The Prostitutes of the System

[pocketfullofshells]

Well, the government is not going to come to anyone's door and shoot them or something no, I will give you that.

This issue comes out section 1233 of the House Bill which calls for the "Advance Care Planning Consultation" (which would be required of all those on Medicare) to recommend "palliative care and hospice" for seniors. Palliative care and hospice generally (not always) focus only on pain relief until death.

Therefore the idea is that the government will tell you that you are no longer worthy of being able to pursue health care that might be needed to keep you alive, and rather just focus on pain relief.



True, nowhere in the bill will it say that abortion will be funded. What it does say however is that "family planning" would be covered. (In the House version) Once the bill would pass, it would then be determined what that means, which odds are would include abortion.

Additionally, every amendment to specifically exclude abortion under that auspice in the bill has been voted down basically along party lines. That only furthers the speculation on that issue.



My contention is that there are real things in the bill that have given rise to these "talking points" that are all over the place. While they might be a stretch, I would not call them "lies" persay.

agin show where is says you are required....its a option that you are given. And should be, and its best if people did them. Dont leave it up to your family to guess what you would want ...make it clear ...

 

[BigRob]

agin show where is says you are required....its a option that you are given. And should be, and its best if people did them. Dont leave it up to your family to guess what you would want ...make it clear ...

Show where what is required? The consultation? The House Bill states in section 1233

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:

That more or less means that you are going to get a consultation if you have not had one in the last 5 years.

Now as for requiring someone to accept their recommendations, I never said it did, I just said that it points outs (among other things) palliative care and hospice, which is does in section E of that section.

But I must ask, why do you need the government to make it clear what your wishes are?

 

[BigRob]

I dont know, how did all those republicans vote for the Patriot act again?

Not reading one bill is no excuse for not reading another.

At least in this case its a flowing bill thats not set and changes so often it could change before you got to the end...and then when you read it, are you sure what you read is still what the bill says?

True enough, there will need to be a lot of work done to combine the legislation out there, but I would expect members to have read the ones they will be voting on in their respective chambers before that process really begins.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Show where what is required? The consultation? The House Bill states in section 1233

That more or less means that you are going to get a consultation if you have not had one in the last 5 years.

Now as for requiring someone to accept their recommendations, I never said it did, I just said that it points outs (among other things) palliative care and hospice, which is does in section E of that section.

But I must ask, why do you need the government to make it clear what your wishes are?

its doing a health service to people, to help pay for the costs of making sure you know your options...this will make it easier on evryone in the situation , the sick the family, and keeps the legal system out of it, saving evryone money and hassel...also if I wanted to be DNR and was very sick...thats alot of cost to keep me alive when I I dont want them to do it.

aslo the issue is, republicans claiming that such choices would be forced on them....I dont hear many people mad that the goverment would offer a choice to do it if they wanted to as part of a health care bill

 

[Dr.Who]

I also enjoy the big cry of...what if companies drop there insurance company and pay the money to have them use the govement plan instead...where is my choice.....tears....

what if they chose to go from blue cross blue sheild to a cheaper plan at Alina? or some other plan? what if they chose to just cut it 100% to no health care? what if..what if..what if you wanted to change jobs...?

You are right. It is presently illegal for companies to offer employees a salary for the express purpose of buying tax free health insurance. The law already takes away choice and it is congress's fault. This does not represent a further loss of choice. Though those making the claim would be right to point out that it is still a loss of choice.

 

[Dr.Who]

Blue Cross Blue Shield sucks.

Politicians are disgusting. They are only loyal to themselves.

And if we had a good competitive system that kept prices low then the insurance companies would have no reason to donate to political campaigns.

They need to keep their hands in the cookie jar so that they can further put their hands in the cookie jar.

 

[Dr.Who]

Hey, many Americans sent money right away {ASAP} to keep Oral Roberts from dying when he ascended that watch tower in Oklahoma and declared that the days of reckoning were coming and if he didn't raise 1 million dollars he was going to be called home to his saviour It would appear that the far right winged nut jobs are well versed to the knee jerk reactions of their idols/demigods/fearless leaders telling them nothing but B.S. and pass that kool-aide on over here, PLEASE!!!

He actually claimed to have raised 8 million. But as far as I know he was the only one saying he actually raised the full 8 million. I would suppose that he raised no where near that amount.

But more importantly you assumption that the group of people who would donate money to Oral Roberts as being the same group of people that represent the far right is completely unsupported.

For all we know the demographics of his audience consists of tv shut-ins captive in their wheelchairs of all political leanings. Desperate people wanting a miracle are probably just as likely to be disabled black democrats as disabled white klaners.

 

[Greco]

"My contention is that there are real things in the bill that have given rise to these "talking points" that are all over the place. While they might be a stretch, I would not call them "lies" persay."

Any reasonable person would call them lies. It's totally false. It's known to be false by the Republicans making the claims. They're intentionally making claims they know are false. That's called lying.

By the way, you're trying to make the argument that the consultation is mandatory. That's false. It's an option. An option is a choice. The individual has the choice. That's the truth.

Again, it's only the Republicans that are intentionally spreading lies and fear. That's shameful, but it's the truth.

 

[Dr.Who]

Well it's a fact that Republicans are spreading lies. The government isn't planning to kill senior citizens. It's Republicans, only Republicans, that are making that claim, which is a lie. It's a fact that the health care reform doesn't include abortions for poor people. It's Republicans, and only Republicans, that are making that claim, which is a lie.

So your contention is the Republicans are just spreading lies because that's just what Republicans usually do?

The quote I saw said that the plan "opened the door" to that kind of abuse, not that it actually planned that sort of abuse. When the only way you understand the talking points of the pubs is to hear them regurgitated on liberal sites you are bound to hear them wrongly restated.

Of the mainstream pub quotes this is the actual quote and the worst of the lot: (I would add that McCaughey speaks for herself and not all pubs)


"That section "invites abuse" [] "may place seniors in situations where they feel pressured to sign end of life directives they would not otherwise sign."

"This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted into law. "

so what is it called when someone on a political board takes the worst of all the statements that are being spread and misrepresents it even further so that they can claim it is a ridiculous lie? Oh yea, a strawman.

 

[BigRob]

Any reasonable person would call them lies. It's totally false. It's known to be false by the Republicans making the claims. They're intentionally making claims they know are false. That's called lying.

By the way, you're trying to make the argument that the consultation is mandatory. That's false. It's an option. An option is a choice. The individual has the choice. That's the truth.

Again, it's only the Republicans that are intentionally spreading lies and fear. That's shameful, but it's the truth.

The consultations are going to happen under the current bill, outside of that, I never stated anywhere that it would be mandatory to have "end of life" consultations, but there would be consultations about the other issues in the section, at least for those on a government plan. (in the current House bill at least)

 

[top gun]

The quote I saw said that the plan "opened the door" to that kind of abuse, not that it actually planned that sort of abuse. When the only way you understand the talking points of the pubs is to hear them regurgitated on liberal sites you are bound to hear them wrongly restated.

Of the mainstream pub quotes this is the actual quote and the worst of the lot: (I would add that McCaughey speaks for herself and not all pubs)


"That section "invites abuse" [] "may place seniors in situations where they feel pressured to sign end of life directives they would not otherwise sign."

"This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted into law. "

so what is it called when someone on a political board takes the worst of all the statements that are being spread and misrepresents it even further so that they can claim it is a ridiculous lie? Oh yea, a strawman.

OK we all know that Olbermann isn't going to explain it like Limbaugh. I'll give you that.

But give me this. No matter how slanted the Liberal sites make these statements at the end of the day either the consultations are a good thing... or they're not, right?

I can see no legitimate reason at all why a consultation to get a clear understanding of what a person wants is a bad thing. This is really very standard good advice that is suggested right now as we speak and has been for some time. In Ohio they even ask you when you get your Drivers License renewed... do you have a Living Will... and check a box so if something happens to you people know.

Any attorney will tell you everyone really should have what's called (A Living Will) that spells out how you personally want to be treated if you are incapacitated and in a severe medical state.

It's to avoid a Terry Schiavo situation where we're clogging up the courts with multiple people trying to speak for the incapacitated person. And if the person would have wanted to just be allowed to die naturally but is kept alive... then that is just a big waste of money.

Furthermore to think that the elderly will care more about what someone interviewing them thinks than they think about themselves staying alive and the wishes of their own families... is really pretty silly isn't it?

 

[Dr.Who]

OK we all know that Olbermann isn't going to explain it like Limbaugh. I'll give you that.

But give me this. No matter how slanted the Liberal sites make these statements at the end of the day either the consultations are a good thing... or they're not, right?

I can see no legitimate reason at all why a consultation to get a clear understanding of what a person wants is a bad thing. This is really very standard good advice that is suggested right now as we speak and has been for some time. In Ohio they even ask you when you get your Drivers License renewed... do you have a Living Will... and check a box so if something happens to you people know.

A good reason to consider these consultations to be a bad thing would be that there is a conflict of interest when the state both wants to hold down costs and wants to make sure that they are widely available if not manditory. When the president of our country has used as an example of a means of holding down costs the elderly person who should receive pain medication instead of treatment he has stated what side the government bias will be on.

I have read that section of the bill over and over a bunch of times now and I agree that it seems not to say it will be manditory. But it does say when they happen they must include certain things and we do know the economic motives of the gov to ration services and they have stated that they will use their power to ration to cut services just like end of life care. Even if our current administration did not abuse such a system it would only be a matter of time before another administration would abuse such a system. Or do you completely trust all future politicians to do what is most ethical and not what is most cost effective? When I tune into this forum I see countless examples of people who thought that Bush was the devil incarnate and yet the same people want to give power over their lives to the future Bush's of our country.

The history of governments all over the world is that most of them have become tyrannies sooner or later.