Remember Those Death Panels - Well, They're Back! And Some Want to Keep Them a Secret!

Abortion, Euthanasia, Jews, Christians, handicapped and non productive. Can you say Nazism?

Have we not come full circle? We need to vote out these lifetime elitist dictators and royal families if there is any possible way to do so (they have their districts drawn in such a way it is near impossible)  

And the money that is coming in from overseas and from George Soros to corrupt this system even further has got to be stopped.

Yup, guess I did after all.

God forbid that people should be prepared for what faces us all...

"It will give people more control over the care they receive. It means that doctors and patients can have these conversations in the normal course of business, as part of our health care routine, not as something put off until we are forced to do it."

I heard this on the radio.  Of course they had to write these panels into the "rules."  We can't have problem young or old people clogging the system wanting care when they can give nothing in return...

The provision would allow Medicare to "cover" consultation.  Why would people be against allowing medicare to cover the cost of a needed consultation?

"This measure would not only help people make the best decisions for themselves but also better ensure that their wishes are followed. To suggest otherwise is a gross, and even cruel, distortion -- especially for any family that has been forced to make the difficult decisions on care for loved ones approaching the end of their lives."

--AARP Executive Vice President John Rother

I understand Mike.  I heard they wrote them into the "administrative rules," governing how health care will be handled by its "administrators."

Oh, ok.  So you're not against end of life counseling, you're against the way the Obama Administration decided that Medicare will pay for annual wellness exams and  counseling through a regulatory requirement.

Well, you have to admit that in this case 'the people' were so misinformed about the intent of that portion of the bill that determining thier "will" would be difficult at best.

The issue, Karl, is that people were justifiably concerned about those rules in the first incarnations of the bill.  In order to get the bill passed Pelosi "removed" them.  They are mysteriously back.  Gee, wonder why...

They're back, because it makes sense and it's a pragmatic proposal to save families emotional distress, give patients more control over their treatment and curtail costs -- end-of-life medical care is among the most expensive...unless of course you think there's some nefarious plot....

Mike, are you against all 'end of life' counseling or just those paid for by medicare?  And please, for the sake of honest debate, leave the anecdotal hyperbole out of the equation.

C'mon Karl!  Now you can get real.  No anecdote here -

1.  "End of life counseling" is a misnomer*.  It is not provided by an individual's doctor, but a panel determining who gets care and who does not.  You have to read the language in the bill, which apparently you have not.  In the original bill that panel was to be engaged every five years in a person's latter years (whatever the heck that means).  There were many, including a bunch of Dems, who would not vote for it with that in place!  So Pelosi "removed" it all.  Under the new "rules" this panel is engaged EVERY year.  If every five years was distasteful, what about every year?

2.  It is not a part of Medicare.  That program is being trimmed over 1/2 in favor of this other unintelligible "legislation."  This new "counseling" comes from the new legislation. 

There is not much merit in the new "health" care program to debate.

Look it up if you don't concur with 1 and 2 above.

* I read 1984.  In order to get something distasteful to be "accepted" by the populace, words had to be  changed.  And only "acceptable" words (read that politically correct in our parlance) were to be used when referring to the previously distasteful thing, under penalty of law and punishment.  The new parlance was called "doublespeak."  Don't think for a minute that technique at changing minds is not employed today!

Calling these panels "end of life counseling" is interesting, and a lie, and people are falling into believing that scheme!  It is merely a group that determines who is "worthy" of care and who is not.

That's the equivalent of calling "homosexuality" by something less distasteful, like "gay," ruining a previously perfectly good word.  Or calling "abortion" by something less distasteful like "choice," or "right to choose."  It is neither of those things - it is abortion.  New "rights" had to be found to make abortion  "constitutional."  The "right" to privacy, stated to be a mere shadow of a previously unknown right, was to supplant the stated-in-our-documents right to life.  TRUMPED!  And what of the life that is terminated?  Why it's not a "life" after all!  It's an "unviable tissue mass."  And even that has MORPHED since!

Just like the term "end of life counseling" will MORPH.  Argue if you wish.  Good luck.

You're my new bud Karl, and I like your GOV a lot...

Here are the facts:

The original House version of the overhaul legislation sought to expand coverage, allowing for discussions every few years. But the plan was dropped after Sarah Palin and other Republicans raised the specter of "death panels" deciding the fate of vulnerable seniors. Those charges were later debunked by several non-partisan fact-checking groups.

End-of-life counseling unexpectedly surfaced again late last year in a Medicare regulation that spelled out what would be covered in a new annual checkup, or wellness visit, authorized by the health care law. Issued without fanfare, the regulation said such voluntary doctor-patient discussions could be part of the annual visit.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the administration still supports end-of-life planning, but is pulling the language from the regulation because there wasn't enough chance for all sides to comment on the change. "We did not think that the process (gave) the public an adequate space in a public comment period to debate these kinds of things," Gibbs told reporters.

Discussions about how to face the end of life are already an accepted part of care for people with a terminal illness, and the administration's reversal is unlikely to have much impact on that. Longstanding federal rules require hospital patients to be informed of their right to spell out in a living will or similar document their wishes about being kept alive by machinery if there's no hope for a cure.

However, many doctors and public health advocates believe the government should take a more direct role in encouraging people to plan ahead. They say it would save families the ordeal of having to make agonizing decisions when a loved one is incapacitated.

I'm not sure I understand your point:  You don't think doctors/care givers should be involved in 'end-of-life counseling?'

Here's a pretty good article on the subject: Doctors Providing End of Life Counseling See Benefit in Current Controversy

Oh...ok.  So we should get rid of Medicare and Medicaid?