- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
The Senate Finance Committee will drop a controversial provision on consultations for end-of-life care from its proposed healthcare bill, its top Republican member said Thursday.
The committee, which has worked on putting together a bipartisan healthcare reform bill, will drop the controversial provision after it was derided by conservatives as "death panels" to encourage euthanasia.
"On the Finance Committee, we are working very hard to avoid unintended consequences by methodically working through the complexities of all of these issues and policy options," Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a statement. "We dropped end-of-life provisions from consideration entirely because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly."
TheHill.com - Finance Committee to drop end-of-life provision
Seriously, what is it with you hard core right wingers. You took a provision that would have done nothing more than paid physicians for the time they spent with Medicare recipients discussing end of life issues and turned that into government "death panels" deciding who will live and who will die.
However, more to the point, if someone was to actually believe that the federal government would institute government death panels that would essentially weed out unproductive seniors, then they would have to believe that Washington Democrats and President Obama are quite literally on the same level with Joesph Stalin. Aside from being offensive, its irrational to the point of being truly psychotic. Seriously, you guys have taken a guy that is by all accounts a decent man, a good husband, and a wonderful father and turned him into Joesph Stalin, an unconscionable sociopathic dictator out to murder your grandparents and sick children......... All because you disagree with him.
They dropped it, because they go caught with their hand in the cookie jar, not because the provision would be misinterpreted...LOL!!
There's a bunch more crap in the bill that's going to have to go, before the heat will die down.
I believe the section was what Palin said it was.
I'm having a hard time believing that it's as simple as paying a doc for spending time talking to a elderly patient with one foot in the grave. Did you read the section, at all?
One has to wonder, though, how the healthcare bill that will be the savior of the nation has to have a section written into it that says doctors are going to paid for end of life counseling.
One would think that would be an understood thing. Is there a provision in the bill that allows doctors to be paid for cancer treatment counceling?
What about abortion counceling?
No, I believe the section was what Palin said it was.
No one has yet proved otherwise, with actual documentation from the bill. In fact, I haven't seen the first post by a supporter of the bill that includes actual language from the bill to prove themselves right. Why is that, ya reckon?
Of course you do...even though there have been numerous sources exposing her lies.
Palin is perfect for these fanatical fringe crowds. It gives her another opportunity to preach her propoganda and rile people up to yell "kill him" and so forth.....
Seriously, what is it with you hard core right wingers. You took a provision that would have done nothing more than paid physicians for the time they spent with Medicare recipients discussing end of life issues and turned that into government "death panels" deciding who will live and who will die.
First off, the only occasion I can think of off of the top of my head where the federal government attempted to involved itself in the end of life decisions of a private individual was when the Republicans did it with Terri Schiavo, the brain dead woman in Florida.
However, more to the point, if someone was to actually believe that the federal government would institute government death panels that would essentially weed out unproductive seniors, then they would have to believe that Washington Democrats and President Obama are quite literally on the same level with Joesph Stalin. Aside from being offensive, its irrational to the point of being truly psychotic. Seriously, you guys have taken a guy that is by all accounts a decent man, a good husband, and a wonderful father and turned him into Joesph Stalin, an unconscionable sociopathic dictator out to murder your grandparents and sick children......... All because you disagree with him.
Bad ideas does not equal evil person. If this health care debate has accomplished anything, its demonstrated how much we have neglected mental health care in this country as its truly an epidemic right now. Seriously, if you think that Obama is on the level of Joesph Stalin, and with this loony death panel bull**** you obviously do, then you need to check with your insurance providers and see which anti-psychotics are on the coverage list for you.
Yes, I did. As did AARP, and they saw nothing at all wrong with it either.
Because even if what ever health care reform that is enacted succeeds far beyond anyone's wildest dreams, everyone will still die one day and as every family that has dealt with that with a love one knows, it is best that you make those decisions about what care you want at the end of your life rather than your family.
Neither Medicare or Private Insurance pays for you to just go and chat with your doctor. They pay for services and procedures. For example, if you go to the doctor after being diagnosed for cancer, your insurer is paying your doctor for the time they spend with you discussing your treatment options. Your insurer would not pay your doctor for time they spent with you discussing cancer treatment options with you if you were not diagnosed with cancer. Similarly, if you just called up your physician right now and said that you wanted to just come in for an appointment to discuss end of life issues with them and nothing more, they would tell you that your insurance will probably not cover it, and it may be out of your pocket. All this provision did was allow for doctors to offer this counseling to seniors as an optional service and file a claim with Medicare to reimburse them for their time spent with you.
Medicare does not cover abortions. Seniors being they are all well past menopause don't tend to get pregnant, much less have unintended pregnancies, thus don't tend to seek abortions.
No one other than Fact Check, the AARP, and every single responsible news outlet on earth.
FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill - Yahoo! News
Why have a provision that only deals with end of life counceling? Why not just a section that deals with all counceling?
They dropped it, because they go caught with their hand in the cookie jar, not because the provision would be misinterpreted...LOL!!
There's a bunch more crap in the bill that's going to have to go, before the heat will die down.
What's this?
The rabid Messianic-butt-kissing Leftist socialist freedom grabbers were saying all the people opposed to the healthcare industry theft by their Messiah were crazy and liars because there were no "kill granny" provisions in this bill.
How could the committee drop those provisions if they weren't in there?
Doesn't that mean the people opposed to the bill on the basis of the existence of the "kill granny" provisions were ....ahem...RIGHT?
And WHY should we trust people who can put such a thing in a bill to refrain from sneaking it in later, if we were foolish enough to allow the bill to pass in any form at all?
All the flaming leftards owe the Americans an abject apology.
Seriously, what is it with you hard core right wingers. You took a provision that would have done nothing more than paid physicians for the time they spent with Medicare recipients discussing end of life issues and turned that into government "death panels" deciding who will live and who will die.
First off, the only occasion I can think of off of the top of my head where the federal government attempted to involved itself in the end of life decisions of a private individual was when the Republicans did it with Terri Schiavo, the brain dead woman in Florida.
However, more to the point, if someone was to actually believe that the federal government would institute government death panels that would essentially weed out unproductive seniors, then they would have to believe that Washington Democrats and President Obama are quite literally on the same level with Joesph Stalin.
Aside from being offensive, its irrational to the point of being truly psychotic.
Seriously, you guys have taken a guy that is by all accounts a decent man,
a good husband, and a wonderful father and turned him into Joesph Stalin, an unconscionable sociopathic dictator out to murder your grandparents and sick children......... All because you disagree with him.
Bad ideas does not equal evil person.
If this health care debate has accomplished anything, its demonstrated how much we have neglected mental health care in this country as its truly an epidemic right now. Seriously, if you think that Obama is on the level of Joesph Stalin, and with this loony death panel bull**** you obviously do, then you need to check with your insurance providers and see which anti-psychotics are on the coverage list for you.
One of the Prof's summer school co-eds obviously bribed him with some hash brownies.
What's with the beat poetry, Prof? Interesting, but doesn't really add a lot to the discussion. Here's one for ya:
some of e. e. cummings
work had
depth.
some Not have.
nice play, my friend!!!
health care's dead
the president is the fastest LOSER in american history
The entire full text of the bill in question is here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1200
You will notice that evil government death panels are no where in it. Just like no where in it is there a provision that allows the government to remove your right eye and implant it in your cod sack. Nor is there a provision that would bring back frontal lobotomies for extremist loons so folks like Palin and Glen Beck can breath a sigh of relief there too.
Nope.
It's the seventh inning stretch
and everyone has gone for a pee
there's been some angry words thrown about
drunks in the bathroom and all
but cooler, smarter heads will prevail.
A little forced compassion for those making $320K
They have to fly coach to Aspen
teenage daughter so embarrassed
she wants to die
good thing psychiatric care is covered in the cadillac plan
Dr. feelsogood gets her preggers
baby covered in the plan, yippee.
Daddy indicted for tax evasion
mommy starts to drink
daughter strips because she misses daddy
baby gets sick, no money, no health plan at strip joint
medicare! baby going to live.
mommy go to rehab.
Thank you, Mr. Pres.
:2wave:
Read Section 1233, on page 839 (I think that's the right page). While it doesn't actually say, "death panel", is clearly spells out how the so called elderly end of life counceling compensation for doctors was intended to work.
Bottom line: the Dems got caught in a big, big lie and now they have to perform damage control.
Here is the section you are referring to:
(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).
9
‘(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).
‘(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement for explanations under clause (i) to consultations furnished in a State--
‘(I) in which all legal barriers have been addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining treatment to constitute a set of medical orders respected across all care settings; and
‘(II) that has in effect a program for orders for life sustaining treatment described in clause (iii).
‘(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a States described in this clause is a program that--
‘(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;
‘(II) distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law) may sign orders for life sustaining treatment;
‘(III) provides training for health care professionals across the continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining treatment; and
‘(IV) is guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association.
Read, read it aloud if it helps it sink in, no where in that section is there anything remotely described like a government death panel deciding who lives and who dies.
It is just like I described it earlier, nothing but a provision for physicians, specifically doctors or nurse practitioners to be paid for time they spend discussing medical end of life issues with a patient. It then states that any consultation they are given must fall under the guidelines of the state laws the physician practices in. Thats all it does. In fact, it will only pay for such a consultation with your physician once every 5 years.
nonsense
and kinda sick---the kiddie porn images
health care's dead, sorry
it died when baucus first bawled in the gateway---back to the drawing board
that was mere days before elmendorf's critical testimony concerning the cost curve, elicited in committee by kent conrad, july 16
the next day the prez called his emergency presser and claimed he'd found 2/3 of the cost in a box ted kennedy, apparently, could never find
it was tortured in the house
bluedogs and progressives in rangel's committee and more particularly amongst waxman's group have just tormented it
daschle's declaration more than a month ago that the "public option was dead" was a big moment
daschle was gonna be the prez' missionary on meds, had the former senate leader paid his taxes
but when durbin did what he did on sunday (cnn's john king), that was IT
sorry
the white house signalled surrender on the "public option"
now they're playing for the purple co op in the portal (senate finance)
that'd be grassley, enzi and snowe
that's why obama called out the trio in portsmouth---grassley, enzi and snowe
and examining the posture of the ranking member yesterday...
everything that's gone on in pelosi's place (the house) is kaput
ask durbin
ask baucus
ask elmendorf
ask ms mccaskill, who insisted in hillsboro august 11 (just minutes after obama's michael jackson lookalike at portsmouth)
ms mccaskill INSISTED before HER gymnasium of more AVERAGE americans
LOLOL!
she PLEDGED---no one's even TALKING ABOUT a public option, it's NOT ON THE TABLE, she's URGING
what? i don't understand this room, she says
you really think you're pursuading people by shouting out like that?
you don't trust me?
you want me to go home?
ask ms mccaskill about the public option, hazlnut
SHE vowed SHE'd never SIGN one
1. you need to get a tv and watch it
2. you need to focus on events in washingon, in committee and in places like hillsboro more
3. while worrying less perhaps about the styles of other posters (tho i'm flattered)
It is just like I described it earlier, nothing but a provision for physicians, specifically doctors or nurse practitioners to be paid for time they spend discussing medical end of life issues with a patient. It then states that any consultation they are given must fall under the guidelines of the state laws the physician practices in. Thats all it does. In fact, it will only pay for such a consultation with your physician once every 5 years.
Your earlier work was more clever. The above effort is verbose and convoluted.
The teenage daughter was 18. Get over it.
BTW-- is the poetry fetish just so you don't have to post links to facts backing up your theories? Didn't think anyone would notice? You're not that interesting.
Health care reform is dead, huh? Guess no one told PhRMA.:shock:
Is that $150mil just for shows and giggles?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?