Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused Stir

[bigrebnc1775]

and yet he knows what he's talking about... unlike you.

so who is it who's discrediting himself?

the viilage is missing the idiot please return.

you know, you can keep calling the people who know what they're talking about names. it still makes you look like an idiot.

*shrug*

You nit wit are doing the exact samething you are accussing me of. I am very informed on the obamacare. move along.

 

[geauxtohell]

Geaux and Greenbeard have made probably the most insightful and intelligent posts in this thread, but of course we all know how one should stick to simple political talking points instead.

So you think their talking points are insightful and intelligent ?

Feel free to refute the actual content of our threads as opposed to going straight for the ad hominem.

 

[geauxtohell]

theres a difference between say education and 'advocation' btw.

You educate yourself to advocate. Just because you advocate doesn't mean you are doing so for financial interest. That is the point. Accusing someone of doing so, short of some real evidence, is idiotic.

and this is new? or exclusive?

Just new to this thread.

fair enough.

I'd trust someone more if they did it for financial interest frankly...

hes an advocate and a paid one. *shrugs* you don't know me and have no reason to believe me, thats cool and I would probably feel same, its the internet after all.

you can always ask him, if this is really an issue, BUT, if you do wording is important, pretend you're negotiating for insurance and covere every imaginable out.

I 'd interested in seeing his answer.

The absurd tack that this thread has taken is this assumption:

Poster A really knows what he's talking about (the opposite of being ignorant) => Poster A must be paid to research and post on this. => Poster A is discredited. => Therefore, to be listened to on this debate, you have to be ignorant.

I mean, that's the rational conclusion of the premise.

I don't think greenbeard is paid to post. I'll go with Occam's razor: he enjoys debating policy and likes to read up on it (so he doesn't look silly).

However, even if he were a "paid poster", you can choose to attack the poster, but that doesn't change the content of his words which you guys have spent the past 100 posts avoiding in order to focus an a ridiculous assumption/accusation that you can't back up.

 

[geauxtohell]

READ ALL OF THE BILL AND THE MEDICARE BILL(S) AND ADDENDUMS.

Anyone else remember when "read the bill!" first became the refrain for idiots who couldn't back up their absurd insinuations? Ah, memories.

I actually remember when lazy arses thought everyone who had read the BILLS should hand them the data.

READ THE BILLS.

If you don't read all the bills and addendums you will only keep sitting there on your arse calling everyone else a liar.

Hey, slappy.

Let me tell you how this works, since you are obviously slow on the uptake:

You are the one making the wild eyed accusations, that means the burden of proof is on you.

That means, it's up to you to provide the relevant citations. If you want to be really cool, you'd provide the language ver batum. However, at this point, I think we'd all just settle with just telling us where in the bill (section, etc) it is found so we can look for ourselves.

As it stands, this bullshit of "look for yourself" isn't going to fly. We have looked. No one can find what you are talking about.

Therefore, no one is believing your lies.

 

[geauxtohell]

Organ harvesting of designated patients most assuredly is in there, and the patient nor their family can refuse if the patient has Medicare A. One may not dis-enroll from Medicare A either.

Oh yeah? Show me where. As for avoiding doctors and nurses, that'd be your own loss.

You may contact Medicare either on the internet or by phone and ask them if you can dis-enroll from Medicare A. Tell them also that you want them to send you a copy of the law that says you cannot dis-enroll from Medicare A.

And actually, sugar plum, I've had to hire more help for for patient load.

You may also count on one other thing. I AM VERY PICKY ABOUT WHO I HIRE.

Oh. You are a Doctor?

What do you do?

 

[geauxtohell]

Organ harvesting of designated patients most assuredly is in there, and the patient nor their family can refuse if the patient has Medicare A. One may not dis-enroll from Medicare A either.

Show us.

 

[geauxtohell]

You nit wit are doing the exact samething you are accussing me of. I am very informed on the obamacare. move along.

Really? Then why don't you contribute something to this thread beyond name calling?

 

[Trajan]

You educate yourself to advocate. Just because you advocate doesn't mean you are doing so for financial interest. That is the point. Accusing someone of doing so, short of some real evidence, is idiotic.



Just new to this thread.

fair enough.

I'd trust someone more if they did it for financial interest frankly...

hes an advocate and a paid one. *shrugs* you don't know me and have no reason to believe me, thats cool and I would probably feel same, its the internet after all.

you can always ask him, if this is really an issue, BUT, if you do wording is important, pretend you're negotiating for insurance and covere every imaginable out.

I 'd interested in seeing his answer.

The absurd tack that this thread has taken is this assumption:

Poster A really knows what he's talking about (the opposite of being ignorant) => Poster A must be paid to research and post on this. => Poster A is discredited. => Therefore, to be listened to on this debate, you have to be ignorant.

I mean, that's the rational conclusion of the premise.

I don't think greenbeard is paid to post. I'll go with Occam's razor: he enjoys debating policy and likes to read up on it (so he doesn't look silly).

no, thats not the only rational conclusion , another example of a rational conclusion imho- he's a policy wonk/implementer/prm. mgr. who happens to believe in what he is doing and that visiting a myriad of sites and 'debating' the issues he can influence folks by explaining the bill etc. Great, power to him.
However, as an uber-partisan, there is a basic fairness missing, it wears quickly, there fore it becomes problematic.

However, even if he were a "paid poster", you can choose to attack the poster, but that doesn't change the content of his words

agreed, absolutely.

which you guys have spent the past 100 posts avoiding in order to focus an a ridiculous assumption/accusation that you can't back up.

I am not one of those guys, so..... *shrugs* ...and I don't attack posters personally , its a confession of lack of an argument, unless they have taken the gloves off, and have ignored requests not to, period.

speaking of - "avoiding in order to focus " you have not witnessed all of the conversations I have had with him over several forums. We have examples right here over the past coupla off days, ask a question? You need to corral him, tie him down and waterboard him, it took me like 12 posts back and forth on one topic to get the answer he knew from post 1, and he knew exactly what I was asking, but I had to play 20 questions and in the end? The answer was what my original premise was, it was all for naught. Its on purpose and it gets old. I have seen this to many times ......

 

[geauxtohell]

fair enough.

I'd trust someone more if they did it for financial interest frankly...

hes an advocate and a paid one. *shrugs* you don't know me and have no reason to believe me, thats cool and I would probably feel same, its the internet after all.

you can always ask him, if this is really an issue, BUT, if you do wording is important, pretend you're negotiating for insurance and covere every imaginable out.

I 'd interested in seeing his answer.

The absurd tack that this thread has taken is this assumption:

Poster A really knows what he's talking about (the opposite of being ignorant) => Poster A must be paid to research and post on this. => Poster A is discredited. => Therefore, to be listened to on this debate, you have to be ignorant.

I mean, that's the rational conclusion of the premise.

I don't think greenbeard is paid to post. I'll go with Occam's razor: he enjoys debating policy and likes to read up on it (so he doesn't look silly).

no, thats not the only rational conclusion , another example of a rational conclusion imho- he's a policy wonk/implementer/prm. mgr. who happens to believe in what he is doing and that visiting a myriad of sites and 'debating' the issues he can influence folks by explaining the bill etc. Great, power to him.
However, as an uber-partisan, there is a basic fairness missing, it wears quickly, there fore it becomes problematic.

That was the conclusion made by Meister on this thread. I agree, there are many more rational explanations. As it stands, I don't know that greenbeard spends his time frequenting multiple sites to talk about this one issue. Most people on here are partisan, whether they want to admit it or not.

Usually, a person (falsely) claims to be "bipartisan" to try and paint their opponent as partisan. There are few people on this board who I would consider truly bipartisan (I, for one, don't claim to be bipartisan).

However, even if he were a "paid poster", you can choose to attack the poster, but that doesn't change the content of his words

agreed, absolutely.

Fair enough. So hopefully we can move beyond this silly turn of events.

which you guys have spent the past 100 posts avoiding in order to focus an a ridiculous assumption/accusation that you can't back up.

I am not one of those guys, so..... *shrugs* ...and I don't attack posters personally , its a confession of lack of an argument, unless they have taken the gloves off, and have ignored requests not to, period.

speaking of - "avoiding in order to focus " you have not witnessed all of the conversations I have had with him over several forums. We have examples right here over the past coupla off days, ask a question? You need to corral him, tie him down and waterboard him, it took me like 12 posts back and forth on one topic to get the answer he knew from post 1, and he knew exactly what I was asking, but I had to play 20 questions and in the end? The answer was what my original premise was, it was all for naught. Its on purpose and it gets old. I have seen this to many times ......

Apologies if I mistakenly lumped you in with the wrong crowed.

I don't know what you are talking about: "several forums", this is the only political forum I frequent. I haven't seen you two in other places (if memory serves me).

I can't really comment on your annoyances with the way another poster participates. I generally avoid this, as most of us live in glass houses on the matter.

 

[Trajan]

The absurd tack that this thread has taken is this assumption:

Poster A really knows what he's talking about (the opposite of being ignorant) => Poster A must be paid to research and post on this. => Poster A is discredited. => Therefore, to be listened to on this debate, you have to be ignorant.

I mean, that's the rational conclusion of the premise.

I don't think greenbeard is paid to post. I'll go with Occam's razor: he enjoys debating policy and likes to read up on it (so he doesn't look silly).

no, thats not the only rational conclusion , another example of a rational conclusion imho- he's a policy wonk/implementer/prm. mgr. who happens to believe in what he is doing and that visiting a myriad of sites and 'debating' the issues he can influence folks by explaining the bill etc. Great, power to him.
However, as an uber-partisan, there is a basic fairness missing, it wears quickly, there fore it becomes problematic.

That was the conclusion made by Meister on this thread. I agree, there are many more rational explanations. As it stands, I don't know that greenbeard spends his time frequenting multiple sites to talk about this one issue. Most people on here are partisan, whether they want to admit it or not.

Usually, a person (falsely) claims to be "bipartisan" to try and paint their opponent as partisan. There are few people on this board who I would consider truly bipartisan (I, for one, don't claim to be bipartisan).




Fair enough. So hopefully we can move beyond this silly turn of events.

which you guys have spent the past 100 posts avoiding in order to focus an a ridiculous assumption/accusation that you can't back up.

I am not one of those guys, so..... *shrugs* ...and I don't attack posters personally , its a confession of lack of an argument, unless they have taken the gloves off, and have ignored requests not to, period.

speaking of - "avoiding in order to focus " you have not witnessed all of the conversations I have had with him over several forums. We have examples right here over the past coupla off days, ask a question? You need to corral him, tie him down and waterboard him, it took me like 12 posts back and forth on one topic to get the answer he knew from post 1, and he knew exactly what I was asking, but I had to play 20 questions and in the end? The answer was what my original premise was, it was all for naught. Its on purpose and it gets old. I have seen this to many times ......

Apologies if I mistakenly lumped you in with the wrong crowed.

I don't know what you are talking about: "several forums", this is the only political forum I frequent. I haven't seen you two in other places (if memory serves me).

I can't really comment on your annoyances with the way another poster participates. I generally avoid this, as most of us live in glass houses on the matter.

fair enough, agreed, lets move on.Thx.



to the topic.....let me ask you a Q please which I think is apropos-

how would you describe the Administration's- HHR, Sibelius's etc. explanations of, detail, general output and honesty etc. as it applies to the Health care bill-

Lets consider 10 being primo?

Conceptual explanation-
General output-
Detail-
Honesty-




.

 

[jillian]

the viilage is missing the idiot please return.

you know, you can keep calling the people who know what they're talking about names. it still makes you look like an idiot.

*shrug*

You nit wit are doing the exact samething you are accussing me of. I am very informed on the obamacare. move along.

you're not informed about anything. and you're telling people who clearly know more about the statute that you know more.

you sound ridiculous.

 

[geauxtohell]

no, thats not the only rational conclusion , another example of a rational conclusion imho- he's a policy wonk/implementer/prm. mgr. who happens to believe in what he is doing and that visiting a myriad of sites and 'debating' the issues he can influence folks by explaining the bill etc. Great, power to him.
However, as an uber-partisan, there is a basic fairness missing, it wears quickly, there fore it becomes problematic.

That was the conclusion made by Meister on this thread. I agree, there are many more rational explanations. As it stands, I don't know that greenbeard spends his time frequenting multiple sites to talk about this one issue. Most people on here are partisan, whether they want to admit it or not.

Usually, a person (falsely) claims to be "bipartisan" to try and paint their opponent as partisan. There are few people on this board who I would consider truly bipartisan (I, for one, don't claim to be bipartisan).




Fair enough. So hopefully we can move beyond this silly turn of events.

I am not one of those guys, so..... *shrugs* ...and I don't attack posters personally , its a confession of lack of an argument, unless they have taken the gloves off, and have ignored requests not to, period.

speaking of - "avoiding in order to focus " you have not witnessed all of the conversations I have had with him over several forums. We have examples right here over the past coupla off days, ask a question? You need to corral him, tie him down and waterboard him, it took me like 12 posts back and forth on one topic to get the answer he knew from post 1, and he knew exactly what I was asking, but I had to play 20 questions and in the end? The answer was what my original premise was, it was all for naught. Its on purpose and it gets old. I have seen this to many times ......

Apologies if I mistakenly lumped you in with the wrong crowed.

I don't know what you are talking about: "several forums", this is the only political forum I frequent. I haven't seen you two in other places (if memory serves me).

I can't really comment on your annoyances with the way another poster participates. I generally avoid this, as most of us live in glass houses on the matter.

fair enough, agreed, lets move on.Thx.



to the topic.....let me ask you a Q please which I think is apropos-

how would you describe the Administration's- HHR, Sibelius's etc. explanations of, detail, general output and honesty etc. as it applies to the Health care bill-

Lets consider 10 being primo?

Conceptual explanation-
General output-
Detail-
Honesty-


.

5,5,7,10. I don't think they have been dishonest. I think they have done a terrible job of explaining it, which is why it is poorly received.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

you know, you can keep calling the people who know what they're talking about names. it still makes you look like an idiot.

*shrug*

You nit wit are doing the exact samething you are accussing me of. I am very informed on the obamacare. move along.

you're not informed about anything. and you're telling people who clearly know more about the statute that you know more.

you sound ridiculous.

sweetie I am a hell've alot more informed than you are. Don't just say that you are more informed, show me just how informed you are. I will beat everything you submit. True ******* story.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I find it hilarious that people are actually so full of themselves that they think anyone would be paid to post on this message board.

Do you really think that anyone would waste money trying to convince us of anything? What would be the point?

When has anyone actually changed someone's mind on this board?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You nit wit are doing the exact samething you are accussing me of. I am very informed on the obamacare. move along.

you're not informed about anything. and you're telling people who clearly know more about the statute that you know more.

you sound ridiculous.

sweetie I am a hell've alot more informed than you are. Don't just say that you are more informed, show me just how informed you are. I will beat everything you submit. True ******* story.

Well, every post you've made in this thread so far has been a personal attack.

Is that what you mean by "beat", internet tough guy?

 

[Trajan]

That was the conclusion made by Meister on this thread. I agree, there are many more rational explanations. As it stands, I don't know that greenbeard spends his time frequenting multiple sites to talk about this one issue. Most people on here are partisan, whether they want to admit it or not.

Usually, a person (falsely) claims to be "bipartisan" to try and paint their opponent as partisan. There are few people on this board who I would consider truly bipartisan (I, for one, don't claim to be bipartisan).




Fair enough. So hopefully we can move beyond this silly turn of events.



Apologies if I mistakenly lumped you in with the wrong crowed.

I don't know what you are talking about: "several forums", this is the only political forum I frequent. I haven't seen you two in other places (if memory serves me).

I can't really comment on your annoyances with the way another poster participates. I generally avoid this, as most of us live in glass houses on the matter.

fair enough, agreed, lets move on.Thx.



to the topic.....let me ask you a Q please which I think is apropos-

how would you describe the Administration's- HHR, Sibelius's etc. explanations of, detail, general output and honesty etc. as it applies to the Health care bill-

Lets consider 10 being primo?

Conceptual explanation-
General output-
Detail-
Honesty-


.

5,5,7,10. I don't think they have been dishonest. I think they have done a terrible job of explaining it, which is why it is poorly received.

okay thx. we agree on the first 3.

4 - honesty. I can't agree.

They need to have the rationing conservation. Its gonna be rough but they cannot go round it. Its a shadow that will hang over the bill till some hard truths are acknowledged. They took the easy way round, now that sppt. has eroded and the opposing party has some power, it won't get better or any easier.

 

[Trajan]

welllllll that didn't take long.

Its a goner ..again....so they have now pulled/ withdrawn/ 'revised' it due to blow-back, twice now. I have said it before and will say it again, they are their own worst enemy.



U.S. Alters Rule on Paying for End-of-Life Planning
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: January 4, 2011

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, reversing course, will revise a Medicare regulation to delete references to end-of-life planning as part of the annual physical examinations covered under the new health care law, administration officials said Tuesday.


The move is an abrupt shift, coming just days after the new policy took effect on Jan. 1.

Many doctors and providers of hospice care had praised the regulation, which listed “advance care planning” as one of the services that could be offered in the “annual wellness visit” for Medicare beneficiaries.

While administration officials cited procedural reasons for changing the rule, it was clear that political concerns were also a factor. The renewed debate over advance care planning threatened to become a distraction to administration officials who were gearing up to defend the health law against attack by the new Republican majority in the House.

Although the health care bill signed into law in March did not mention end-of-life planning, the topic was included in a huge Medicare regulation setting payment rates for thousands of physician services. The final regulation was published in the Federal Register in late November. The proposed rule, published for public comment in July, did not include advance care planning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/health/policy/05health.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

 

[Old Rocks]

well well

By ROBERT PEAR
Published: December 25, 2010

LinkedinDiggMixxMySpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalink.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. They fear provoking another furor like the one in 2009 when Republicans seized on the idea of end-of-life counseling to argue that the Democrats’ bill would allow the government to cut off care for the critically ill.

read it all.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/politics/26death.html?_r=2&hp

Sure, and you and the rest of the Conservatives would just prefer such people get no care at all. You have already proven that in Arizona and Indiania. And will shortly prove it in Texas. What hypocritical asses you people are.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

well, yes, exactly.... all it says is that they want to go back to paying for end of life counseling.

why do you have a problem with people doing living wills?

When were we discussing living wills again? Lets try and not throw strawmen at each other.

Read both links, along with the HC bill and the parts of the stimulus bill that have HC in them, and you will see that the doctors only get paid if they give the advice the government official recommends.

you need to start reading with some understanding. end of life counseling is about how people should plan their medical care at the end. the PURPOSE is for them to prepare living wills to state their intent.

a lot of loons are running around calling that death panels.

that's what.

doctors NOW don't get paid if the insurance company tells them not to perform a procedure. I'm not quite sure what is so difficult about this.

Jacksonville woman dies after insurer repeatedly denies her a liver transplant | jacksonville.com

Family Attorney Says He'll Sue Insurance Company That Initially Denied 17-Year-Old Girl a Liver Transplant - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News - FOXNews.com

MAKING A KILLING - Chapter 5 - Getting Away With Murder - Why You Can't Sue Your HMO

Rigth and we could just pass a few pages worth of regulations FIXING that problem instead of thousands of pages re-writing the whole system and transferring powers to federal bureaucracies.

Do you get it yet? The government is not the solution to any problem like this, a law yes but government bureaucracy no.....look at amtrack, look at the DMV, look to the post office.


And what happens when the government, through its proved incompetence, starts running out of money.....this happens 2nd Ariz. patient dies after being denied transplant due to budget cuts -

You can trust the government if you want but Ill go with Albert Einstein "Insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different result"

 

[bigrebnc1775]

you're not informed about anything. and you're telling people who clearly know more about the statute that you know more.

you sound ridiculous.

sweetie I am a hell've alot more informed than you are. Don't just say that you are more informed, show me just how informed you are. I will beat everything you submit. True ******* story.

Well, every post you've made in this thread so far has been a personal attack.

Is that what you mean by "beat", internet tough guy?

No not evry post just the ones that an insult was given I returned it.