[speechlesstx]

Check out Slashdot.org for what reasoned, respectful discussion looks like. Your posts would be buried deep there.

So you just come here to call people lying SOB's and Nazis...

[NeedKarma]

The nazi think was imitating what ET does, and yes, you did lie through your teeth, I can't deny that.
Edit to add: over there I wouldn't have had to add the lying bit since the comment would have been buried.

[speechlesstx]

The nazi think was imitating what ET does, and yes, you did lie through your teeth, I can't deny that.
edit to add: over there I wouldn't have had to add the lying bit since the comment would have been buried.

I trusted a blog site that linked to the ABC article as its source for the quote which was posted under the video. I linked to the ABC article instead of the blog precisely because you're so damned suspicious. It turns out the blog quoted a combination of two paragraphs from the article and one quote from the video. Mainstream media journalists do it every day.

The quote was still accurate in spite of my mistake, but admitting to a mistake - even a mistake that does not adversely affect the veracity of the quote - isn't enough to convince you I'm not a "lying SOB." Let the record show I've twice admitted to this mistake and that you're just pathetic.

[speechlesstx]

Just for grins, 2 WaPo columnists who are anything but conservative lackeys have now commented on section 1233. First, Charles Lane:

About a third of Americans have living wills or advance-care directives expressing their wishes for end-of-life treatment. When seniors who don't have them arrive in a hospital terminally ill and incapacitated, families and medical workers wrestle with uncertainty -- while life-prolonging machinery runs, often at Medicare's expense. This has consequences for families and for the federal budget.

Enter Section 1233 of the health-care bill drafted in the Democratic-led House, which would pay doctors to give Medicare patients end-of-life counseling every five years -- or sooner if the patient gets a terminal diagnosis.

On the far right, this is being portrayed as a plan to force everyone over 65 to sign his or her own death warrant. That's rubbish. Federal law already bars Medicare from paying for services "the purpose of which is to cause, or assist in causing," suicide, euthanasia or mercy killing. Nothing in Section 1233 would change that.

Still, I was not reassured to read in an Aug. 1 Post article that "Democratic strategists" are "hesitant to give extra attention to the issue by refuting the inaccuracies, but they worry that it will further agitate already-skeptical seniors."

If Section 1233 is innocuous, why would "strategists" want to tip-toe around the subject?

Perhaps because, at least as I read it, Section 1233 is not totally innocuous.

Until now, federal law has encouraged end-of-life planning -- gently. In 1990, Congress required health-care institutions (not individual doctors) to give new patients written notice of their rights to make living wills, advance directives and the like -- but also required them to treat patients regardless of whether they have such documents.

The 1997 ban on assisted-suicide support specifically allowed doctors to honor advance directives. And last year, Congress told doctors to offer a brief chat on end-of-life documents to consenting patients during their initial "Welcome to Medicare" physical exam. That mandate took effect this year.

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.

Eugene Robinson:

We know that there are crazies in the town hall mobs -- paranoid fantasists who imagine they hear the whop-whop-whop of the World Government black helicopters coming closer by the minute. We know that much of the action is being directed from the wings by cynical political operatives, following a script written by Washington lobbyists. But 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.

Just so there's no misunderstanding, I'm a true believer. It's scandalous and immoral that the richest, most powerful nation on Earth callously ignores the fact that 47 million Americans lack health insurance. I feel strongly that there should be a public option to keep private insurers honest, and I want the government to be able to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies.

Whatever reform package finally emerges -- after it's been mauled by those snarling Blue Dogs -- probably won't go nearly far enough...

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.

If they can admit we have a point when will you?

[tomder55]

Steve you got to recognize the MO by now . He spends the day calling us liars and then for good measure tells us about a site where the level of debate is allegedly elevated . Lol

[NeedKarma]

Steve you gotta recognize the MO by now . He spends the day calling us liars and then for good measure tells us about a site where the level of debate is allegedly elevated . lol

I guess you missed the point that on those moderated sites your erroneous comments would never see the light of day... as voted by your peers.

[tomder55]

I suppose there is no one there to censor your pablum.

[speechlesstx]

Steve you gotta recognize the MO by now . He spends the day calling us liars and then for good measure tells us about a site where the level of debate is allegedly elevated . lol

Kind of like telling us that invoking Nazis means you're uneducated and don't have an argument and then calling Elliot a Nazi?

[NeedKarma]

Yea, that's it! Got to go heat up my Pablum.

[ETWolverine]

Kind of like telling us that invoking Nazis means you're uneducated and don't have an argument and then calling Elliot a Nazi?

Yeah, like that.

[paraclete]

Yea, that's exactly what we have here. They answer parents' questions.
YOU choose to throw the nanny-state and "indoctinating" bullcrap because that's what Limbaugh and Beck tell you. We also have a great 3.5 year old mandatory assessment to see if any children need help with vision, motor skills, etc before the start of kindergarten. All to give them the best chance at success.

Hey I though you had a "free" country over there:)

[tomder55]

I really like your analogy there Tom. Tell me, why do you think it's legal for the government to run a ponzi scheme but illegal for Madoff. Perhaps it is he made off with the money, where we can't find who makes off with the money in these other schemes. It might just be you and me :):)

No ;it's a ponzi scheme because the money does not go to a trust fund to manage the program .Instead it gets pooled into general revenues so the government can make it's deficit numbers look better than it really is. It is theft pure and simple. Like a ponzi scheme the early participants are getting a payout from the program but it will indeed be insolvent by the time the next generation's time for a payout is due.

[speechlesstx]

A small victory?

Finance Committee to drop end-of-life provision

"On the Finance Committee, we are working very hard to avoid unintended consequences by methodically working through the complexities of all of these issues and policy options," Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a statement. "We dropped end-of-life provisions from consideration entirely because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly."

The Finance Committee is the only congressional committee not to report out a preliminary healthcare bill before the August congressional recess, but is expected to unveil its proposal shortly after Labor Day.

Grassley said that bill would hold up better compared to proposals crafted in the House, which he asserted were "poorly cobbled together."

"The bill passed by the House committees is so poorly cobbled together that it will have all kinds of unintended consequences, including making taxpayers fund healthcare subsidies for illegal immigrants," Grassley said. The veteran Iowa lawmaker said the end-of-life provision in those bills would pay physicians to "advise patients about end-of-life care and rate physician quality of care based on the creation of and adherence to orders for end-of-life care.

"Maybe others can defend a bill like the Pelosi bill that leaves major issues open to interpretation, but I can't," Grassley added.

[ETWolverine]

Not really.

What will happen is going to be similar to what happened with the Omnibus spending bill and the Stimulus bill. Certain things (like the end of life provisions) will be dropped by the Senate Bill and the bill will get approved by the Senate. The House bill will pass as is. And during the bi-cameral negotiations to reconcile the bill, the stuff that gets dropped out of the Senate bill will be put back in by Pelosi and company.

Net gain... ZERO.

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

Not really.

What will happen is going to be similar to what happened with the Omnibus spending bill and the Stimulus bill. Certain things (like the end of life provisions) will be dropped by the Senate Bill and the bill will get approved by the Senate. The House bill will pass as is. And during the bi-cameral negotiations to reconcile the bill, the stuff that gets dropped out of the Senate bill will be put back in by Pelosi and company.

Net gain... ZERO.

Elliot

That's my prediction as well.

[galveston]

Here's the thing about this health bill.

Many things can be changed or omitted from the bill by either the House or Senate, but that means NOTHING.

It can be fully reconstituted in COMMITTEE to reconcile the two versions.

If you are a Communist, you probably will love it. At least until you find out how badly it will work in practice.

[paraclete]

No ;it's a ponzi scheme because the money does not go to a trust fund to manage the program .Instead it gets pooled into general revenues so the government can make it's deficit numbers look better than it really is. It is theft pure and simple. Like a ponzi scheme the early participants are getting a payout from the program but it will indeed be insolvent by the time the next generation's time for a payout is due.

All taxation is theft, Tom, legalised theft. I thought the citizens of the US once understood that better than most. Even if contributions go into a trust fund or pool, they will inevitiably be inadequate because of aging and more people joining the scheme so if a government just gets on with the business of governing whilst meeting the obligation, isn't this what they were elected for?

Making the deficit numbers look better, that's the problem with deficit budgeting which is often brought on by lowering taxes while continuing the largess of government. But you can have lower taxes and the largess of government, it was proven in my own nation up to a couple of years ago, but of course, all that is lost now, when government largess has gone to insane levels.

If you are to have some form of universal health care over there you have to bite the bullet and begin to control the cost side of the equation. The regime of testing to cover off the doctors liability rather than clinical need should be addressed, as should capping liability and restricting the take of the legal profession in medical matters.

[andrewc24301]

If you are to have some form of universal health care over there you have to bite the bullet and begin to control the cost side of the equation. The regime of testing to cover off the doctors liability rather than clinical need should be addressed, as should capping liability and restricting the take of the legal profession in medical matters.

Well put

[tomder55]

If you are to have some form of universal health care over there you have to bite the bullet and begin to control the cost side of the equation. The regime of testing to cover off the doctors liability rather than clinical need should be addressed, as should capping liability and restricting the take of the legal profession in medical matters.

yes... ask Excon for his rebuttal . He doesn't think there are unintended consequences when doctors have to allot for "cover your a$$ " (excess expenditures on liability insurance ;too many diagnostic tests performed ) .

The funny thing is that if we ever had single-payer socialists care one of the 1st measures they'd insititute is tort reform because of the cost issue.

[ETWolverine]

Here's the thing about this health bill.

Many things can be changed or omitted from the bill by either the House or Senate, but that means NOTHING.

It can be fully reconstituted in COMMITTEE to reconcile the two versions.

If you are a Communist, you probably will love it. At least until you find out how badly it will work in practice.

Agreed.