[tomder55]

Ex and amdeist

All I have to say is that if you are indeed reading HR 3200 you are putting blinders on when reading some sections like Section 1233 "Advanced Care Planning" mandatory counseling sessions to recommend "palliative care and hospice." The government can compel more frequent end of life sessions if it declares a "significant change" in the health of the recipient .And this is not just about fatal illness .It includes conditions described as "chronic," "progressive," or "life-limiting."

The 5th Amendment says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. In this case due process will not be in front of a judge and jury of peers. Due process will be determined by a nameless faceless bureaucrat using a computer model constucted to the specifications of Ezekiel Emanuel's ideas about the worth of the individual .
amdeist you have already previously supported the proposition that there are too many people ;especially ailing elderly so I suppose this fits in perfectly with your ideas about population management .
amdeist I also note that you despise capitalism and agree that the plan being considered is anathema to capitalism and fits in perfectly with your socialist agenda.

It is surprising how radical a conversion you have made Excon ,even as you claim that you don't want government to have that much power.

[NeedKarma]

Don't take tom's word here, he has an agenda. Get the facts, don't believe the extreme right-wing scare tactics:

False Euthanasia Claims | FactCheck.org

[tomder55]

Obama has already made it clear where he stands. He said his grandmother should have chosen pain medication rather than the more costly hip replacement.He also told another women that her mother should take pain medications instead of getting a pacemaker.
Clearly these types of responses are from one who cares more about containing costs then the care of the patient .

[NeedKarma]

.He also told another women that her mother should take pain medications instead of getting a pacemaker.

See, you bought the bad edit that conservatives float around. Let me know if you want the real clip that shows that a) she could keep her plan and b) he said it might have been better to give her the pace-maker sooner.

Here's more of your bull refuted: Will ObamaCare euthanize granny? No. | Washington Examiner

[excon]

All I have to say is that if you are indeed reading HR 3200 you are putting blinders on when reading some sections like Section 1233 "Advanced Care Planning" mandatory counseling sessions to recommend "palliative care and hospice." The government can compel more frequent end of life sessions if it declares a "significant change" in the health of the recipient .And this is not just about fatal illness .It includes conditions described as "chronic," "progressive," or "life-limiting." .

Hello again, tom:

Here is the pertinent sections of HR 3200. You can read it WITHOUT blinders, as I'm sure everybody will. You COULD say it means what you want it to mean, but it doesn't... I didn't copy ALL of the section, but if you can find a part that says they're going to KILL old people, PLEASE cut and paste it. We're DYING to hear.
-------

Advance care planning consultation

2‘(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:
‘(
A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.

‘(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.

‘(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.

‘(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965).

‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.

‘(F)(I) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include--

‘(I) the reasons the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual’s family and the reasons such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;

‘(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and

‘(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decisionmaker (also known as a health care proxy).

------------

excon

[ETWolverine]

The health insurance system YOU support condemns people to DEATH every day in the name of PROFITS...

No it doesn't.

As has been spelled out several times before, private insurance companies may decide not to pay for your care. BUT THEY CANNOT KEEP YOU FROM OBTAINING THAT CARE ON YOUR OWN.

In a single-payer system, not only can they decide not to pay for your care, but by doing so they deny your ability to obtain it on your own, since they are the only body permitted to pay for the care.

Talk all you want about people's inability to pay... they can mortgage their homes, sell their assets, or borrow money in prder to pay for their health care if they must. But they still have OPTIONS to obtain that care... even if it drives them to bankruptcy. In a government-run system, they have no such options if the government denies their claim.

This is not open for dispute. It is a fact. It is the fact that people live with every day in nationalized health care systems throughout the world. Evidence of this fact has been put forward. If you wish to ignore it, that's your issue. But don't try to confuse YOUR issues with reality.

Since you like it sooo much, I must assume that you're sharing in the profits... If not, you're just a water carrier for those that are making the big bucks.

Shouldn't you at least get a commission??

The above is TRUE, unless you're going to tell me that the insurance companies cover EVERYTHING... And, they DON'T!

Excon

Insurance companies don't cover everything. But they can't DENY your right to purchase anything you wish to purchase on your own. The government can and does all the time.

Elliot

[excon]

No it doesn't.

As has been spelled out several times before, private insurance companies may decide not to pay for your care. BUT THEY CANNOT KEEP YOU FROM OBTAINING THAT CARE ON YOUR OWN.

Hello again, El:

It seems you think that people who were turned down for a life saving operation by their insurance company can just go out and buy it themselves... Really??

Do you ACTUALLY know anybody who could do that?? No, you don't. To argue that someone could is one of the dumbest arguments you've made to date... To think that they can, belies reality. Therefore, the person who is turned down by their insurance company for life saving services, IS sentenced to DEATH, no matter how you try to spin it...

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, tom:

Here is the pertinent sections of HR 3200. You can read it WITHOUT blinders, as I'm sure everybody will. You COULD say it means what you want it to mean, but it doesn't.... I didn't copy ALL of the section, but if you can find a part that says they're gonna KILL old people, PLEASE cut and paste it. We're DYING to hear.
-------

Advance care planning consultation

2‘(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:
‘(
A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.

‘(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.

‘(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.

‘(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965).

‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.

‘(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include--

‘(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual’s family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;

‘(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and

‘(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decisionmaker (also known as a health care proxy).

------------

excon

Yep. I read that section.

It says that every 5 years, a counselor will meet with the "patient" (who may not even be sick at the time) and explain to them why they need a will, why they need a living will, and why they need to have DNR and DNI orders on file, and why such things are helpful to the family of the patient.

In other words, they are going to sit there and try to convince people to allow themselves to die rather than allow doctors to take actions to save their lives. And they're going to do so in the "best interests of the family". Whether it really is in their best interests or not.

Screw that. It ain't the government's business to convince ANYONE what end of life actions they should be taking.

Just out of curiosity... if this legislation isn't aimed at convincing older patients to die, why aren't they creating similar counseling for EVERY PATIENT. Isn't it a good idea of every patient to have a will and a living will on file in case of accident or traumatic injury or unexpected health crisis? Why is this legislation being targeted at old people?

Answer: it's being targeted at old people in order to convince as many of them as possible that they are no longer needed on this Earth in order to get rid of them in a bid to lower healths costs. That is the ONLY reason that such legislation would required for older people but not younger people.

Elliot

[NeedKarma]

In other words, they are going to sit there and try to convince people to allow themselves to die rather than allow doctors to take actions to save their lives. And they're going to do so in the "best interests of the family". Whether it really is in their best interests or not.

Wow, you read what you want to read. It's simply counselling. My wife works for the Public Trustee office, if this type of counselling were more prevalent then there would less "messes" at the end of someone's life term especially when some form of dementia sets in.

[excon]

Yep. I read that section.

It says that every 5 years, a counselor will meet with the "patient" (who may not even be sick at the time) and explain to them why they need a will, why they need a living will, and why they need to have DNR and DNI orders on file, and why such things are helpful to the family of the patient.

Hello again, El:

So, you actually think the government is going to suggest that the old folks just die to save everybody some trouble...

I can't imagine where you make up that stuff. It certainly ISN'T what I read... But, of course, I read ENGLISH. Remember when I said the above was the dumbest argument you've made... Well, you topped it.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

So, you actually think the government is going to suggest that the old folks just die to save everybody some trouble...

Yes I do. So does Obama. And Ezekial Emanuel. They've pretty much said that that is their intent.

Of course if the architects of the plan are saying that this is there intent, that doesn't really mean anything, does it?

I can't imagine where you make up that stuff. It certainly ISN'T what I read... But, of course, I read ENGLISH. Remember when I said the above was the dumbest argument you've made... Well, you topped it.

Excon

Where do I get these interpretations? From their own words.

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/ma...ewanted=5&_r=1

But again, let's not let what they SAID influence us. It doesn't really MEAN anything.

Elliot

[excon]

Where do I get these interpretations? From their own words.

But again, let's not let what they SAID influence us. It doesn't really MEAN anything.

Hello again, El:

Well, I read the "words". I didn't find anything in there that said the government is going to suggest that old people pack it in. Nope - not even an inkling...

I'm sure your reading of those same words gave you a different conclusion. I don't know why. They ARE written in English, after all... But, you're having trouble with that lately. I mean, you guys call a coup the Constitution in action...

Have you seen your doctor?? Or are you afraid they won't cover what you've got??

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

Well, I read the "words". I didn't find anything in there that said the government is going to suggest that old people pack it in. Nope - not even an inkling...

It's right HERE:

‘(F)(I) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include--

‘(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual’s family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;

I'm sure your reading of those same words gave you a different conclusion. I don't know why.

Yes you do. You just refuse to acknowledge the stated INTENT of the architects of this legislation.

They ARE written in English, after all... But, you're having trouble with that lately. I mean, you guys call a coup the Constitution in action...

Actually, it IS written in English... of a sort. And it is plain as day what the intent is... especially when taken in context with the statements of those who wrote the bill in the first place.

Have you seen your doctor?? Or are you afraid they won't cover what you've got??

Excon

Yes, I have seen a doctor fairly regularly. I even pay out of pocket, because my insurance doesn't cover it. Y'know... that whole free choice thing. My insurance isn't covering it, but I can STILL get the service anyway. I live what I preach.

What I'm afraid of is that GOVERNMENT insurance won't cover my treatments, and I won't be allowed to pay out of pocket in a single-payer system. Which means that I won't be able to get those services... even if I want to pay out of pocket.

Elliot

[excon]

It's right HERE:

‘(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include--

‘(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual’s family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;

Yes you do. You just refuse to acknowledge the stated INTENT of the architects of this legislation.

Actually, it IS written in English... of a sort. And it is plain as day what the intent is... especially when taken in context with the statements of those who wrote the bill in the first place.

Hello again, El:

I read the words very carefully this time. I find NOTHING in there to suggest the horrifying things you find. What you find "plain as day", I don't find AT ALL.

But, Mr. Wolverine, where you and I find ourselves, is a GOOD example of where this THING is right now, nationwide. I would call it a debate, but when the two sides can't agree on what a few English words actually SAY, then there is NO debate. It's just two sides yelling at each other...

Which is EXACTLY what you want. As WRONG as you are, you are WINNING the argument. You've got everybody yelling at each other. The Democrats can't get it together even though they run the show... They need a hammer like you guys had.

But, you're not doing the country any favors... In fact, just saying no will bankrupt us.

excon

[tomder55]

Yup and we are being called unpatriotic by the Speaker of the House. Concerned citizens are called tea baggers and astroturfers ;an unruly mob;radical crazies. But we are the problem because we have serious reservation over the course the President and the Dems in Congress would lead us in .


Rep. John Fleming has a petition out demanding that Congress give up their taxpayer subsidized benefit to sign onto any legislation they pass. Think they will ? Will the President ? Not likely .

[excon]

But we are the problem because we have serious reservation over the course the President and the Dems in Congress would lead us in .

Hello again, tom:

I AIN'T buying it. If you really HAD serious reservations about the bill, you'd be DISCUSSING them, instead of making up stuff. You don't want a serious discussion. You want to STOP any discussion from taking place.

I say again, just saying no will bankrupt us... It's not very patriotic to want to do that.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, tom:

I AIN'T buying it. If you really HAD serious reservations about the bill, you'd be DISCUSSING them, instead of making up stuff. You don't want a serious discussion. You want to STOP any discussion from taking place.

I say again, just saying no will bankrupt us... It's not very patriotic to want to do that.

excon

How many things do we have to list that are wrong with this bill before you will admit that the bill is a piece of cr&p designed to take choice out of the hands of individuals and businesses and put it into the hands of government?

Counseling oldsters to choose to die rather than save themselves every 5 years isn't enough of a problem for you?

Having someone other than you and your doctor deciding what's in your best interest isn't enough of a problem for you?

Tripling the cost of health care for every man woman and child in the USA isn't enough of a problem for you?

Eliminating free choice within health care isn't enough of a problem for you?

Quadrupling the national debt in order to accomplish this abortion isn't enough of a problem for you?

All of these issues have been discussed ad infinitum. But you are still stuck on the idea that there are no issue and we're making it all up to STOP discussion.

That's your stuff, not ours.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, tom:

I AIN'T buying it. If you really HAD serious reservations about the bill, you'd be DISCUSSING them, instead of making up stuff. You don't want a serious discussion. You want to STOP any discussion from taking place.

I say again, just saying no will bankrupt us... It's not very patriotic to want to do that.

excon

Giving in to communism isn't very patriotic. (And whether you wish to call it that or not, nationalizing health care is COMMUNISM.)

85% of Americans are satisfied with their health care system. 67% of Americans do not want THIS BILL to be passed. MAJORITY RULES is the way DEMOCRACY works. But you want to throw Democracy out the window... THAT isn't very patriotic, excon.

Elliot

[NeedKarma]

(And whether you wish to call it that or not, nationalizing health care is COMMUNISM.)

Dear god you sure are given to hyperbole. You and your hero sarah palin.

Imagine all those communist countries!!
Universal health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Universal health care is implemented in all of the wealthy, industrialized countries, with the exception of the United States.

[tomder55]

Now if the Dems wanted to talk about ways of reforming health insurance to deal with the small percentage of people who fall through the cracks then there is a worthy debate to be had. What they and you have proposed many times is wholesale takeovers of significant percentages of the GDP by the government. You have said you want govt . Takeover of health care ;energy ,finance . What do you leave for the private sector ? Mom and Pop bodegas ? There really is little to discuss... Not only have I read the bill ;but I have also read the writings of Ezekiel Emanuel and Tom Daschele ;the architects gurus of the plan and I know what they mean when they propose having doctors tell their patients that it would be a better option for you to cash your chips in .

From Emanuel's Lancet article :

The complete lives system discriminates against older people. Age-based allocation is ageism. Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years. Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.

Here's another :

"This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity — those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberation — are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed.

So don't tell me that they are not going to go after seniors to control costs .I know better.

So if mandatory counseling encouraging doctors to promote end of life option were not the intent it would be easily remedied in the legislation. Remove the ambiguity . Add a provision stating that the counseling is entirely voluntary.State that the patient will not lose benefits if he/she refuses counseling .Remove the threat of refusal of compensation if the doctor does not do the counseling .