FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill

[maineman]

It has been a wet and soggy summer, but even so, summer in Maine...ANY summer in Maine... is worth experiencing.

My folks were at Old Orchard a fews weeks back. Lobster for $3.99/lb is INSANE!!!

and we're lovin' it. Last night, I took a twenty dollar bill to the nearby Hannaford's supermarket. bought four 1.2 pound soft shells... Hannaford's steams them for FREE... in about ten minutes... was home about twenty minutes after I left and my wife and I each had two.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It has been a wet and soggy summer, but even so, summer in Maine...ANY summer in Maine... is worth experiencing.

My folks were at Old Orchard a fews weeks back. Lobster for $3.99/lb is INSANE!!!

and we're lovin' it. Last night, I took a twenty dollar bill to the nearby Hannaford's supermarket. bought four 1.2 pound soft shells... Hannaford's steams them for FREE... in about ten minutes... was home about twenty minutes after I left and my wife and I each had two.

if you're from Maine, you should know that shedders aren't worth eating.

A lot of shell and no meat.

 

[Immanuel]

Opponents of a public health insurance option -- including Grassley -- contend it would drive private health insurers out of the market.

"Government is not a competitor, it's a predator," he said to applause. "Then everyone else's premiums go up, and pretty soon, there's not any private insurance."

Republican senator hears health care concerns back home - CNN.com

As Senator Grassley states, government is not a competitor but a predator. Private Health Insurance will be a thing of the past if this goes through.

Some of you may be cheering that outcome on, but just wait until government is the only insurer on the block. You won't be cheering then.

Immie

The healthcare lobbyists got to Grassley.

He knows who his masters are.

They donated $2.5 million dollars to him.

Maybe so, why don't you link to that, oh and by the way, in the meantime how about looking up how much they have given to Obama, Pelosi & Co. as well?

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

a panel decides if you get to live.

And end of life counseling for all.

liar!

Inappropriate and deserving of a neg rep, but I don't usually do that so ye should know that if I did, I would.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

I love how the reality of how national health care works in Every other country in the world has utterly escaped your ignorant ass.

We already have national health insurance for people over 65. It works fine.

Every other industrialized nation has it. And it works fine for them too.

Have you ever actually asked Canadians, the French, or the Swedes about their healthcare?

medicare does not work fine. it's under funded to the tune of nearly 400 billion dollars

However, in the mind of a lberal being underfunded when the government can simply increase taxes on those richer than he is nothing to worry about.

Immie

 

[maineman]

My folks were at Old Orchard a fews weeks back. Lobster for $3.99/lb is INSANE!!!

and we're lovin' it. Last night, I took a twenty dollar bill to the nearby Hannaford's supermarket. bought four 1.2 pound soft shells... Hannaford's steams them for FREE... in about ten minutes... was home about twenty minutes after I left and my wife and I each had two.

if you're from Maine, you should know that shedders aren't worth eating.

A lot of shell and no meat.

Well...since I was the one who was eating them, and I was the one who had more than enough really good lobster meat at a really cheap price, I guess I should know more than you do on that subject, eh?

 

[Skull Pilot]

and we're lovin' it. Last night, I took a twenty dollar bill to the nearby Hannaford's supermarket. bought four 1.2 pound soft shells... Hannaford's steams them for FREE... in about ten minutes... was home about twenty minutes after I left and my wife and I each had two.

if you're from Maine, you should know that shedders aren't worth eating.

A lot of shell and no meat.

Well...since I was the one who was eating them, and I was the one who had more than enough really good lobster meat at a really cheap price, I guess I should know more than you do on that subject, eh?

I married into a family of lobstermen so I'd say they know more than you. and they don't eat shedders.

Alot of waht you paid for was water in the shell and not lobster meat

 

[maineman]

if you're from Maine, you should know that shedders aren't worth eating.

A lot of shell and no meat.

Well...since I was the one who was eating them, and I was the one who had more than enough really good lobster meat at a really cheap price, I guess I should know more than you do on that subject, eh?

I married into a family of lobstermen so I'd say they know more than you. and they don't eat shedders.

Alot of waht you paid for was water in the shell and not lobster meat

if cost were not an option, of COURSE I'd eat two pound hard shells every night... these were really cheap... they were steamed in a pressure cooker and not boiled so there was very little water in the shells... maybe you need to find something of substance to argue about and quit being a fucking long distance food critic of MY meal choices, eh?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well...since I was the one who was eating them, and I was the one who had more than enough really good lobster meat at a really cheap price, I guess I should know more than you do on that subject, eh?

I married into a family of lobstermen so I'd say they know more than you. and they don't eat shedders.

Alot of waht you paid for was water in the shell and not lobster meat

if cost were not an option, of COURSE I'd eat two pound hard shells every night... these were really cheap... they were steamed in a pressure cooker and not boiled so there was very little water in the shells... maybe you need to find something of substance to argue about and quit being a fucking long distance food critic of MY meal choices, eh?

then post something of substance rather than your meal choices.

 

[drsmith1072]

Try a little harder, silly lib apologist.

Here is an interesting (and by interesting I mean pathetically sick) video of your savior, the enlightened and articulate Barack Hussein Obama, telling a poor woman to take a pill.

No surgery for you.

YouTube - Obama to Jane Sturm: Hey, take a pill

WOW, are you really that gullible?? Your clip has been edited. Perhaps you should take the time to look up what obama actually said instead of blindly accepted a small piece of doctored video?



.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

A panel decides if you get to live.

And end of life counseling for all.

George Bush already signed this into law for Texas:


Governor George W. Bush Signs Law Allowing Doctors To End Life Support Over Objection Of Surrogates

Under chapter 166 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, if an attending physician disagrees with a surrogate over a life-and-death treatment decision, there must be an ethics committee consultation (with notice to the surrogate and an opportunity to participate). In a futility case such as Sun Hudson's, in which the treatment team is seeking to stop treatment deemed to be nonbeneficial, if the ethics committee agrees with the team, the hospital will be authorized to discontinue the disputed treatment (after a 10-day delay, during which the hospital must help try to find a facility that will accept a transfer of the patient). These provisions, which were added to Texas law in 1999, originally applied only to adult patients; in 2003; they were made applicable to disputes over treatment decisions for or on behalf of minors. (I hasten to add that one of the co-drafters in both 1999 and 2003 was the National Right to Life Committee. Witnesses who testified in support of the bill in 1999 included representatives of National Right to Life, Texas Right to Life, and the Hemlock Society. Our bill passed both houses, unanimously, both years, and the 1999 law was signed by then Governor George W. Bush.)



Which has led to this:

Hospital ends life support of baby
1st U.S. case of its kind is against mom's wish, in accordance with law

10:37 PM CST on Tuesday, March 15, 2005

By BRUCE NICHOLS / The Dallas Morning News

HOUSTON – In what medical ethicists say is a first in the United States, a hospital acting under state law, with the concurrence of a judge, disconnected a critically ill baby from life support Tuesday over his mother's objections.

The baby, Sun Hudson, who'd been on a mechanical ventilator since his birth Sept. 25, died quickly afterward, his mother said.


"I held him ... I talked to him. I told him I love him," said the child's mother, Wanda Hudson. Then doctors took the mechanical breathing tube out, the child took a couple of breaths, struggled briefly in her arms and it was over, Ms. Hudson said.

and

Unusual law at center of fight over baby's life | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Texas Regional News

and


December 1991 XIII/4
[SIZE=+1]ENLIGHTENED LEGISLATION: ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS [/SIZE]

On August 2, 1988, 6 month old Sammy Linares swallowed a deflated balloon. The upper airway obstruction resulted in respiratory failure and cardiac arrest. Sammy had no vital signs for about 20 minutes, but a normal cardiac rhythm was established at a neighborhood hospital. Transferred to Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center in Chicago, life support systems were maintained even after he was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state. When his father Rudy Linares requested that his son be removed from life support, the physicians acting upon the advice of hospital attorneys stated that life support could not be removed unless the family obtained a court order justifying such an action. As is well known, on April 26, 1989, Rudy Linares held off health care workers with a handgun, disconnected Sammy from the respirator and held him in his arms until he died. As a result of the legal and ethical furor surrounding the Linares case, the legislature of the state of Illinois recently passed a bill which allows life support to be withdrawn from incapacitated persons at the request of a surrogate without a court order. In this essay, we shall consider the ethical substratum for the new legislation, as well as some ethical issues which will arise in its implementation.

The Principles
The Health Care Surrogate Act was signed into law on September 26, 1991, by the Governor of Illinois. In sum, the new legislation is a response of several medical, legal, and social service organizations to the ethical and legal anomalies demonstrated in the Linares case. While the new law states clearly that both patients with decisional capacity as well as patients without decisional capacity may have life support removed "without judicial involvement of any kind", the major part of the legislation concerns decision making for persons without decisional capacity. .We shall concentrate on the sections of the new law devoted to surrogate decision making for persons incapable of making health care decisions for themselves.

One of three conditions must be verified by two physicians before a surrogate may determine that life sustaining treatment should be withheld or withdrawn from an incapacitated person. These conditions are:

a) imminent death; that is, when death is inevitable within a short time, "even if life sustaining treatment would be initiated or continued,"

b) permanent unconsciousness, for which initiating or continuing life support, in light of the patient's medical condition, provides only minimal medical benefit,

c) incurable or irreversible condition that imposes severe pain or an inhumane burden, that will ultimately cause the patient's death and for which initiating or continuing life sustaining treatment provides only minimal medical benefit.

The new legislation, which may not be invoked if the patient has an operative living will or Durable Power of Attorney, lists the order in which a surrogate should be recognized, the legal guardian, the spouse and other family members being given priority. Finally, the act exonerates surrogates, physicians, and other heath care providers from legal liability when they follow "with due care" the stipulations of the legislation.

Discussion
Several ethical principles, while not mentioned explicitly in the bill, are the substratum for the legislation. In order to understand the ethical validity of this legislation, these principles should be considered.

a) The ethical responsibility to prolong the life of an incapacitated person ceases when the life support will not benefit the patient. Removing life support when it is no longer beneficial for the patient does not "cause" the patient's death in the moral or ethical sense. The erroneous tendency to equate "causing death" in the ethical sense with the physical removal of life support has been evidenced in many court decisions, especially in the decision of the Missouri Supreme Court in the Cruzan Case. The Illinois legislation explicitly states that it is "not intended to condone, authorize or approve mercy killing or assisted suicide", but does not define the difference between the actions approved by the bill and mercy killing. In order to differentiate between mercy killing and allowing to die, the ethical reasoning which allows withholding or withdrawing life support must be understood.

b) Sustaining the physiological function of people when cognitive-affective function cannot be restored is not a benefit for persons in a state of permanent unconsciousness. This common sense conclusion has been denied by those who would allow withdrawal of life support only when death is imminent, i.e., death cannot be avoided even if life support is utilized. Most people who are permanently unconscious are not in danger of imminent death because life support can continue their existence in this debilitated condition indefinitely.

c) Artificial hydration and nutrition, is judged by the same ethical norms as all other life sustaining treatment. Thus, the long debate concerning the ethical evaluation of the use of artificial hydration and nutrition seems to be near a close. The fact that the Catholic Conference of Illinois promoted and supported this legislation is strong evidence, together with approval of DPA's by the Catholic Conferences in other states, that the Catholic tradition in regard to withdrawal of life support allows the same ethical norms to be applied to artificial hydration and nutrition as to other forms of life support.

d) Life support may be withheld or removed if the patient suffers from an incurable or irreversible condition which will ultimately cause death and which imposes severe pain or an inhumane burden. There has been some discussion whether this "condition" applies to persons with ALS, MS or Alzheimer's disease. From the wording of the legislation, it seems that this "condition" does pertain to aforementioned patients because the "severe pain or inhumane burden" is the result of the illness in question and not the result of the treatment for the illness. If a patient with one of these chronic fatal pathologies is declared incapable of medical decision making, it seems the surrogate may ask that life support be withheld or withdrawn because it is of little medical benefit when compared to the "inhumane burden" imposed by the illness on the patient. Ethically speaking, it seems the illness as well as the therapy may be taken into consideration when determining "severe pain or inhumane burden. All would not agree with this conclusion. Undoubtedly, this "condition" of the legislation will cause greater controversy than the other two.

There are two ethical issues involved in the execution of the law which merit explicit consideration.

1) The act requires that the surrogate make his or her decision concerning the use of life support "in consultation with the attending physician. This requirement demonstrates that the physician is much more than a puppet or bystander in the decision making process. The surrogate cannot possibly make an ethical decision without having some idea of the potential outcome of various therapies. Hence, the ethical responsibility of the physician must be emphasized, as well as the ethical right of the surrogate.


2) It seems that this legislation, as do most legal statements, confuses the primary responsibility of the surrogate. The act states "that the surrogate shall make decisions for the adult patient, conforming as closely as possible to what the patient would have done or intended under the circumstances. Hence, the legislation indicates that the surrogate should make decisions based upon substitute judgment. "Only when the adult patient's wishes are unknown and remain unknown, or if the patient is a minor, may the surrogate make a decision upon the basis of patient's best interest. However, it seems that the primary moral responsibility of the surrogate is to make a decision in best interest of the patient, no matter what the patient may have said beforehand. While this conclusion is not shared by all ethicists, and by few lawyers, it seems valid for two reasons:

• a) the notion that the patient's prior wishes would be able to envision all present circumstances is unrealistic. Substitute judgement is a legal fiction; attributing to it the place of prominence in surrogate decision making leads to contradictions such as those contained in the Cruzan decision of the Missouri Supreme Court;
• b) the right and responsibility of family members to act as surrogates for their loved ones is not bestowed by the civil law; rather it follows from our relationship as human beings. True, the civil law may legitimately regulate and facilitate this right of surrogate decision making, but it does not bestow this right. When one makes a health care decision for a loved one the statements and wishes of the loved one should be considered by the surrogate. But these wishes serve only to indicate the best interest of the patient. They do not serve as an ineluctable mandate which must be followed passively by the surrogate even in the face of evidence which would indicate that substitute judgement is not in the best interest of the patient. In sum, the surrogate, and physician for that matter, is not a robot-like amanuensis of the patient. Rather, the surrogates are in their own right called upon to assume the responsibility of making ethical decisions.

Conclusion
Moving health care decisions for incapacitated persons out of the courts and into the family forum is highly desirable. For this reason, the Health Care Surrogate Act of Illinois is worthy of commendation. However, application of the new law will require an understanding of the ethical principles which justify the legislation, and of some ethical issues which may arise in the implementation of the legislation. Kevin O'Rourke, O.P.
________________________________________________
Advance Directives, Florida


State By State Advance Directive list


This "Death Panel" thing is a total crock of shit by boobi americani.

 

[drsmith1072]

FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill
AP – Tue Aug 11, 3:04 am ET
...Sarah Palin says the health care overhaul bill would set up a "death panel." Federal bureaucrats would play God, ruling on whether ailing seniors are worth enough to society to deserve life-sustaining medical care. Palin and other critics are wrong.​

Let's begin with a definition of terms, such as 'Fact Check."

This is not FactCheck.Org, it is the Associated Press which is allied with administration thinking.

It is misleading to imply that the AP is objective. In fact, it would have been more inclusive to comment on the kind of thinking of those involved in the compilation, and the essence of ObamaCare. The Stimulus already has a 'death panel' of sorts, the CER.

How typical to attack the source. LOL

Consider the following:

Slipped into the emergency stimulus legislation was substantial funding for a Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, comparative effectiveness research is generally code for limiting care based on the patient's age.

WOW so your argument begins with an assumption and then takes off, basing everything on the belief that the assumption is true. With a shoddy foundation like that you argument is sure to fail.

Economists are familiar with the formula already in use in the U.K., where the cost of a treatment is divided by the number of years (called QALYS or quality-adjusted life years) the patient is likely to benefit. In the U.K., the formula leads to denying treatments for age-related diseases because older patients have a denominator problem -- fewer years to benefit than younger patients with other diseases. In 2006, older patients with macular degeneration, which causes blindness, were told that they had to go totally blind in one eye before they could get an expensive new drug to save the other eye. It took nearly two years to get that government edict reversed.

So the UK made a mistake and then corrected it and you believe that we will adopt the same exact plan that they did and make the same exact mistakes?? WOW more assumption based arguments with a shoddy foundation. I see the walls of your argument are starting the crack. lol

Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., a Louisiana heart surgeon, warned to no avail that it would lead to "denying seniors and the disabled lifesaving care."

So a REPUBLICAN is against it, imagine that.

If this philosophy is inferred in ObamaCare, can you see where there is reason to tread carefully?

And the infamous Dr. Emanuel:
"True change, writes Dr. Emanuel, must include reassessing the promise doctors make when they enter the profession, the Hippocratic Oath. Amazingly, Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he wrote. Physicians take the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.) Of course that is what patients hope their doctors will do. But Dr. Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their own patient and consider social justice. They should think about whether the money being spent on their patient could be better spent elsewhere. Many doctors are horrified at this notion, and will tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time. "
Defend Your Health Care


And, finally, that could be considered to be a 'Death Panel' as described by George Will:
lipped into the emergency stimulus legislation was substantial funding for a Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, comparative effectiveness research is generally code for limiting care based on the patient's age.” The CER would identify (this is language from the draft report on the legislation) medical "items, procedures, and interventions" that it deems insufficiently effective or excessively expensive. They "will no longer be prescribed" by federal health programs.” Are you thinking ‘seniors’? George F. Will - How the GOP Should Measure the Stimulus - washingtonpost.com

So your entire argument is based on assumption and the opinion of one advisor to the office of management and budget?? The sad thing is that insurance companies already do what you are talking about and somehow you seem to see no problem with them doing it. LOL

 

[AllieBaba]

You're just repeating the same words over and over, and not saying anything, doc.

 

[drsmith1072]

The OP is correct. There is nothing called a "Death Panel" in the bill.

However, if you read the language, instead of reading left wing or right wing talking points you may learn the truth.

If people decide to click the link and read the text of the bill be warned, once you learn the truth you wont be able to go back to believing in a lie.

I went to your other thread. So what specifically in there do you have a problem with because it seems to me that it is primarily concerned with planning for advanced care and gettign info to patients and/or their guardian.

 

[Meister]

Republican senator hears health care concerns back home - CNN.com

As Senator Grassley states, government is not a competitor but a predator. Private Health Insurance will be a thing of the past if this goes through.

Some of you may be cheering that outcome on, but just wait until government is the only insurer on the block. You won't be cheering then.

Immie

The healthcare lobbyists got to Grassley.

He knows who his masters are.

They donated $2.5 million dollars to him.

Lets have a link to that Chris. I'm not saying your wrong, but at least show the source.

I can only assume since you didn't post a source that you were flat out lying.

 

[drsmith1072]

As long as they have a good product and the government plan has to sustain itself through premiums and other non-tax revenue, private insurers should be able to compete with the government plan, Obama said.

"They do it all the time," he said. "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. ... It's the Post Office that's always having problems."

That's our president trying to sell a government run health care plan, you need to ask yourself why you would want a government run anything when it's very clear that even the Mesiah thinks the government run postal service is a failure.

As I said in the other thread you posted this in:

"Asked to clarify, the White House said Obama was pointing out that while core Postal Service services are different from those offered by UPS and FedEx, it has not undermined the competitive spirit of the private shipping industry."

The post office is an entirely different animal than the private shippers. They do the bulk of mail across the country, the cheap mail that is.

The point being, you can get the bare essential, cheap, public health plan (tthe post office) or you will be able to opt for the more expensive private health plans, which have better service (FedEx).

And, for the price they charge and the volume they handle, the post office does a pretty good job thank you very much.

funny how everyone else is always rushing to obamas aid to clarify what he says since he finds it so difficult to spit it out himself.


post office = obams nationalist free clinic...take a number, stand in line, wait for your number, talk to an underworked overpaid asshole beurocrat, pay an additional fee to the taxes you pay for your "free" government healthscam.

just like the department of motor vehicles...walk in take a number stand in line wait for your number talk to a underworked overpaid asshole Beurocrat pay a fee get shit for service.

obamas free clinic = the department of motor vehicles.

Uh the last time I went to the DMV I was in and out in less than thirty minutes. LOL
The last time I went to the doctor I made an appointment that they triple booked for because some might not show but then everyone shows up so I ended up with a line, waited 2 hours to get a room and then it was another 40 minutes to an hour before I actually got to see my doctor.

If only my doctor's office was run like the local DMV. LOL

 

[bk1983]

Why does the post office get such shit?

I feel like I am the only one who gets good service from them, our company uses the click n ship service free pickup and flat rate boxes, for the price and service I feel the PO cant be beat.

 

[Meister]

As I said in the other thread you posted this in:

"Asked to clarify, the White House said Obama was pointing out that while core Postal Service services are different from those offered by UPS and FedEx, it has not undermined the competitive spirit of the private shipping industry."

The post office is an entirely different animal than the private shippers. They do the bulk of mail across the country, the cheap mail that is.

The point being, you can get the bare essential, cheap, public health plan (tthe post office) or you will be able to opt for the more expensive private health plans, which have better service (FedEx).

And, for the price they charge and the volume they handle, the post office does a pretty good job thank you very much.

funny how everyone else is always rushing to obamas aid to clarify what he says since he finds it so difficult to spit it out himself.


post office = obams nationalist free clinic...take a number, stand in line, wait for your number, talk to an underworked overpaid asshole beurocrat, pay an additional fee to the taxes you pay for your "free" government healthscam.

just like the department of motor vehicles...walk in take a number stand in line wait for your number talk to a underworked overpaid asshole Beurocrat pay a fee get shit for service.

obamas free clinic = the department of motor vehicles.

Uh the last time I went to the DMV I was in and out in less than thirty minutes. LOL
The last time I went to the doctor I made an appointment that they triple booked for because some might not show but then everyone shows up so I ended up with a line, waited 2 hours to get a room and then it was another 40 minutes to an hour before I actually got to see my doctor.

If only my doctor's office was run like the local DMV. LOL

If I were you, I would change doctors. At least right now you have that choice...not so sure for the future, though.

 

[Immanuel]

Uh the last time I went to the DMV I was in and out in less than thirty minutes. LOL
The last time I went to the doctor I made an appointment that they triple booked for because some might not show but then everyone shows up so I ended up with a line, waited 2 hours to get a room and then it was another 40 minutes to an hour before I actually got to see my doctor.

If only my doctor's office was run like the local DMV. LOL

I lived most of my life in California. A trip to the DMV would almost guarantee a full day of missed work. Now I live in Florida. A trip to the DMV might mean an hour or two at the most, not counting travel time. I suppose it depends upon where you live.

Immie

 

[JakeStarkey]

We were in out of our DMV in twenty minutes last week, and that was with 60 folks in the waiting room. I waited twice that long for my dental appointment, and I was ten minutes early. And the VA outpatient clinic has only made me wait twice more than twenty minutes in more than fifteen years.

Don't be afraid of the feds, folks, because you vote. But be very, very afraid of the health care industry that wants your money and does not care about your health.