It's not 'Death Panels'...it's individual rights

[Bfgrn]

Promoting advanced directives puts decisions in proper hands

It’s hard to imagine how a compassionate, family-friendly measure — a measure that ultimately respects individual rights — could be twisted so grossly into the erroneous phrase “death panels.”

But, prepare yourself for more lies and more nonsense, because President Barack Obama has decided to do the right thing — and his critics already have resorted to fear-mongering and name-calling.

The concept of advanced directives was pioneered in La Crosse, thanks to our two first-class health care institutions.

It’s a simple concept: An individual, with the help of family, should have the ultimate say in the type of end-of-life care the individual receives. The best way to do that is through a careful consultation, with family and physician, before there is a health crisis — while the individual is still capable of having a rational voice in the decision.

Too often, those decisions are made when it’s too late for the individual to make the decisions. Instead, grieving family members are left to make the decision — and at times it’s nothing more than a guess.

Would the individual want extraordinary measures taken when the end is near? Why wouldn’t we trust the individual — in advance and when thinking clearly — to make that decision?

For those who crusade for the rights of the individual, here’s the question: Why are you so opposed to the individual being able to set down on paper, with help from family and physician, the standards and wishes for end-of-life care?

More

La Crosse Wisconsin Has Highest Rate Of Living Wills, Lowest Cost Of Care

Nearly all adults who die in La Crosse, 96 percent of them, die with a completed advance directive.

La Crosse health care systems offer a model of efficiency

Medicare spent 30% less on average for each beneficiary in the La Crosse area than the national average in 2006, the most recent year for which data is available, according to the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care.

It spent 64.5% less than in Miami and 61% less than in McAllen, Texas, the two most costly areas. And it spent 23% less than in the Milwaukee area.

 

[Bfgrn]

PolitiFact's Lie of the Year: 'Death panels'

PolitiFact | PolitiFact's Lie of the Year: 'Death panels'

 

[Rat in the Hat]

 

[Im a Nun]

From the Land of Sky Blue Waters,
From the land of pines' lofty balsams,
Comes the beer refreshing,
Hamm's the beer refreshing.

Brewed where nature works her wonders,
Aged for many moons, gently mellowed,
Hamm's the beer refreshing,
Hamm's the beer refreshing.

From across the rippling water,
Through the whisp'ring pines and birches,
Comes the beer refreshing,
Hamm's the beer refreshing.

Comes a call to cool enchantment,
Comes a call to cool refreshment,
Hamm's the beer refreshing,
Hamm's the beer refreshing.

Hints of lakes and sunset breezes,
Dance and sparkle in each glassful,
Hamm's the beer refreshing,
Hamm's the beer refreshing.

 

[waltky]

Granny says if any dem dearth panels come after her...

... dey gonna have to take her out kickin' an' screamin'.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Promoting advanced directives puts decisions in proper hands

It’s hard to imagine how a compassionate, family-friendly measure — a measure that ultimately respects individual rights — could be twisted so grossly into the erroneous phrase “death panels.”

But, prepare yourself for more lies and more nonsense, because President Barack Obama has decided to do the right thing — and his critics already have resorted to fear-mongering and name-calling.

The concept of advanced directives was pioneered in La Crosse, thanks to our two first-class health care institutions.

It’s a simple concept: An individual, with the help of family, should have the ultimate say in the type of end-of-life care the individual receives. The best way to do that is through a careful consultation, with family and physician, before there is a health crisis — while the individual is still capable of having a rational voice in the decision.

Too often, those decisions are made when it’s too late for the individual to make the decisions. Instead, grieving family members are left to make the decision — and at times it’s nothing more than a guess.

Would the individual want extraordinary measures taken when the end is near? Why wouldn’t we trust the individual — in advance and when thinking clearly — to make that decision?

For those who crusade for the rights of the individual, here’s the question: Why are you so opposed to the individual being able to set down on paper, with help from family and physician, the standards and wishes for end-of-life care?

More

La Crosse Wisconsin Has Highest Rate Of Living Wills, Lowest Cost Of Care

Nearly all adults who die in La Crosse, 96 percent of them, die with a completed advance directive.

La Crosse health care systems offer a model of efficiency

Medicare spent 30% less on average for each beneficiary in the La Crosse area than the national average in 2006, the most recent year for which data is available, according to the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care.

It spent 64.5% less than in Miami and 61% less than in McAllen, Texas, the two most costly areas. And it spent 23% less than in the Milwaukee area.

Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused Stir
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/politics/26death.html?_r=2&hp
New York Times: By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON — When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the Health Care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

Congressional supporters of the new policy, though pleased, have kept quiet.




Now why are doctors being provided a "BONUS" check from the Federal Government, if they can possibly sway patients away from costly procedures? The Obama administration, along with Nancy Pelosi, have BOASTED cost control with this new Health Care legislation. At the same time there is a "financial benefit" given to doctors, in exchange [with the understanding] for consulting patients to possibly "forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment". Why the need for the Federal Government's FINANCIAL INVOLVEMENT with patient decisions, given through doctors? A question I have YET to have answered.

Don't think GOVERNMENT Health care costs are an issue? Look at the FACTS presented about the states of Massachusetts, whose Health Care System many Democrats view as the "model" for the entire nation.




Massachusetts Faces Costs of Big Health Care Plan
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/health/policy/16mass.html
New York Times: By KEVIN SACK

Alan Sager, a professor of health policy at Boston University, has calculated that health spending per person in Massachusetts increased faster than the national average in seven of the last eight years. Furthermore, he said, the gap has grown exponentially, with Massachusetts now spending about a third more per person, up from 23 percent in 1980.

“Just as this may have been the easiest place to do coverage, it may be the most difficult place to do cost control,” said Jonathan Gruber, a health economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.



Skyrocketing Massachusetts Health Care Costs could Foreshadow high price of ObamaCare
http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/23/s...sts-could-foreshadow-high-price-of-obamacare/
By Aleksandra Kulczuga - The Daily Caller

Like the bill that President Obama signed on Sunday, the 2006 Massachusetts plan was sold to voters on the now-familiar promise that it would reduce costs and lower unnecessary emergency room visits. That’s not what happened.

Since the bill became law, the state’s total direct health-care spending has increased by a remarkable 52 percent. Medicaid spending has gone from less than $6 billion a year to more the $9 billion. Many consumers have seen double-digit percentage increases in their premiums.

Even more striking, the 2006 law has done little to ease the burden on emergency rooms, a central goal of all heath care reform plans. A report by the Boston Globe found that in the first two years of the program, the state’s ER costs actually rose by 17 percent. “They said that ER visits would drop by 75 percent, and it hasn’t been even close to that,” said State Treasurer Tim Cahill, who is currently running for governor as an Independent.



The pattern of PREMIUM INCREASES that Massachusetts residence saw has already begun:


Blue Shield of California seeks rate hikes of as much as 59% for individuals
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/05/business/la-fi-insure-rates-20110106
By Duke Helfand, Los Angeles Times
Insurer says the increases result from fast-rising healthcare costs and other expenses resulting from new healthcare laws. The move comes less than a year after Anthem Blue Cross tried and failed to raise rates as much as 39%.

 

[jillian]

could you please post links properly and stop with the multicolored garbage.

i mean, if you actually want people to read what you post.

 

[Bern80]

Seems to be the left that wants to rephrase the debate here, but pretending what republicans are going after is advanced directives. Nothing could be further from the truth. My parents have advanced directives of which I am responsible for carrying out should circumstances call for it. This is not at all what the right is referring to as death panels.

The right is referring to the state deciding your end of life treatment as OPPOSED to your family. If government is paying the bills and they have a shortage of resources, which invariably happens with government run inefficiency they will be forced to ration care presumabley by priortizing need. Cold objectivity says a 30 year old is more deserving and society better served by giving him a heart transplant than an 80 year old in failing health with few years left. THAT is what is meant by death panels. GOVERNMENT beaurracrat deciding what resources you are worth using. Whether Obamacare will bring us to that point or not, who knows. But most any state run health care system eventually ends up having to ration it.

 

[FA_Q2]

Bern80, This is EXACTLY what death panels were spurred by though the term was a bad one to chose as the left is trying to use it as a beating stick. The FACT is that the government will choose what procedures are going to be paid for and what ones are not. That REMOVED the ability for you and your doctor to choose what the best care is and it will be based solely on money. That is downright scary. With an insurance company you have a fallback as there is the LAW and the courts that you can address to keep the companies in line. What do you think is going to happen when the SAME single entity controls not only the money that is paid out but also the laws, regulations and requirements. Having an insurance company that is separate from the law allows some oversight that once taken away will allow the government to make whatever choices it deems necessary to save a few bucks.

 

[Greenbeard]

Seems to be the left that wants to rephrase the debate here, but pretending what republicans are going after is advanced directives. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Really? Let's rewind the clock about six weeks when CMS made the terrifying decision to clarify that advance care planning is covered as part of the new annual wellness visit open to Medicare recipients.

How did the most popular conservative news outlet, Newsmax, treat this?

Obama Embraces 'Death Panel' Concept in Medicare Rule
Sunday, 26 Dec 2010 06:41 PM

During the stormy debate over his healthcare plan, President Barack Obama promised his program would not "pull the plug on grandma," and Congress dropped plans for death panels and "end of life" counseling that would encourage aged patients from partaking in costly medical procedures.

Opponents of Obama's plan, including former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, dubbed such efforts as "death panels" that would encourage euthanasia.

But on Dec. 3, the Obama administration seemingly flouted the will of Congress by issuing a new Medicare regulation detailing "voluntary advance care planning" that is to be included during patients' annual checkups. The regulation aimed at the aged "may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment," The New York Times reported.​

Here's good old Rush:

See, Sarah Palin Told You So: Obama Death Panels are Back
January 5, 2011

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: The White House apparently has flip-flopped again. Last week they were caught trying to sneak in the death panels, essentially. A federal rule that Medicaid doctors, in order get paid by Medicaid, Medicare, had to have end-of-life discussions with their seasoned citizen patients once a year. What's an end-of-life discussion? An end-of-life discussion is, "All right, the day's gonna come where you're gonna die, and you may know you're gonna die before you're gonna die, and we want you to figure out when it is you want to die so we can pull the plug, you won't be a burden on society, on Obama, or Obama's health care plan. We got a lot of money to spend on a lot of people."​

The conservative American Spectator told us "Berwick sets up death panels by fiat."

This isn't some liberal myth; many conservative and Republican opinionmakers (and, undoubtedly, their dittoheads) do indeed associate advanced care planning with "death panels."

 

[gekaap]

This whole death panel thing is worse than the birther conspiracy BS. It's all bogus conspiracy theory nonsense that is nor more likely to be true than the Freemason control of the government and aspirations to build a new world order.

 

[Bern80]

This whole death panel thing is worse than the birther conspiracy BS. It's all bogus conspiracy theory nonsense that is nor more likely to be true than the Freemason control of the government and aspirations to build a new world order.

Nonsense. You truly believe that government is always going to have all the money it needs to pay for everyone who needs care? Do medicare and medicaid cover any and everything now? It's simple math. There are more medical bills than government has money to pay for. Either it goes into more debt to pay for them or it starts rationing care or a combination of both. The term death panel may sound unrealistic, but it is reality for any entity with finite resources. If you prefer to absolve yourself of the financial responsibility of your health care that means the someone else paying the bills is going to get a say in what treatment it will pay for. It won't be able to pay for everything and it is going to be forced to be more efficient over time as it finds that it can not pay for everything. Efficient is a rather cold term where human life is concerned and likely means not wasting tax payer dollars to save a life that would only be around a couple more years anyway.

 

[Greenbeard]

Either it goes into more debt to pay for them or it starts rationing care or a combination of both. ... If you prefer to absolve yourself of the financial responsibility of your health care that means the someone else paying the bills is going to get a say in what treatment it will pay for.

"Rationing" as you're using the word here means placing financial responsibility back onto the individual. There is no payer in existence that doesn't make coverage decisions. As always, if you want a service that's not covered, you have to pay for it yourself. That is rationing--it's called price rationing and it's how most goods in our economy are allocated. In case you're unaware, Medicare doesn't cover everything and it never has; that's why supplemental health insurance is popular among the Medicare crowd. See that? Folks going out and spending their own money on additional services or products not covered under their standard public plan. And it's been happening for decades, right under our very noses. Horrifying!

I happen to favor value-based insurance design, in which out-of-pocket costs are inversely proportional to the value of the health service. The picture you seem to have in which insurance "absolves" one of all financial responsibility for health decisions is not and need not be how it actually works. Even though, oddly enough, you seem to favor that model.

 

[Bern80]

Either it goes into more debt to pay for them or it starts rationing care or a combination of both. ... If you prefer to absolve yourself of the financial responsibility of your health care that means the someone else paying the bills is going to get a say in what treatment it will pay for.

"Rationing" as you're using the word here means placing financial responsibility back onto the individual. There is no payer in existence that doesn't make coverage decisions. As always, if you want a service that's not covered, you have to pay for it yourself. That is rationing--it's called price rationing and it's how most goods in our economy are allocated. In case you're unaware, Medicare doesn't cover everything and it never has; that's why supplemental health insurance is popular among the Medicare crowd. See that? Folks going out and spending their own money on additional services or products not covered under their standard public plan. And it's been happening for decades, right under our very noses. Horrifying!

I happen to favor value-based insurance design, in which out-of-pocket costs are inversely proportional to the value of the health service. The picture you seem to have in which insurance "absolves" one of all financial responsibility for health decisions is not and need not be how it actually works. Even though, oddly enough, you seem to favor that model.

No shit sherlock. You're missing the point. That being if you continue to give more control to government as far as health care goes the fewer options you will have. You're right. Every aspect of the health care industry has to ration in some form. Whether it be doctors and hospitals or insurance companies and what they will pay for. As a result people have to make choices about things like supplemental coverage as you say to cover what those various resources can not. The problem is the more control of the industry you give to government, which also must ration, the fewer options you will have for supplemental coverage, hence the term death panels.

 

[gekaap]

Nonsense. You truly believe that government is always going to have all the money it needs to pay for everyone who needs care? Do medicare and medicaid cover any and everything now? It's simple math. There are more medical bills than government has money to pay for. Either it goes into more debt to pay for them or it starts rationing care or a combination of both. The term death panel may sound unrealistic, but it is reality for any entity with finite resources. If you prefer to absolve yourself of the financial responsibility of your health care that means the someone else paying the bills is going to get a say in what treatment it will pay for. It won't be able to pay for everything and it is going to be forced to be more efficient over time as it finds that it can not pay for everything. Efficient is a rather cold term where human life is concerned and likely means not wasting tax payer dollars to save a life that would only be around a couple more years anyway.

Hey bud, I've got news for you. This kind of thing already happens every day when hospitals get stuck treating people who don't have insurance. Also, considering that the government is willing to go into deeper debt for pretty much any reason whatsoever, your assumptions are pretty baseless.

 

[Greenbeard]

As a result people have to make choices about things like supplemental coverage as you say to cover what those various resources can not. The problem is the more control of the industry you give to government, which also must ration, the fewer options you will have for supplemental coverage, hence the term death panels.

That has nothing to do with "control of industry" (whatever you mean by that), it has everything to do with the comprehensiveness of coverage offered. Suppose you had an H.R. 676-style single-payer system. Then a certain level of coverage is available through the public payer. Private payers can't duplicate that coverage but they can provide supplemental coverage to cover things that the single-payer does not. Thus, the less comprehensive the coverage offered by the single-payer, the larger is the market for supplemental coverage. You'll have fewer options if more of your potential care is paid for by the single-payer (read: you don't need that additional coverage).

It's a bit odd, however, to see a conservative worrying about a lack of supplemental coverage given that the general conservative inclination is toward more out-of-pocket spending and less reliance on comprehensive insurance--exactly what you're describing here as a "death panel."

The concept of the "death panel" you're talking about is one in which the individual has to pay for more of his own care because his insurance is less comprehensive in its coverage. In other words, you're arguing for more comprehensive coverage (assuming you intend "death panel" to have a pejorative connotation).

There's a certain incoherence to conservatives complaining both:

1. If government gets more involved in health care financing, consumers will have less comprehensive coverage (read: death panel!).
2. Government is currently requiring coverage to be too comprehensive (read: benefit mandates).

 

[FA_Q2]

Actually, the opposite is true with the conservative view of out of pocket expenses. What the HC bill causes is more expensive treatments are not covered through rationing and the ability to actually pay for those procedures is almost nonexistent. That is the type of care that will be rationed out and the type of care that can lead to people dying due to lack of covered procedures. What the conservatives are saying is that the cheap procedures (broken bones, simple tests, doctors visits and the like) should be paid out of pocket. The only thing there that should be free would be the recommended preventative care. Other than that, insurance covering those procedures drives up cost. It is the catastrophic procedures that we need coverage for.