Just ranting about this Death Panel Thing.

[JFrankA]

Please forgive me. I have to vent....

Well, once again, the hype and misinformation won. As I said, I'm still on the fence with the new Health Care bill, but when some misinformation comes along as fear mongering and is screamed so loudly and often, that it's believed, it's sad and wrong. It's been reported that the so-called "Death Panel" is going to be removed from the bill. Further, Fox News is hinting (read: very strongly suggesting to everyone) that if it wasn't for Sarah Palin using "frank and honest" language, the provision would never be taken out of the bill. Now something that some seniors might actually need is going to be refused to them because of political games. If this bill gets passed, then some some old person dieing of a terminal illness who wants to consider legal assisted suicide (which by the way is legal in only three states), will have to PAY for the consoling I can see it now: Old Dieing Guy: "Well, I'm 97 years old and I can't take the pain and I'm a burden to the family. Is there a way I can just legally do suicide?" Doctor: "I'd love to tell you but it's gonna cost your $350.00" Old Dieing Guy: "What? You mean my government insurance plan doesn't cover that??" Doctor: "Nope. Sorry." Old Dieing Guy: "Damn Democrats. Obama sucks." And then later he kills himself anyway by finding a gun and blowing his brains out. I don't mean this as a rant against Republicans, this is a rant against people playing others through grandstanding, misinformation and showmanship. All parties do it and it just pisses me off. I don't know what the answer is. It seems to me to be a necessary evil that we have to live with.

.....okay. I'm out of steam.....

I do have one question, if you choose to answer. Do you think I have this right? I'd like other's opinion on this.

And I didn't know that there was an actual /rant command.... I might be using that more often.

[T.A.M.]

I heard that it wasn't going to be removed. I hope I am right, for the sake of the american system.

I have only followed American Politics for the last 2-3 years CLOSELY, so I will plead ignorance, but I do not recall ever seeing such obvious LYING (not exaggeration, not obfuscation, simple lying) from the DEM side on such an important topic.

Sarah Palin should be very ashamed, but I do not think she is capable of shame (or many other human qualities or emotions for that matter).

TAM

[JFrankA]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

I heard that it wasn't going to be removed. I hope I am right, for the sake of the american system.

I have only followed American Politics for the last 2-3 years CLOSELY, so I will plead ignorance, but I do not recall ever seeing such obvious LYING (not exaggeration, not obfuscation, simple lying) from the DEM side on such an important topic.

Sarah Palin should be very ashamed, but I do not think she is capable of shame (or many other human qualities or emotions for that matter).

TAM

Hope you're right TAM, I am hoping it's just another one of Fox New's stories to get people to believe them, a "See? We win!!! Again!" thing. (My parents watch Fox News like it was the only channel available -.-)

It's sad that both sides can't just come to a table and work out the real problems of the bill, and not each side putting up smoke and more smoke to hide the smoke.

[T.A.M.]

What baffles me, truly baffles me, is that the entire world knows that the US Health Care System needs DRASTIC change. Even most Americans seem to KNOW this, yet they FEAR change so much (Despite having voted for it in 2008) that they would rather believe idiocy that flies in the face of their reason, simply to avoid the truth.

The USA system needs:

Tort Reform
Cost Cutting
Insurance REGULATION
A PUBLIC OPTION

And so much more.

TAM

[JFrankA]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

What baffles me, truly baffles me, is that the entire world knows that the US Health Care System needs DRASTIC change. Even most Americans seem to KNOW this, yet they FEAR change so much (Despite having voted for it in 2008) that they would rather believe idiocy that flies in the face of their reason, simply to avoid the truth.

The USA system needs:

Tort Reform
Cost Cutting
Insurance REGULATION
A PUBLIC OPTION

And so much more.

TAM

Once again, I agree.

The problem is that us Americans a) expect complete solving of the problem NOW, b) expect it to be done exactly the way "I" want it and what "my morals" are and c) are now a nation of fear.

We as a nation, have a great ambition but are completely afraid. I don't know if that's generally how people are but this country has been like that big time over the past ten years. Add to that we are a lazy nation. So when someone screams "fear this", it is much easier for people to just give into the emotion rather than stopping and taking the time to think.

My biggest complaint about Bush as president was that he and his office just harbored and cultured fear as a good thing in it's citizens. I'm hoping Obama doesn't do that.

Unfortunately, it's going to take a long time for us to weed out that fear.

...sorry. Should've used the "Rant" commands again. I just hope I'm making sense....

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by JFrankA

It's been reported that the so-called "Death Panel" is going to be removed from the bill. Further, Fox News is hinting (read: very strongly suggesting to everyone) that if it wasn't for Sarah Palin using "frank and honest" language, the provision would never be taken out of the bill. Now something that some seniors might actually need is going to be refused to them because of political games. If this bill gets passed, then some some old person dieing of a terminal illness who wants to consider legal assisted suicide (which by the way is legal in only three states), will have to PAY for the consoling

I think it's outrageous that news media are buying into the Palin lies. However, to my knowledge the provision that this kind of counseling be paid for was only removed from one version (the Senate Finance Committee's version). So there's still a good chance it will be there in the final version when saner heads discuss the matter in putting the various versions together into one bill.

As an aside: I think you mean counseling not consoling!

ETA: At the clinic where I go for healthcare (I'm self-employed, poor but not poor enough for medicaid, and the private insurance plans available to me--I've checked--are outrageous and unrealistic), they offer living will and advance directive counseling. I don't know if they charge extra for it, but they mention it pretty much every time I'm there, and I get the impression that the hospital is offering the counseling free of charge to clinic patients at least.

[JFrankA]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I think it's outrageous that news media are buying into the Palin lies. However, to my knowledge the provision that this kind of counseling be paid for was only removed from one version (the Senate Finance Committee's version). So there's still a good chance it will be there in the final version when saner heads discuss the matter in putting the various versions together into one bill.

I'm sure. It's just bothers me that this smoke is covering what really needs to be addressed.

Quote:

As an aside: I think you mean counseling not consoling!

err..uh...yes, I did... I was ranting so I clicked on the wrong spell check suggestion.... oops

Quote:

ETA: At the clinic where I go for healthcare (I'm self-employed, poor but not poor enough for medicaid, and the private insurance plans available to me--I've checked--are outrageous and unrealistic), they offer living will and advance directive counseling. I don't know if they charge extra for it, but they mention it pretty much every time I'm there, and I get the impression that the hospital is offering the counseling free of charge to clinic patients at least.

It's possible it is free now. I heard, though I haven't looked for the proof on this yet, that something similar to this counseling thing was in Bush's health care plan in 2003. So maybe it's just a revamp or even the same thing as that.

There's so much smoke going on here that it's hard to see the actual fire.

[Brainster]

Let's see, Obama promises to wring extra costs out of the system, but doesn't specify which, but also notes all the care going to patients in their final year of life as wasteful.

Quote:

I don’t know how much that hip replacement cost. I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she’s my grandmother. Whether, sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question. If somebody told me that my grandmother couldn’t have a hip replacement and she had to lie there in misery in the waning days of her life — that would be pretty upsetting.

And:

Quote:

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.

How could anybody possibly interpret that "independent group" of doctors, scientists and ethicists as some sort of a panel that would make decisions on who gets (say) a hip replacement?

[JoeTheJuggler]

From the Chicago Tribune article on this story:

Quote:

The Senate Finance Committee is taking the idea of "end-of-life care consultations" with doctors off the table as it works to craft its version of health care legislation, a Democratic committee aide said Thursday.
<snip>
A similar provision remains in legislation that was passed by three House committees last month, and the idea could remain on the table when lawmakers move toward agreement on a final bill. Legislation passed by the Senate's health committee does not include the consultation measure.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Let's see, Obama promises to wring extra costs out of the system, but doesn't specify which, but also notes all the care going to patients in their final year of life as wasteful.

The quotes you provided don't support this assertion (that Obama thinks all care going to patients in the final year of life--as if we knew what that was--is wasteful). I clicked on the link you provided and searched the term "wasteful"--no matches--and the term "final year"--no matches.

It seems you've made an unsubstantiated claim.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

The quotes you provided don't support this assertion (that Obama thinks all care going to patients in the final year of life--as if we knew what that was--is wasteful). I clicked on the link you provided and searched the term "wasteful"--no matches--and the term "final year"--no matches.

It seems you've made an unsubstantiated claim.

Try reading it instead of searching for words that were not in quotation marks in my post. I did phrase one part poorly; Obama was not saying that "all" the care in the final year of life was wasteful, he was saying that the aggregate total was wasteful.

[Ohmer]

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Please forgive me. I have to vent....

.....okay. I'm out of steam.....

I do have one question, if you choose to answer. Do you think I have this right? I'd like other's opinion on this.

And I didn't know that there was an actual /rant command.... I might be using that more often.

It's actually worse than that. End of life counseling is about a lot more than assisted suicide. It's about making decisions about what to do in certain situations so that your family doesn't have to. Everyone should do this at some point. What is so infuriating to me about this "victory" for Palin is that seniors will have to continue to pay for such counseling out of pocket. Medicare won't cover it. Oh happy day for opponents of reform. Now You will have to decide when to pull the plug on grandma because she couldn't afford the counseling needed to give you an advance directive. This is always a horrific decision. Wouldn't it be better if you knew, in writing, what Grandma wanted? This is what Palin is fighting against. Stupid C word.

[boloboffin]

Grassley got it killed in the Senate Finance Committee bill, a meaningless stance because it's in all other versions of the bill, and it will certainly be in the final version. And Grassley knows better, Palin knows better, they all do because they've all voted or argued in favor of end-of-life counseling before now.

Naked political posturing.

[JFrankA]

Originally Posted by boloboffin

Naked political posturing.

Agreed.

Let's just scare the people and drum up their anger just so we can beat the other side. F*** the people.

This whole thing is nothing more than Us vs Them.

And it pisses me off because it's working.

[Rika]

Er.. no, Brainster, I'm afraid it doesn't argue that. He just says he doesn't know if it is very expensive or not.

[Rolfe]

Surely it's not about assisted suicide at all? That's certainly illegal in Britain, and I thought it was illegal in the USA also. No?

As I understand it, the provision that was so creatively morphed into "death panels" was about counselling with regard to choices about end of life care, living wills and so on. Nothing about suicide, assisted or not.

I know assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland and the Netherlands, but it's very controversial and completely and utterly verboten in Britain.

As regards the treatment of ordinary people with motor neurone disease (what Stephen Hawking has) in Britain, and attitudes to assisted suicide, one need only take note of the case of Diane Pretty. She was treated by the NHS, as anyone with this condition will be, famous or not. (Indeed, Hawking wasn't famous when he was diagnosed, he was a 21-year-old student just starting his post-grad studies. It's entirely possible that if he had been American he would never been able to accomplish what he has achieved, due to the burden of healthcare provision. Indeed, it is arguably the need to stay with the NHS that has kept him working in England.)

Anyway, Mrs. Pretty wanted the right to have assisted suicide. She fought a long way through the British courts for it, but was refused at every turn. This in Britain, currently being accused both of not treating motor neurone disease sufferers, and of running "death panels".

Rolfe.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Try reading it instead of searching for words that were not in quotation marks in my post. I did phrase one part poorly; Obama was not saying that "all" the care in the final year of life was wasteful, he was saying that the aggregate total was wasteful.

So you do admit that your claim that Obama considers all healthcare spending on the final year of life to be wasteful is unfounded?

As to your amended claim--I don't see anything that substantiates that either. Obama said it's something we need to look at. He said it's a "very difficult question".

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Surely it's not about assisted suicide at all? That's certainly illegal in Britain, and I thought it was illegal in the USA also. No?

In the U.S., this is a matter of state law. Assisted suicide is legal in 3 states: Oregon and Washington by legislation, and Montana by court ruling.

[JFrankA]

It's partly about assissted suicides, but as Ohmer it's much more. And thank you, Ohmer for that info. That I did not know.

I also found this article.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_t...g-exposed.aspx

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Let's see, Obama promises to wring extra costs out of the system, but doesn't specify which, but also notes all the care going to patients in their final year of life as wasteful.



And:



How could anybody possibly interpret that "independent group" of doctors, scientists and ethicists as some sort of a panel that would make decisions on who gets (say) a hip replacement?

ALL the care? I read the entire article, and I am having trouble figuring out what you think he says that is incorrect, or harmful in anyway to seniors or their health care.

Fact is, people over 65, and the chronically ill do cost ANY health care system the most...by a long shot.

I also doubt you will have ethicists on any panel making health care advisement for a GIVEN patient. They will likely be part of a group that formulates guidelines for certain health care principles and policies...which is what I thought Obama was getting at in that part of the article anyway.

TAM

[Ohmer]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Surely it's not about assisted suicide at all? That's certainly illegal in Britain, and I thought it was illegal in the USA also. No?

It is legal my my state (Oregon). Death with dignity act. It's very controversial. 54 people used it in 2008.

[skeptical]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Try reading it instead of searching for words that were not in quotation marks in my post. I did phrase one part poorly; Obama was not saying that "all" the care in the final year of life was wasteful, he was saying that the aggregate total was wasteful.

A) The link still doesn't match your revised paraphrase
B) The bottom line is that it is true that a lot of care is given to people who are going to die in a matter of days or weeks to keep them alive in a semi-comatose state or in constant pain

I don't know about the rest of the world, but in the US there seems to be an obsession with squeezing every last ounce of "life" out of someone, no matter what the quality of that life might be. We are, as a nation, collectively so squemish about death that it is taboo just to even mention topics like end of life care and end of life directives.

Of course, there is a big difference between someone deciding that you are too expensive to keep alive, and someone discussing with you years in advance how you would like to handle these situations on your behalf in the event that you become unable to make those decisions. No one ever suggested the former in the slightest way and now, thanks to the fear mongers, it is possible that families will have to make those decisions during a crisis at the end of their loved ones life, which is the worst possible time to make that decision.

For anyone who has ever had to discuss end of life care with a dying loved one, the fact that some have made this a political foil is just about the most obscene thing I have seen in politics. I didn't think it was possible to find a new low, but here we are. Thanks Sarah. Really, thanks so much.

[Unabogie]

This whole topic I find very discouraging, because it seems to me as though our society is somehow incapable of having a reasonable discussion about anything anymore.

Somehow, it always devolves into bizarro world paranoia.

In my mind, there are only a few rational grounds to oppose national health insurance.

1. You are philosophically opposed to government involvement in society (or at least in health care).
2. You think it will cost too much.
3. You think it will cause rationing.

Now, if you are in camp 1, then you are also opposed to Medicare, and the public can make a rational decision about whether they agree with you.

If you are in camp 2, we can discuss costs and taxes, and the public can make a rational decision about whether taxes are too high to pay for it in exchange for what we'd get in return.

If you are in camp 3, we can discuss how to hire more doctors and decide how to apportion the resources so everyone is covered, or we could choose not to change.

All this other stuff, from screams of Socialism, to talk of death panels and eugenics, is evidence that our society is broken.

[Lonewulf]

I don't think that it shows that our society is broken. It has people that argue more on emotion than logic, but that's honestly nothing new since the beginning of the United States, or even the human race. In fact, I'd say that if anything else, the debates are more rational today than in the past, on the whole.

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Sarah Palin should be very ashamed, but I do not think she is capable of shame (or many other human qualities or emotions for that matter).

She should've taken her own advice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20R0Q99MRxc

0:28 to 0:33.

ETA: Btw, didn't she quit politics?

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

I don't think that it shows that our society is broken. It has people that argue more on emotion than logic, but that's honestly nothing new since the beginning of the United States, or even the human race. In fact, I'd say that if anything else, the debates are more rational today than in the past, on the whole.

But if you and I cannot even agree on the facts of reality, how can we ever hope to form policy except through ramrodding legislation through?

If the problem is that 50 million Americans are without health insurance, and I ask what should be done about it, what do I do if you respond that the number is a liberal lie and call me a socialist?

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

But if you and I cannot even agree on the facts of reality, how can we ever hope to form policy except through ramrodding legislation through?

I'm still not sure that this is anything new. See the whole "We will not be crucified on your cross of gold!" argument in the 1896 Democratic National Convention.

And I don't think it'll ever be solved; but it's definitely a detriment to public debate.

Quote:

If the problem is that 50 million Americans are without health insurance, and I ask what should be done about it, what do I do if you respond that the number is a liberal lie and call me a socialist?

I'm honestly not sure. If I knew, I'd be a much better debater than I am today.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by boloboffin

Grassley got it killed in the Senate Finance Committee bill, a meaningless stance because it's in all other versions of the bill, and it will certainly be in the final version. And Grassley knows better, Palin knows better, they all do because they've all voted or argued in favor of end-of-life counseling before now.

Naked political posturing.

EXACTLY! This is all just posturing, nothing more, for the wingnuts in the religious right. What is so funny about it is that on some political message boards, the hardcore rightwingers are crowing about this as if Palin has won some massive political victory over Obama. She's won nothing, because the people who pulled their support (publicly, at least) for the end-of-life counseling provisions are conservative Republicans, not Democrats. The Democrats don't care one bit about her, and if they want it in the final bill, it'll be in it regardless of what the GOP says.

The only thing that Palin has really achieved with all of this is that she's become even more of a darling to the extremists in the base of the GOP. Which makes it that much more likely she'll be the Republican candidate in 2012... which makes it that much more likely Obama will be re-elected

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

ETA: Btw, didn't she quit politics?

Nope, she's gearing up to take the GOP down the road to an embarrassing 2012 defeat.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

She should've taken her own advice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20R0Q99MRxc

0:28 to 0:33.

ETA: Btw, didn't she quit politics?

No she simply quit Alaska. Can't make a name for yourself (albeit a name as a fringe right wing wingnut) stuck up north runnin' things.

TAM

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Nope, she's gearing up to take the GOP down the road to an embarrassing 2012 defeat.

I hope you are right, and she wins the nomination for the GOP.

TAM

[Tricky]

One thing I find constantly annoying about complaints about "death panels" is that those that oppose end-of-life counselling are always saying stuff like "that should be decided by the family". Well duh. It is. Sometimes it is decided on emotional or superstitious grounds simply because there is no person in the "family" who is knowledgeable about provisions for end-of-life care.

So why in the name of rationality would ANYONE be against having someone present who could give them reliable information? This is the most nonsensical stand I can possibly fathom, and indeed, Sarah Palin knows it, as others have pointed out with her previous statements supporting such counselling.

But in truth, some decisions have to be made. An insurer, whether a private or government insurer, has to make some judgments, such as if a 90-year-old, still-drinking alchoholic should recive a liver transplant. At some point, the service provider has to have the ability to say "no". Is the government more likely to be hard-hearted about these things than private insurance companies? Consider that private insurance companies routinely deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and are basically in the business to make a profit. I think the government is more likely to be sympathetic even at the expense of the taxpayer.

So decide which tack you're going to take, anti-health care people. Is it because the government is too generous at your expense, or is it because they are so cheap they'll kill Grandma. Because you can't have it both ways.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

The USA system needs:

Tort Reform
Cost Cutting
Insurance REGULATION
A PUBLIC OPTION

And so much more.

I would change "Insurance REGULATION" to "Insurance regulation REFORM." Insurers are regulated. A lot. In every state. There isn't a lack of regulation, there's a lack of cohesive, logical regulation.

I disagree that we need a public option, especially if we execute insurance regulation reform well, but it's a valid debate. Unfortunately, it's a debate that isn't happening in a serious manner thanks to all this "death panel" nonsense. Ditto with debates on how to accomplish cost cutting and tort reform.

What bothers me is that there is plenty of legitimate debate to be had over how we will execute healthcare reform. Concerns about what role we want the government to play in administering our healthcare system are legitimate, but that's not the serious debate that is happening right now either.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by ARubberChickenWithAPulley

I would change "Insurance REGULATION" to "Insurance regulation REFORM." Insurers are regulated. A lot. In every state. There isn't a lack of regulation, there's a lack of cohesive, logical regulation.

I disagree that we need a public option, especially if we execute insurance regulation reform well, but it's a valid debate. Unfortunately, it's a debate that isn't happening in a serious manner thanks to all this "death panel" nonsense. Ditto with debates on how to accomplish cost cutting and tort reform.

What bothers me is that there is plenty of legitimate debate to be had over how we will execute healthcare reform. Concerns about what role we want the government to play in administering our healthcare system are legitimate, but that's not the serious debate that is happening right now either.

Which is exactly my point. There are a lot of grounds on which to both agree and disagree. If we start from points of agreement, we could have made many of these reforms years ago.

Personally, I am for a single payer "plus" system, wherein everyone is covered by a government insurance plan, and anyone who wants more can buy it.

Seems fair, humane, and cost effective.

If we start from those three criteria, we could likely find other models as well that we could agree on.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by ARubberChickenWithAPulley

I disagree that we need a public option, especially if we execute insurance regulation reform well, but it's a valid debate.

I think it'll happen one way or another. If Obama cedes the public insurance option, most likely the proposals that greatly expand Medicaid eligibility would take its place. Perhaps with people in the expanded eligibility paying some kind of premium (even if it's just higher co-pays) on a sliding scale. So. . we would have a de facto public insurance option anyway.

Quote:

Unfortunately, it's a debate that isn't happening in a serious manner thanks to all this "death panel" nonsense. Ditto with debates on how to accomplish cost cutting and tort reform.

Amen that.

On that issue, I'm glad tort reform isn't really rolled into this because I think it would raise too many more issues. I agree it's a debate we need to have, and an issue we need to face, but I'd rather it separated. My position is that we shouldn't discuss tort reform in terms of caps or limits on damages (on cases with merit) as much as we should tighten up rules on frivolous suits and tighten regulation of malpractice insurers (who settle these things, then raise premiums on the doctors). If anyone's after the deep pockets of doctors and hospitals, it's the insurers. It's their actions that reward and encourage the gold-diggers, too.

And they're yet another extraneous profit center. Heck, I'd even be in favor of something like the FDIC to indemnify health care providers for malpractice. Just a thought.