choose not to be put on life support, or whatever, there is a savings. How much is highly debatable, but it should be more than the cost of the program I suspect.
 
I find it weird that the argument supporting Obama wanting to kill grandma is that it would save money. Can anybody point to even a single action on Obama's part that makes it seem like he's the least bit concerned about saving even a single dollar? He's taken the US's irresponsible spending to a whole new level, why would that stop when it comes to treating grandma?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03Obama-t.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

I don’t know how much that hip replacement cost. I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she’s my grandmother. Whether, sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question. If somebody told me that my grandmother couldn’t have a hip replacement and she had to lie there in misery in the waning days of her life — that would be pretty upsetting.
So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?

I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.
These are Dear Leader's words. Each and every one of them. Moral issues are cost issues in his demented little brain.

Of course, the presumption is that government must be involved in providing health care, therefore the government must have a say in the cost of health care, therefore the government must have a say in what is and is not "sustainable"--and how very clever of Dear Leader to avoid using the more accurate language addressing who is and is not sustainable.

The only moral conclusion that can be drawn from the dilemma is that government has no role to play in delivering health care, or paying for it. Absolutely none. It's not an issue government has the competence to address.
 
Your assumption is that the person will of course choose to die and relieve you of the cost of their care... or are you admitting that the purpose of these counseling sessions is to get the person to agree to die, to relieve you of the cost of their care?

No, it's to have a medical directive and/or medical proxy in place to allow a persons wishes to be carried out.

I really think a lot of people do not understand how this works.

It's a series of questions that help you to define for yourself what is quality of life. It is different for everyone. But people with advanced dementia and Alzheimer's can not legally make those decisions. As well as someone incapacitated by a stroke or massive heart heart attack.

So, without advanced medical directives, what does a hospital do? How does a family know what grandma wanted if they never talked about it?

I am dealing with this exact issue with my mother. When she was first diagnosed with Alzheimer in 2002, a very specific advanced medical directive was drawn up. Without it, the decisions my sister and I have to make would much more difficult. With it, we know that we are carrying out her wishes.

Not everyone can afford an attorney or private counselor. In CA, the hospice care is outstanding, but expensive. The state pays for a lot of this type of care. I believe it's important that the family, the hospice worker, and the state to know exactly what the patients wishes are with respect to quality of life, dignity, and advance life support.

It is very disappointing that something compassionate and practical is being dropped from the bill.
 
For those who choose not to have life extending techniques used, there is no significant change in cost. For those who choose not to be put on life support, or whatever, there is a savings. How much is highly debatable, but it should be more than the cost of the program I suspect.

Except for those at the butt end of the spending that don't get help because a portion went to counseling. If ALL of the money is supposed to get spent then you are taking away from someone in the end.
 
Back
Top Bottom