[ETWolverine]

ET

Just want to clarify that DNR [ to the lay public ], does not mean no treatment. Just that if someone has a "cardiac arrest" someone who is DNR will not have CPR, "shocking," etc. They will be let go so to speak.
Or that if someone stops breathing or is on the maximum amount of supplemental oxygen, short of putting a tube in so a machine can ventilate you: a person with a DNR order will and should be given something to relieve that sense of breathlessness and allowed to die as comfortably as possible.


DNR does not mean a person will not get otherwise routine treatment. A DNR heart person will still get their heart medicine, a DNR person with chronic emphysema will get their oxygen and breathing treatments.

I do think that the each individual should be allowed to make that decision while they are not acutely ill, and in consultation with their doctor.

It is hard for that person, family and loved ones, and medical staff to start asking end of life questions when they are breathing hard, and or short of breath and or in pain, what they want their end of life to be? It is too emotional and they may not even be competent at the time to render that kind of decision. Many times the decision is "do everything, but so so would not want to be kept alive by machines."



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

This type of counseling already occurs:

Why is it in this bill?

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

Where in this bill does it state that the doctor or counselor gets paid, let alone payment dependent upon a certain code status. I don't read it, in what you have posted as such.





G&P

To clarify, here are the definitions of a few medical acronyms and terms:

DNR = Do Not Resucitate - no CPR, no defibrilation, no medicines given to make the patient's heart beat, no oxygen administered.

DNI = Do not Intubate - no tubes put into the patient to help them breath.

No Heroic Measures = no medicines or treatments of any kind other than painkillers to keep the patient comfortable. Also referred to as "palliative care". This is essentially an order to "let me just die".

No Nutrition & No Hydration = do not feed or give liquids to the patient. This is how Mary Schiavo was eventually killed by the courts.

Do Not Transfer = Do not move the patient to another facility for "better" or more intensive care... let them die in their current facility (generally used in hospices or nursing homes).

RMA or RMC = Refuse Medical Assistance or Refuse Medical Care... signing out of the hospital against medical advice of the doctor. (Not specifically discussed in the bill above, but another good medical acronym to know).

Elliot

[earl237]

I have always been a strong supporter of euthanasia for people who want that option and I think that it should be legal. Many religious types refer to supporters as Nazis which I think is really unfair and ignorant because the term actually comes from an ancient Greek word meaning good death.

[ETWolverine]

I have always been a strong supporter of euthanasia for people who want that option and I think that it should be legal. Many religious types refer to supporters as Nazis which I think is really unfair and ignorant because the term actually comes from an ancient Greek word meaning good death.

You're a Heinlein-style Libertarian in this area. Not a position that I agree with, but I understand it.

My real issue with euthenasia, though, is when the "option" is encouraged by the government (as per HR3200) and in some cases FORCED by the government (as in Norway's medical system).

Elliot

[NeedKarma]

My real issue with euthenasia, though, is when the "option" is encouraged by the government (as per HR3200)

It isn't.

[speechlesstx]

It isn't.

It apparently is in the UK, and budget troubles in B.C. mean they are expecting "to cut surgeries, seniors' programs and services for the mentally ill to make up a budget shortfall of up to $160 million."

This universal care stuff is sounding better all the time :rolleyes:

[excon]

This universal care stuff is sounding better all the time :rolleyes:

Hello Steve:

Then this should make you feel really good:

Aetna's Ron Williams - CEO Compensation
Total Compensation: $24,300,112


CIGNA's H. Edward Hanway - CEO Compensation
Total Compensation: $12,236,740

Unite Health Group's Stephen Hemsley - CEO Compensation
Total Compensation: $3,241,042


WellPoint's Angela Braly - CEO Compensation
Total Compensation: $9,844,212


Coventry Health Care's Dale Wolf - CEO Compensation
Total Compensation: $9,047,469

Just to name a few.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello Steve:

Then this should make you feel really good:

Aetna's Ron Williams - CEO Compensation
Total Compensation: $24,300,112


CIGNA's H. Edward Hanway - CEO Compensation
Total Compensation: $12,236,740

Unite Health Group's Stephen Hemsley - CEO Compensation
Total Compensation: $3,241,042


WellPoint's Angela Braly - CEO Compensation
Total Compensation: $9,844,212


Coventry Health Care's Dale Wolf - CEO Compensation
Total Compensation: $9,047,469

Just to name a few.

excon

How much to run the new health care bureaucracy which will not face any pressure to compete and succeed in the marketplace?

[inthebox]

Hello Steve:

Then this should make you feel really good:

Aetna's Ron Williams - CEO Compensation
Total Compensation: $24,300,112


CIGNA's H. Edward Hanway - CEO Compensation
Total Compensation: $12,236,740

Unite Health Group's Stephen Hemsley - CEO Compensation
Total Compensation: $3,241,042


WellPoint's Angela Braly - CEO Compensation
Total Compensation: $9,844,212


Coventry Health Care's Dale Wolf - CEO Compensation
Total Compensation: $9,047,469

Just to name a few.

excon

2010 Congress | OpenSecrets


Millions of dollars raised to keep them in power and buy influence: by both Reps and Dems. :eek:






G&P

[excon]

Millions of dollars raised to keep them in power and buy influence: by both Reps and Dems.

Hello in:

It'd be fine with me if we got rid of the for profit insurance companies and we got rid of permanent politicians by instituting term limits.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Excon,

Just out of curiosity, what makes you think that if we nationalized health care, that would put an end to insane executive pay levels?

Fannie Plans Retention Bonuses As Outlined by the Government - washingtonpost.com

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are losing money... but they are paying 7-figure "retention" bonuses to their top execs.

At least private-sector medical insurance companies are making a profit before paying their execs bonuses.

What's the government's excuse?

Sorry, excon, but every problem you find in the private insurance companies you can also find in the government... only bigger, more wasteful and more expensive.

Again, there is no economic, financial or mathematical justification for nationalizing health care.

Elliot

[NeedKarma]

At least private-sector medical insurance companies are making a profit before paying their execs bonuses.

You mean companies like AIG or GM? They are private sector too.

[ETWolverine]

You mean companies like AIG or GM? They are private sector too.

Yes they are.

The thing about private companies is that if the shareholders think that management is overpaid, they can take action to have those execs fired. If they think that their pay is unjustified, they can move for a vote to eliminate that exec. I've seen it happen. I've been part of such votes (ei: when Michael Eisner was removed as CEO of Disney after they suffered significant annual losses for several years and Eisner made a few deals that turned out to be less than profitable for Disney).

What do you do if a government employee is overpaid in an agency that is losing money?

Nada.

That's the advantage in a private system, NK. There are OPTIONS... shareholders can take action to redress problems. In a government-run system, there are no options.

It's always about options, NK.

Elliot

[NeedKarma]

Yes they are.

The thing about private companies is that if the shareholders think that management is overpaid, they can take action to have those execs fired. If they think that their pay is unjustified, they can move for a vote to eliminate that exec.

But in these cases and in many other cases that did not happen. The execs went for years sucking the failing company dry behind closed doors.

[ETWolverine]

But in these cases and in many other cases that did not happen. The execs went for years sucking the failing company dry behind closed doors.

Yes... but that's the decision of the owners of the companies. Not yours or mine (unless you happen to be a shareholder of either GM or AIG). And certainly not the government's decision.

These companies put out financial statements every year. Shareholders knew exactly what was happening with these companies and how much the execs were getting paid. They chose not to take action. That's their decision to make.

But apparently you don't believe that shareholders, who own the company, have the right to make such decisions. I guess you think that ownership of a company doesn't really mean anything... such decisions are only for the GOVERNMENT to make. And never on themselves, of course... only on private sector businesses. I haven't seen the government fire any FANNIE MAE or FREDDIE MAC execs or limit their executlive pay levels, despite the fact that they each lost over a billion dollars in 2008.

Elliot