DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on December 30, 2010, 03:50:53 PM
-
Sarah Palin deserves an apology. When she said that the new health-care law would lead to "death panels" deciding who gets life-saving treatment and who does not, she was roundly denounced and ridiculed.
Now we learn, courtesy of one of the ridiculers -- The New York Times -- that she was right.
Under a new policy not included in the law for fear the administration's real end-of-life game would be exposed, a rule issued by the recess-appointed Dr. Donald M. Berwick, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, calls for the government to pay doctors to advise patients on options for ending their lives. These could include directives to forgo aggressive treatment that could extend their lives.
This rule will inevitably lead to bureaucrats deciding who is "fit" to live and who is not.
The effect this might have on public opinion, which by a solid majority opposes Obamacare, is clear from an e-mail obtained by the Times. It is from Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), who sent it to people working with him on the issue. Oregon and Washington are the only states with assisted-suicide laws, a preview of what is to come at the federal level if this new regulation is allowed to stand. Blumenauer wrote in his November e-mail: "While we are very happy with the result, we won't be shouting it from the rooftops because we aren't out of the woods yet. This regulation could be modified or reversed, especially if Republican leaders try to use this small provision to perpetuate the 'death panel' myth."
Ah, but it's not a myth, and that's where Palin nailed it.
All inhumanities begin with small steps; otherwise the public might rebel against a policy that went straight to the "final solution." All human life was once regarded as having value, because even government saw it as "endowed by our Creator." This doctrine separates us from plants, microorganisms and animals.
Doctors once swore an oath, which reads in part: "I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion." Did Dr. Berwick, a fan of rationed care and the British National Health Service, ever take that oath? If he did, it appears he no longer believes it.
Do you see where this leads?
First the prohibition against abortion is removed and "doctors" now perform them.
Then the assault on the infirm and elderly begins.
Once the definition of human life changes, all human lives become potentially expendable if they don't measure up to constantly "evolving" government standards.
It will all be dressed up with the best possible motives behind it and sold to the public as the ultimate benefit. The killings, uh, terminations, will take place out of sight so as not to disturb the masses who might have a few embers of a past morality still burning in their souls. People will sign documents testifying to their desire to die, and the government will see it as a means of "reducing the surplus population," to quote Charles Dickens.
When life is seen as having ultimate value, individuals and their doctors can make decisions about treatment that are in the best interests of patients. But when government is looking to cut costs as the highest good and offers to pay doctors to tell patients during their annual visits that they can choose to end their lives rather than continue treatment, that is more than the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. That is the next step on the way to physician-assisted suicide and, if not stopped, government-mandated euthanasia.
It can't happen here? Based on what standard? Yes it can happen in America, and it will if the new Republican class in Congress doesn't stop it.
She Told Us So (http://townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2010/12/30/she_told_us_so)
-
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb1229cd20101228083633.jpg)
-
They're Back! The Return of the Death Panels
They were supposed to be gone. They were supposed never to have existed. Remember the foofaraw over the part of ObamaCare that was going to have Medicare finance, uh, consultations about end-of-life treatment? They soon were dubbed death panels. The name stuck, and every time advocates of the idea derided it -- untrue! fictional! absurd! wholly imaginary! -- they only gave it more currency.
Which term do you prefer, end-of-life counseling or death panels?
It makes quite a difference when discussing the issue. Because when it comes to a political conflict, vocabulary remains the Little Round Top of every engagement, the strategic height that determines the outcome of the battle. And any mention of death tends to, well, kill off enthusiasm for a proposal. Whether we're talking death panels or the death tax. (Its advocates much prefer to speak of the estate tax even if it's the same thing.) Why be blunt? Especially if it's going to cost your side of the debate votes.
Awkward facts must be sidestepped, euphemisms invented. The way abortion has become Choice. Names count; what a proposal is called may determine whether it ever gets into law. And so the death panels/end-of-life consultations had to be dropped from the final version of ObamaCare, which goes by an official euphemism of its own: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) of 2009. And its Section 1233 raised concerns that the patient might be protected to death.
At the least the controversial section was sure to produce a whole new para-medical sub-specialty. For where there's a Medicare payment, payees are bound to spring up. (In economicspeak, this is called incentivizing.) What do you think the practitioners of this new art/science would be called? Nothing very precise, one can be sure. Preferably something long and latinate, a term that softens the hard edges of its meaning, something high-toned, even classical. How about thanatopsists?
You can almost see the new occupation being plugged into every top-flight medical center's table of organization. ("Thanatopsy? It's in Annex B on Level II. You'll have to take the elevator to the main floor, cross the parking lot, go through the underground garage, enter the red door and get off on Blue Level. It's simple. Just follow the signs. Be sure to bring your parking ticket, photographic ID, proof of insurance, medical records, list of pharmaceuticals, and....")
Thanatopsy. What better way for fledgling bioethicists to begin a long career of not calling things by their right names? Why alarm people by facing the facts of life, or rather death? Better to speak of end-of-life care or advance planning or, well, anything but death. Euphemism is the health of bioethics, which is never to be confused with ethics, or at least the kind explored by Aristotle or Bonhoeffer.
It's a strange thing: The very people so eager to plan for death never use the word. In any event, Section 1233 and its provision for periodic consultations about (insert appropriate euphemism here) never made it into law. Oh, death, where is thy sting, grave thy victory?
Answer: In a brand-new Medicare regulation in effect as of this brand-new year -- January 1, 2011 A.D. Issuing a regulation is always the fallback position for an administration that can't convince Congress to follow its lead. What an inconvenience it is to have to deal with popularly elected legislators anyway; they're so fickle, so sensitive, so slow to see reason ... and so accountable to the voters at the next election. Why not just work around them? Spare them the heat. We'd be doing them a favor, right?
And so it was done. Section 1233 now has been reborn as a Medicare regulation authorizing payment for "voluntary advance planning" to discuss, uh, end-of-life issues with patients and provide them with information about preparing an "advance directive" should they develop a life-threatening illness. Or well before.
With the disappearance of the old-time family doctor (and friend) in American medicine, the kind of physician who might be counted on to know a patient's condition, convictions, temperament and particular idiosyncrasies, we can now rely on experts to conduct these consultations. What a comfort. Kind of.
Don't get me wrong. There's no reason to doubt the president when he assures us in his ever-delicate way that there's nothing in his vast new health plan that "would pull the plug on grandma." These doctors, or some specially trained intern on their staff, would just ask the old lady a few questions periodically.
But as every polemicist knows, the way a question is asked can determine the answer. To quote one of those experts -- a thanatopsist? -- at the University of Michigan, someone with heart disease might be asked: "If you have another heart attack and your heart stops beating, would you want us to try to restart it?" Or someone with emphysema could be asked, "Do you want to go on a breathing machine for the rest of your life?" Or the cancer patient would be asked, "When the time comes, do you want us to use technology to try and delay your death?" As if anyone could know when the time will come, and how the patient will feel about it then. And please note the phraseology: It's not save your life, but delay your death. Never underestimate the power of negative thinking.
Life-and-death decisions that once could be safely left to the common-sense wisdom of the doctor most familiar with the patient now can be boiled down to a standard form--and a standard, billable procedure. Welcome to this Brave New World where any mention of death is banished. Just call it end-of-life. Euphemism is the first sign that you don't want to look too closely at what is being proposed.
Like a zombie who was supposed to have disappeared at the end of the first act of this drama, Section 1233 now has been revived. Even though it's taken on the form of a regulation instead of legislation. Thanks to the convenience of modern bureaucracy, all that messy business of congressional hearings and votes and open debate can be avoided just by issuing a new rule. But don't noise it about. Its modest backers have tried to keep its resuscitation as quiet as possible.
To quote an e-mail sent out by the Hon. Earl Blumenauer, a congressman from Oregon and an enthusiastic backer of this stealth regulation, the new rule represents a "quiet victory." Or as he told supporters: "While we are very happy with the result, we won't be shouting it from the rooftops. ... The longer this goes unnoticed, the better our chances of keeping it."
The surest sign of a suspect political project is that it has to be adopted as quietly as possible. In this case, quiet as death.
So those celebrating this latest advance in society's pervasive culture of death are advised to sip their champagne without making much ado about it.
No sense in alarming the rubes, who tend to have this irrational attachment to life. (http://townhall.com/columnists/PaulGreenberg/2011/01/04/theyre_back!_the_return_of_the_death_panels)
-
We don't need a death panel to tell us to the plug on the life support system that's keeping Sarah Palin going. She's definitely brain dead.
bsb
-
Your opinion is duly noted. By all means let's ignore an opportunity to discuss "end of life counseling", as the left kept claiming was never in play, and instead dump on Palin.
-
better to attack Palin that face the facts!
ha ha ha .....what a joke!
SIRS they wanna kill the babies and the old people too!
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/__7s9GUTM-oY/S9wDSxpazbI/AAAAAAAAQRY/VTCRukhvIG8/s1600/mama+teresa.jpg)
-
Why is a discussion of end of life counseling contingent on an apology to Palin?
-
SIRS actually they are gonna kill a lot of old people with or without death panels
think about it.....who has the most health problems?
old people.....
so if you add millions of new patients with a promise of "free" medical care
just like every place else....the waits become longer..
and of course healthcare will be rationed due to overwhelming new demand
so some old people will be effectively pushed to the back of the line waiting their turn
and of course some of the old people will croak while they wait for various procedures and appointments
-
Why is a discussion of end of life counseling contingent on an apology to Palin?
It's kinda approaching the " well d'uh", in that Palin was ridiculed, demeaned, castigated, etc., for daring to deduce the eventual evolvement of death panels.....ooops, my bad, "end of life counseling". And now we see that Obama, having not gotten the legislators to keep such "counseling" within the 2000+monstrosity of a health care bill, does so with bureacratic fiat. Proving Palin correct, and most of her castigators as simply narrow minded hate-filled baffoons, who merely want to dump more on Palin that discuss this form of cost containing counseling
-
Why is a discussion of end of life counseling contingent on an apology to Palin?
It's kinda approaching the " well d'uh", in that Palin was ridiculed, demeaned, castigated, etc., for daring to deduce the eventual evolvement of death panels.....ooops, my bad, "end of life counseling". And now we see that Obama, having not gotten the legislators to keep such "counseling" within the 2000+monstrosity of a health care bill, does so with bureacratic fiat. Proving Palin correct, and most of her castigators as simply narrow minded hate-filled baffoons, who merely want to dump more on Palin that discuss this form of cost containing counseling
So who in here do you expect to apologize to Palin, so that we can get on with the whole death panel discussion.
Like defining what that really means and what we think it means.
And is it unprecedented or is it something that already is in practice in some form under the current/old system?
And if it is all about the Benjamins and cutting federal spending, what spending is not up for discussion?
-
Why is a discussion of end of life counseling contingent on an apology to Palin?
It's kinda approaching the " well d'uh", in that Palin was ridiculed, demeaned, castigated, etc., for daring to deduce the eventual evolvement of death panels.....ooops, my bad, "end of life counseling". And now we see that Obama, having not gotten the legislators to keep such "counseling" within the 2000+monstrosity of a health care bill, does so with bureacratic fiat. Proving Palin correct, and most of her castigators as simply narrow minded hate-filled baffoons, who merely want to dump more on Palin that discuss this form of cost containing counseling
So who in here do you expect to apologize to Palin, so that we can get on with the whole death panel discussion.
Anyone that wishes to. Anyone that was so afront at Palin for even daring to opine such zaniness, that now is apparently becoming a reality
-
Then i guess we shall wait patiently for those so moved to offer that apology, so that the real discussion can begin.
-
I guess so, though my question posed in the thread wasn't predicated on preventing any further discussion on the topic of Death Panels. That was your leap. I was merely inquiring as to when can we expect any apologies to be headed towards Palin from those who demagogued her on this issue.
If you hadn't guessed it by now, it was rhetorical
-
I guess so, though my question posed in the thread wasn't predicated on preventing any further discussion on the topic of Death Panels. That was your leap. I was merely inquiring as to when can we expect any apologies to be headed towards Palin from those who demagogued her on this issue.
If you hadn't guessed it by now, it was rhetorical
Oh (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/when-does-palin-get-her-apologies/msg116145/#msg116145)
-
Yea, ......... and? Criticising a poster for dumping on Palin is akin to demanding an apology before being able to move on?? Perhaps I need to be provided the latest saloon parameters for pre-approved criticising.
-
Why is a discussion of end of life counseling contingent on an apology to Palin?
[][][][][][][]
Did the Trojans ever apologise to Casandra?
-
Did the Trojans ever apologise to Casandra?
What does that question really mean?
I ask because "By all means let's ignore an opportunity to discuss "end of life counseling", as the left kept claiming was never in play, and instead dump on Palin." does not mean discussing "end of life counseling" was ever the intent of the poster. Apparently the whole purpose of this thread is to dump on the dumpers and vice versa.
-
And yet another, in a getting-much-longer-line of erroneous conclusions/assumptions. I'm getting the impression that you no longer think I post to debate here, Bt, despite my frequent references/goal to facilitate exactly that. That I post merely to irritate or offend. I could keep posting my overt denial of such with copious examples, I could keep posting articles, op-eds, and my own opinions that are a completely contrary to such a notion, but from the consistently of your responses to me, it would seem you've made up your mind on that. And just as ironic, erroneously yet again
Hopefully, I'm error on that deduction. But based on the consistency of posts, much like the one I'm responding to, I'm guessing I'm pretty dead on
-
"By all means let's ignore an opportunity to discuss "end of life counseling", as the left kept claiming was never in play, and instead dump on Palin."
Which to me meant that you wanted to discuss "end of life counseling".
My bad.
-
Yea it was, given what I responding to. Your timeline has yet again been tweaked. I post a serious article, with a catchy title, intending to facilitate serious debate
B take the opportunity to dump on Palin instead
I criticise B for that. And THAT's the part you use to conclude "..end of life counseling" was ever the intent of the poster. Apparently the whole purpose of this thread is to dump on the dumpers and vice versa."
You also added to the apparent lack of wanting to disccuss the issue at hand, by erroneously inferring some apology was required before such discussions could take place, by inquiring why is such an apology necessary, rather than discuss the issue at hand
So bascially, you responded to me similar to how you erroneously thought I was responding to B
Yea, your bad
So, if you ever intend to disccus death panels, vs dumping on sirs, by all means, I'm all eyes. If your intent is, as I deduced, merely trying to erroneously paint sirs as someone who doesn't want to debate issues, & merely dump on others, you can do that with Bsb to your heart's content
-
No one is going to apologize to Palin, though it MIGHT JUST BE POSSIBLE of enough of those who wanted an apology, including Palin, would hold their breath until it happens.
-
The first time Claire began to slide into a diabetic comma we, her kids and myself, should have let her go. The problem was the children weren't ready for that and it was not my place to push it. The result was I said nothing, and she lived for another year so debilitated she had to be strapped into a wheelchair, her head either to one side or another, couldn't speak, never responded, and during the last few months never left the bed.
Had there been a professional involved, instead of just me, to point out the ultimate compassion in letting her go at that point neither she, her children, or I would have suffered the additional 12 months.
bsb
-
No one is going to apologize to Palin, though it MIGHT JUST BE POSSIBLE of enough of those who wanted an apology, including Palin, would hold their breath until it happens.
Who is "wanting" an apology?
-
I assume whoever wrote the title of this topic.
-
Had there been a professional involved, instead of just me, to point out the ultimate compassion in letting her go at that point neither she, her children, or I would have suffered the additional 12 months. bsb
My thoughts and compassion go out to you B (whether you wish to believe it or not, it is sincere). I don't think the arguement has ever been NOT to have such professionals providing couseling, the issue remains what constitutional authority gives the Federal government the ability to take tax dollars from peron A, to provide for such counseling to person B?
More to the point, that this Federal "counseling", being that it is tax dollars, is going to be scrutinized, and likely going to facilitate such decisions to "let one go"....in order to save money, not your grief. And not by your personal doctor or professional that knows your situation intimately, and has been connected with your family for years, but by a Government bureaucrat assigned to your case, who's already overwhelmed by hundreds, of not thousands, of other similar cases
-
I assume whoever wrote the title of this topic.
Looks like Bt isn't the only one making erroneous assumptions
-
Yea it was, given what I responding to. Your timeline has yet again been tweaked. I post a serious article, with a catchy title, intending to facilitate serious debate
B take the opportunity to dump on Palin instead
I criticise B for that. And THAT's the part you use to conclude "..end of life counseling" was ever the intent of the poster. Apparently the whole purpose of this thread is to dump on the dumpers and vice versa."
You also added to the apparent lack of wanting to disccuss the issue at hand, by erroneously inferring some apology was required before such discussions could take place, by inquiring why is such an apology necessary, rather than discuss the issue at hand
So bascially, you responded to me similar to how you erroneously thought I was responding to B
Yea, your bad
So, if you ever intend to disccus death panels, vs dumping on sirs, by all means, I'm all eyes. If your intent is, as I deduced, merely trying to erroneously paint sirs as someone who doesn't want to debate issues, & merely dump on others, you can do that with Bsb to your heart's content
You seem to forget i had already moved on to the topic at hand, which you ignored. (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/when-does-palin-get-her-apologies/msg116160/#msg116160)
-
I assume whoever wrote the title of this topic.
That would be Sirs. Cal Thomas had a different title.
-
Yes, it was sirs who prompted the title....rhetorically
No, it wasn't sirs mandating or "wanting" an apology
As far as the later I supposedly "ignored", I had neither the time nor energy to deal with more than the initial erroneous conclusions you were making to start off with, at the time. If you noticed Bsb's latest entry, if he had started with that, you wouldn't have been so grossly in error, in your current conclusions that I had no interest other than dumping
-
Yes, it was sirs who prompted the title....rhetorically
So the title was not to be taken seriously?
As far as the later I supposedly "ignored", I had neither the time nor energy to deal with more than the initial erroneous conclusions you were making to start off with, at the time.
Apparently you still don't have the time nor energy to deal with my questions.
-
Yes, it was sirs who prompted the title....rhetorically
So the title was not to be taken seriously?
Seriously in that it demonstrated how pathetic some of Palin's demagoguers are, since we shouldn't expect any such "apologies", nor was there ANY reference that apologies were being demanded or "wanted", much less required before any further discussions on death panels could be prompted ::)
As far as the later I supposedly "ignored", I had neither the time nor energy to deal with more than the initial erroneous conclusions you were making to start off with, at the time.
Apparently you still don't have the time nor energy to deal with my questions.
Yep, since I'm still having to expend time and energy on your continuted gross conclusion errors. Perhaps if you drop that, we could move on. Your call
-
Perhaps you would like to explain the erroneous conclusions I came to.
It was your thread title, not Cal Thomas's.
As far as I can tell the only problem you have with death panels is that the fed might engage in the practice, though the private sector might be allowed to do it , because tax dollars are not being used.
Though i question whether an actuary at an HMO is intimately familiar with your family situation.
And I understand your constitutional concerns about whether the feds should be in the health business, but they are and have been for quite a while, in fact you do business with them, if i recall correctly.
-
Being that it is possible to keep a huge number of brain dead people alive by use of respirators and entubation, at some point someone has to decide whether keeping such persons alive is worth the expense and effort. You could call any group of such people who make these decisions "death panels" if you wished, but it is both inaccurate intended to offend the constituents.
The counseling services mentioned in the ACA Bill are incorrectly described as "death panels".
-
Perhaps you would like to explain the erroneous conclusions I came to.
I already did, 2 of them in fact, in this thread alone
1) the notion that the title alone apparently was enough for you to conclude I was requiring an apology from Palin bashers, when it was merely rehtorical. No one expects any Palin basher to apologise to Palin for anything
2) the notion I had no intention of discussing the issue death panels, based on 1 astute criticism, and merely wished to dump on Palin dumpers. it was a direct criticism of a poster apparently not intent on wanting to discuss the issue. Subsequent posts, NOT initiated with trying to dump on sirs, were eagerly responded to
So, as you can see, I'm having to spend yet more energy and time in dealing with your erroneous conclusions. If you persist, then you're approaching that ever famous misrep'ing tact. So, lemme know when that's going to stop, or simply be patient, until I have time to respond to either your HMO or consitutional references
-
Being that it is possible to keep a huge number of brain dead people alive by use of respirators and entubation, at some point someone has to decide whether keeping such persons alive is worth the expense and effort.
.......
The counseling services mentioned in the ACA Bill are incorrectly described as "death panels".
Anyone else catch the transparent irony in the above statement(s)?
-
Being that it is possible to keep a huge number of brain dead people alive by use of respirators and entubation, at some point someone has to decide whether keeping such persons alive is worth the expense and effort.
.......
The counseling services mentioned in the ACA Bill are incorrectly described as "death panels".
Anyone else catch the transparent irony in the above statement(s)?
From what I can gather the use of the term death panels was a political tactic with the larger aim of trying to kill the "Health Care Bill"
-
Naa, it's more along the lines of truth.....ie the use of Abortion instead of Choice, the use of Death Tax vs Estate Tax. It's PC to call them anything other than what they are, since the truth paints them as something other than what's desired or acceptable
But what you missed (purposely I'm guessing) was the irony of in 1 breath explaining the need for death panels, while in the next claiming how incorrectly the "counseling" is being cited as such
-
How would a death panel work differently than an end of life counseling center?
Perhaps if the terms were defined we might have a starting point for discussion.
-
How would a death panel work differently than an end of life counseling center?
That's the thing......they wouldn't. Abortion/Choice, Death Tax/Estate Tax, End of Life Counseling Panel/Death Panel
-
Administration reverses on death counseling
Reversing a potentially controversial decision, the Obama administration will drop references to end-of-life counseling from the ground rules for Medicare's new annual checkup, the White House said Wednesday.
The latest shift on the sensitive subject comes ahead of a vote next week in the new GOP-led House to repeal President Barack Obama's landmark health care overhaul.
The decision is not likely to have much impact on patients and doctors already discussing options for care in the last stages of life. For example, voluntary end-of-life planning is already covered as part of the "Welcome to Medicare" doctor visit, available to seniors within the first year of joining the program.
The original House version of the overhaul legislation sought to expand coverage, allowing for discussions every few years. But the plan was dropped after Sarah Palin and other Republicans raised the specter of "death panels" deciding the fate of vulnerable seniors. Those charges were later debunked by several non-partisan fact-checking groups.
End-of-life counseling unexpectedly surfaced again late last year in a Medicare regulation that spelled out what would be covered in a new annual checkup, or wellness visit, authorized by the health care law. Issued without fanfare, the regulation said such voluntary doctor-patient discussions could be part of the annual visit.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the administration still supports end-of-life planning, but is pulling the language from the regulation because there wasn't enough chance for all sides to comment on the change. "We did not think that the process (gave) the public an adequate space in a public comment period to debate these kinds of things," Gibbs told reporters.
Discussions about how to face the end of life are already an accepted part of care for people with a terminal illness, and the administration's reversal is unlikely to have much impact on that. Longstanding federal rules require hospital patients to be informed of their right to spell out in a living will or similar document their wishes about being kept alive by machinery if there's no hope for a cure.
However, many doctors and public health advocates believe the government should take a more direct role in encouraging people to plan ahead. They say it would save families the ordeal of having to make agonizing decisions when a loved one is incapacitated.
Opponents counter that such decisions are highly personal, and government should stay out. They worry that explicitly including end-of-life counseling in Medicare rules could send an indirect message that people facing serious illness should be nudged toward hospice care, giving up on seeking a cure.
The new regulation was first reported by The New York Times
Article (http://townhall.com/news/us/2011/01/05/administration_reverses_on_end-of-life_counseling)
-
How would a death panel work differently than an end of life counseling center?
That's the thing......they wouldn't. Abortion/Choice, Death Tax/Estate Tax, End of Life Counseling Panel/Death Panel
But in principle you don't have a problem with "death panels" in the private sector?
-
Not really, since it's optional. People can choose to use it, or take their dollars elsewhere.
Also, I have no problem with "death panels", in that I support the notion of folks being fully informed of the status of their loved one, who may be in agony or suffering.
-
Not really, since it's optional. People can choose to use it, or take their dollars elsewhere.
Also, I have no problem with "death panels", in that I support the notion of folks being fully informed of the status of their loved one, who may be in agony or suffering.
But you do object to this counseling for seniors enrolled in Medicare?
-
I object to Medicare
-
BT would you feel comfortable with a death panel concerning your family
whose makeup was people that were employees of your insurance company?
-
BT would you feel comfortable with a death panel concerning your family
whose makeup was people that were employees of your insurance company?
Depends what their function was. What does this "death panel" do?
-
Depends what their function was. What does this "death panel" do?
That's the problem BT....who knows?...and who knows where this leads?
Dr. Donald Berwick administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services is the man President Obama bypassed Congress and appointed.
Berwick is a longtime advocate for rationing medical procedures for the elderly.
Berwick stated "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care,
the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open". BT I don't trust
a govt monopoly that could take us towards the path toward government
encouraged euthanasia.
-
That's the problem BT....who knows?...and who knows where this leads?
Isn't that what congressional oversight is about?
Based on the information posted by Sirs about the Obama admin removing the end of life counseling language from this years Medicare Rules, what is objectionable?
End-of-life counseling unexpectedly surfaced again late last year in a Medicare regulation that spelled out what would be covered in a new annual checkup, or wellness visit, authorized by the health care law. Issued without fanfare, the regulation said such voluntary doctor-patient discussions could be part of the annual visit.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the administration still supports end-of-life planning, but is pulling the language from the regulation because there wasn't enough chance for all sides to comment on the change. "We did not think that the process (gave) the public an adequate space in a public comment period to debate these kinds of things," Gibbs told reporters.
Discussions about how to face the end of life are already an accepted part of care for people with a terminal illness, and the administration's reversal is unlikely to have much impact on that. Longstanding federal rules require hospital patients to be informed of their right to spell out in a living will or similar document their wishes about being kept alive by machinery if there's no hope for a cure.
I just don't see where a living will leads to suicide parlors.
-
Here's more great news coming from ObamaCare!
Obamacare stops construction at
45 physician owned hospitals nationwide
January 04, 2011
By Rick Moran
What a superlative idea!
Let's throw thousands of construction workers out of work and make it harder
to access quality medical care at the same time.
Man, those Democrats are 6 times brilliant, eh? The Weekly Standard:
Under the headline, "Construction Stops at Physician Hospitals," Politico reports today that "Physician Hospitals of America says that construction had to stop at 45 hospitals nationwide or they would not be able to bill Medicare for treatments." Stopping construction at doctor-owned hospitals might not seem like the best way to boost the economy or to promote greater access and choice in health care, but that exactly what Obamacare is doing.
Kenneth Artz of the Heartland Institute explains, "Section 6001 of the health care law effectively bans new physician-owned hospitals (POHs) from starting up, and it keeps existing ones from expanding." Politico adds, "Friday [New Year's Eve] marked the last day physician-owned hospitals could get Medicare certification covering their new or expanded hospitals, one of the latest provisions of the reform law to go into effect."
This little-noticed but particularly egregious aspect of Obamacare is, by all accounts, a concession to the powerful American Hospital Association (AHA), a supporter of Obamacare, which prefers to have its member hospitals operate without competition from hospitals owned by doctors.
Dr. Michael Russell, president of Physician Hospitals of America, which has filed suit to try to stop this selective building-ban from going into effect, says, "There are so many regulations [in Obamacare] and they are so onerous and intrusive that we believe that the section [Section 6001] was deliberately designed so no physician owned hospital could successfully comply."
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/01/obamacare_stops_construction_a.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/01/obamacare_stops_construction_a.html)
-
Isn't that what congressional oversight is about?
Is dat the same oversight we had over Fannie & Freddie?
-
D'OH ;)
-
Isn't that what congressional oversight is about?
Is dat the same oversight we had over Fannie & Freddie?
Yeah. Fannie and Freddie didn't blow up in a day. Seems the GOP had some say in the matter.
Read between the lines on your physicians hospital story. The govt is for sale to the party in power. You can either end the corruption or you can make sure your side gets the spoils. It's one or the other.
-
And one of the greatest, if not the best way, to end any potential of corruption, is to get them out of a business they have no business in, in the 1st place
So sayeth, the constitution, including reading between the amendments
-
And one of the greatest, if not the best way, to end any potential of corruption, is to get them out of a business they have no business in, in the 1st place
So sayeth, the constitution, including reading between the amendments
Yeah that will do it. ::)
-
It will. Hard to corrupt something you're not privvy to
-
It will. Hard to corrupt something you're not privvy to
It has certainly worked out like that, thus far. So what has changed?
-
That's just it, it hasn't. Instead, the Federal Government continues to privvy itself into more and more of this country's fabric, that it has no business in. All we can do is to elect representatives that understand that concept, support them, and if they go way of the liberal/socialist dark side, elect someone else who will
-
That's just it, it hasn't. Instead, the Federal Government continues to privvy itself into more and more of this country's fabric, that it has no business in. All we can do is to elect representatives that understand that concept, support them, and if they go way of the liberal/socialist dark side, elect someone else who will
Rinse Repeat
-
Your pessimistic position is duly noted
-
Your pessimistic position is duly noted
And your optimistic denial of the reality of the situation is also duly noted.
What was your position on campaign finance reform again?
-
Your pessimistic position is duly noted
And your optimistic denial of the reality of the situation is also duly noted.
Yea, just give up. Let DC ride rough shot over the Constitution. Just some piece of paper. Could use it for toilet paper, right. Compromise on every principle so we can feel all warm and fuzzy that we found "common ground". Yea, that's the way to go
NOT
What was your position on campaign finance reform again?
And that has what to do with the tea in China??
-
And that has what to do with the tea in China??
No need to give a knee jerk answer. Think about the question, think about what is going on in DC. Then answer.
-
You already know what my position is regarding the Incumbent Protection Act, aka CFR. So again, what does that have to do with anything in the supporting and electing of candidates/politicians that see the Government getting so completely out of control??
-
You already know what my position is regarding the Incumbent Protection Act, aka CFR. So again, what does that have to do with anything in the supporting and electing of candidates/politicians that see the Government getting so completely out of control??
Let me paraphrase your position. Money is speech.
My position:
Money is used to purchase something, invest in something, fund something.
So what do campaign contributions buy?
-
Support for a candidate/proposition
-
Support for a candidate/proposition
Is that why the American Hospital Association donated $1.6 million to the Democrats?
or did they expect and receive something in return?
-
Likely both. But average Sirs, like Average Joe doesn't have that kind of cash on hand, so is likely to be only supporting X vs expecting some quid pro quo
-
Likely both. But average Sirs, like Average Joe doesn't have that kind of cash on hand, so is likely to be only supporting X vs expecting some quid pro quo
So if you had the jack would you expect a quid pro quo?
-
Would you?
-
Would you?
Probably not. Your answer was confusing because you made a point to say that the average sirs like the average joe didn't have that kind of cash.
So i guess my real question is should quid pro quo be SOP for campaign contributions? Is it ethical or healthy in a representative democracy? And if not, how do we put an end to it?
-
Would you?
Probably not.
Neither would I
So i guess my real question is should quid pro quo be SOP for campaign contributions? Is it ethical or healthy in a representative democracy?
No
And if not, how do we put an end to it?
We start with complete, unfettered public disclosure of who gave what to whom. No hiding inside some nebulous Citizenry for a Better America PAC. All non-profit organizations that are categorized as non-partisan lose that non-profit status if it can be shown they're merely a PAC supporting a specific political party
-
No hiding inside some nebulous Citizenry for a Better America PAC. All non-profit organizations that are categorized as non-partisan lose that non-profit status if it can be shown they're merely a PAC supporting a specific political party
So no more PACs? Defense Contractors contribute to both parties. Should that be allowed? How about only registered voters can contribute?
-
ANYONE, outside of felons, can contribute to anyone. Merely full disclosure
-
ANYONE, outside of felons, can contribute to anyone. Merely full disclosure
i am not sure of my position on this....
i like full disclosure from PACS/Unions/Corporations/Non-Profits
not so sure on individuals
why does SIRS need to know if I as an individual citizen give $1000 to Governor Christie?
i can see the corruption part danger with large donors from organizations....
not so much on individuals with strict limits on how much you can give
sure i know they currently track this and make it public....
i am not so sure i am fully comfortable with it being public....
i just dont see why my friends/neighbors/coworkers need to know who i donate to
but my mind is open to hear why this is sooooooo important
-
ANYONE, outside of felons, can contribute to anyone. Merely full disclosure
Can we determine whether making campaign contributions are a right?
-
Can we determine whether making campaign contributions are a right?
I can not name the case, but I would think the US Supreme Court has found
that campaign contributions by an individual US Citizen is an exercise of their
right to Free Speech. A recent Gallup Poll showed 57% of Americans consider
campaign donations to be a protected form of free speech.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/campaign_contributions_as_free_speech/ (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/campaign_contributions_as_free_speech/)
-
Can we determine whether making campaign contributions are a right?
I can not name the case, but I would think the US Supreme Court has found
that campaign contributions by an individual US Citizen is an exercise of their
right to Free Speech. A recent Gallup Poll showed 57% of Americans consider
campaign donations to be a protected form of free speech.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/campaign_contributions_as_free_speech/ (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/campaign_contributions_as_free_speech/)
Would you consider that a strict constructionist ruling or more a living breathing document kind of ruling?
-
ANYONE, outside of felons, can contribute to anyone. Merely full disclosure
Can we determine whether making campaign contributions are a right?
Just as much a right as free speech
ANYONE, outside of felons, can contribute to anyone. Merely full disclosure
i am not sure of my position on this....
i like full disclosure from PACS/Unions/Corporations/Non-Profits
not so sure on individuals
why does SIRS need to know if I as an individual citizen give $1000 to Governor Christie?...but my mind is open to hear why this is sooooooo important
Because sirs wouldn't think twice if Cu4 gave $1000 to Governor Christie. Sirs WOULD think twice of Cu4 gaive $100,000 to Governor Christie. (Keep in mind, nothing wrong with that either) What would be wrong is if Governor Christie then planted this really cushy tax payed executive position or State board position to a close Cu4 family member
Again, nothing wrong with who gives what to whom. The transparency however allows for far better tracking of any kick backs or quid-pro-quo arrangements, with subsequent ability to vote said politician out of office, next time around
-
So SIRS would you agree with me that for example a law could be...
"individual US Citizen donations totalling less than a $500 total
per calendar year to one specific candidate would not have to be
made public knowledge unless the person making the donation
checked the box offering to make it public knowledge.".
-
While I can respect that position, mine is full disclosure. What reason would you have in not having anyone knowing you donated $500 to x? Is that $500 total, or is that $500 per donation. What if you were Soros, and you were giving $500 to every waking breathing liberal democrat, who in turned, pooled those funds together?
Full disclosure....complete transparency. That way we can see what, if any corruptive quid-pro-quo is going on. I doubt very seriously anyone is going to expect a QPQ kick back to you for a $500 donation
-
What reason would you have in not having anyone knowing you donated $500 to x?
Well mostly because I feel it's my business.
Why should my employees, my neighbors, my relatives be able to see if I give a candidate $50?
I dunno....I mean it's not earth shattering....but still I feel thats my business.
Is that $500 total, or is that $500 per donation.
I was thinking $500 total per year per candidate...but I am not set on the amount.
What if you were Soros, and you were giving $500 to every waking
breathing liberal democrat, who in turned, pooled those funds together?
Well I guess anyone suspected of using this as a loophole to funnel money could be investigated...
Or you could say anyone giving over $5000 in a single election cycle falls into a different category.
I doubt very seriously anyone is going to expect a QPQ kick back to you for a $500 donation
Exactly.
-
What reason would you have in not having anyone knowing you donated $500 to x?
Well mostly because I feel it's my business.
Why should my employees, my neighbors, my relatives be able to see if I give a candidate $50?
Again, why not? They're only going to find out, if they look. Look at it this way....This whole issue about donations/contributions is predicated on money is speech, i.e free speech. Do you see anyone trying to advocate a suppressed form of free speech, so that some folks don't know what someone else said about a candidate, because they're employees, neighbors, or even relatives might find out?
See, that's the part I'm having a hard time with. If you don't want people to know about your donations, don't talk about them. Are you concerned about....I don't know....some form of retaliation??
I doubt very seriously anyone is going to expect a QPQ kick back to you for a $500 donation
Exactly.
So, which again begs the question, why not?, when such a level of transparencey provides a perfect window into any potential corruptive QPQ going on