Quote:
because they ALL say that end of life counselling means the government wants to kill you
No ;that's what you say we say.
But I'll tell you where some of my "talking points "come from .
How about what Charles Lane of the Washington Compost editorial board says about Section 1233 :
Quote:
Section 1233, however, addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones. Supporters protest that they're just trying to facilitate choice -- even if patients opt for expensive life-prolonging care. I think they protest too much: If it's all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what's it doing in a measure to "bend the curve" on health-care costs?
Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren't quite "purely voluntary," as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, "purely voluntary" means "not unless the patient requests one." Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive -- money -- to do so. Indeed, that's an incentive to insist.
Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they're in the meeting, the bill does permit "formulation" of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would "place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign," I don't think he's being realistic.
washingtonpost.com
Is Lane channeling Liberty University talking points too ?
Is Eugene Robinson carrying water for the Right wingers when he writes
Quote:
.......the nut jobs and carpetbaggers are outnumbered by confused and concerned Americans who seem genuinely convinced they're not being told the whole truth about health-care reform.
And they have a point.
“ ...reform is being sold not just as a moral obligation but also as a way to control rising health-care costs. That should have been a separate discussion. It is not illogical for skeptics to suspect that if millions of people are going to be newly covered by health insurance, either costs are going to skyrocket or services are going to be curtailed.
The unvarnished truth is that services are ultimately going to have to be curtailed regardless of what happens with reform. We perform more expensive tests, questionable surgeries and high-tech diagnostic scans than we can afford. We spend unsustainable amounts of money on patients during the final year of life.
Yes, it's true that doctors order some questionable procedures defensively, to keep from getting sued. But it's a cop-out to blame the doctors or the tort lawyers. We're the ones who demand these tests, scans and surgeries. And why not? If a technology exists that can prolong life or improve its quality, even for a few weeks or months, why shouldn't we want it?
That's the reason people are so frightened and enraged about the proposed measure that would allow Medicare to pay for end-of-life counseling. If the government says it has to control health-care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending.
.”
??
Maybe I get my talking points from the NY State Democrat Chairman of the New York State Senate Aging Committee who wrote to Waxman the following :
Quote:
Dear Congressman Waxman:
As Chairman of the New York State Senate Aging Committee, I am deeply concerned that a provision that targets senior citizens in Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200 may preempt New York State rules and practices. This proposed federal health care legislation's impact upon the elderly citizens of New York State needs to be sensitive to what may be considered a “state's rights” issue, which may be best dealt with at the state level, and not imposed by Washington.
Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200 puts our senior citizens on a slippery slope and may diminish respect for the inherent dignity of each of their lives. Each life must be cherished and regarded with reverence. This pending legislation does not necessarily provide for that guideline, and needs to be carefully reviewed with a full and open public debate.
It is egregious to consider that any senior citizen who resides in New York State or anywhere in the United States of America should be placed in a situation where he or she would feel pressured to save the government money by dying a little sooner than he or she otherwise would, be required to be counseled about the supposed benefits of killing oneself, or be encouraged to sign any end of life directives that they would not otherwise sign.
I respectfully request that you advise me if and when there may be Congressional hearings on this matter, that you provide me with an opportunity to testify at such hearings, and suggest others who may also be qualified to testify.
Respectfully,
Senator Reverend Ruben Diaz
Letter to Congressman Henry Waxman re Section 1233 of HR 3200 | New York State Senate
This is a nice propaganda campaign by the Dems to try to deflect honest concerns about the bill to the ravings of ideologues . But it is BS and it doesn't lend itself to a true honest debate of the plan.
