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

[bigrebnc1775]

I have provided end of life care for 30+ people, how about you?

ok, I have leaped over tall building in a single bond on the internet.

So, how many people have you provided end of life care for? How many "care" meetings have you been apart of?

over the internet trillions with a T

 

[Greenbeard]

Just for starters

SEC. 3209. AUTHORITY TO DENY PLAN BIDS.

(a) In General.--Section 1854(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395w-24(a)(5)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) Rejection of bids.--
``(i) In general.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed as requiring the Secretary to
accept any or every bid submitted by an MA
organization under this subsection.
``(ii) Authority to deny bids that propose
significant increases in cost sharing or decreases
in benefits.--The Secretary may deny a bid
submitted by an MA organization for an MA plan if
it proposes significant increases in cost sharing
or decreases in benefits offered under the
plan.''.

(b) Application Under Part D.--Section 1860D-11(d) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 1395w-111(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(3) Rejection of bids. <<NOTE: Applicability.>> --
Paragraph (5)(C) of section 1854(a) shall apply with respect to
bids submitted by a PDP sponsor under subsection (b) in the same
manner as such paragraph applies to bids submitted by an MA
organization under such section 1854(a).''.

http://origin.www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/html/PLAW-111publ148.htm

Do you have any idea what you're posting?

 

[The Infidel]

Stephanie quit while you are ahead, you have no clue what you are talking about.

First off this programs would be good, especially now that baby boomers are starting to get dementia and alzheimers. These doctors will only be ADVISING on what a patient should do when they are close to death, so maybe they don't waste large amounts of money on treatments that will not help, or could speed up the death process.

Death Panel..... right?

Thought there were'nt any.....

An out & out lie that Sarah was rediculed for.....

The doctors were not be compensated before.
When someone is in the last year of their life, they can have more than one care meeting. If the doctor can help the family come to the conclusion that their mother doesn't need chemo, because she is going to die from dementia anyways, and the doctor then comes up with a directive for their end of life care, they should be compensated for their work.

Yes they were.... you have ALWAYS been able to discuss end of life options with your family physician.
The govt just wasnt obligated to pay for it before.
Now they will have to.... and the govt will decide if you are worth the treatment, not you and your physician.
This is sick and we were lied to yet AGAIN!

 

[The Infidel]

You do realize that doctors already have end of life counceling, and provide information on what a patient should do? I love how people who have no clue what goes into providing end of life care, try to act like they know what this means.
You do realize filling out your DNR status falls under end of life counceling?

Now the gov't will be able to cecide whether or not to DNR..... right?

Yep.... they will.

In order to save money....

 

[The Infidel]

Stephanie quit while you are ahead, you have no clue what you are talking about.

First off this programs would be good, especially now that baby boomers are starting to get dementia and alzheimers. These doctors will only be ADVISING on what a patient should do when they are close to death, so maybe they don't waste large amounts of money on treatments that will not help, or could speed up the death process.

I would expect that my family doctor would already provide me a road map to help me consider such...

And if you are on medicare, he will be paid for providing that road map.

Trust me... that roadmap will have a very short track to death.

In order to save money.....

Just sayin'

 

[Greenbeard]

Yes they were.... you have ALWAYS been able to discuss end of life options with your family physician.
The govt just wasnt obligated to pay for it before.
Now they will have to.... and the govt will decide if you are worth the treatment, not you and your physician.
This is sick and we were lied to yet AGAIN!

Some leaps of logic there.

 

[The Infidel]

I have provided end of life care for 30+ people, how about you?

I have been in dialysis for almost two decades and there will be folks who will not qualify for this treatment b/c they are too far gone and the gov't beaurocracy will see to it that these folks just take a pain pill or.... morphine (which they already do for those who choose not to dialize any longer) in order to save us, as a whole, the expense of the treatments that will only prolong the inevitable.
You'd be surprised and shocked perhaps the amount of patients we have, that have NO idea they are even on dialysis.... in other words, dimensia.... and they are not turned away. We treat them like every other patient knowing full well, they (the family) should just let them go.
The gov't beaurocrats will now just say.... no more.

That is something ONLY the family should have the say in.

 

[The Infidel]

Yes they were.... you have ALWAYS been able to discuss end of life options with your family physician.
The govt just wasnt obligated to pay for it before.
Now they will have to.... and the govt will decide if you are worth the treatment, not you and your physician.
This is sick and we were lied to yet AGAIN!

Some leaps of logic there.

How?


The way I see it.... This lying regime will do anything.


They dont give a flying crap about what our rights are. They are going to do what ever they want.

So tell me how on earth I just leaped anywhere?

 

[Greenbeard]

How?


The way I see it.... This lying regime will do anything.

Right there. You reached a conclusion and the only argument you can make to get from A to B is basically "I believe this."

In other words, it doesn't follow.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Just for starters

SEC. 3209. AUTHORITY TO DENY PLAN BIDS.

(a) In General.--Section 1854(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395w-24(a)(5)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) Rejection of bids.--
``(i) In general.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed as requiring the Secretary to
accept any or every bid submitted by an MA
organization under this subsection.
``(ii) Authority to deny bids that propose
significant increases in cost sharing or decreases
in benefits.--The Secretary may deny a bid
submitted by an MA organization for an MA plan if
it proposes significant increases in cost sharing
or decreases in benefits offered under the
plan.''.

(b) Application Under Part D.--Section 1860D-11(d) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 1395w-111(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(3) Rejection of bids. <<NOTE: Applicability.>> --
Paragraph (5)(C) of section 1854(a) shall apply with respect to
bids submitted by a PDP sponsor under subsection (b) in the same
manner as such paragraph applies to bids submitted by an MA
organization under such section 1854(a).''.

http://origin.www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/html/PLAW-111publ148.htm

Do you have any idea what you're posting?

I don't; and I'll bet the idiots who voted for it didn't either.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Just for starters

SEC. 3209. AUTHORITY TO DENY PLAN BIDS.

(a) In General.--Section 1854(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395w-24(a)(5)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) Rejection of bids.--
``(i) In general.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed as requiring the Secretary to
accept any or every bid submitted by an MA
organization under this subsection.
``(ii) Authority to deny bids that propose
significant increases in cost sharing or decreases
in benefits.--The Secretary may deny a bid
submitted by an MA organization for an MA plan if
it proposes significant increases in cost sharing
or decreases in benefits offered under the
plan.''.

(b) Application Under Part D.--Section 1860D-11(d) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 1395w-111(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(3) Rejection of bids. <<NOTE: Applicability.>> --
Paragraph (5)(C) of section 1854(a) shall apply with respect to
bids submitted by a PDP sponsor under subsection (b) in the same
manner as such paragraph applies to bids submitted by an MA
organization under such section 1854(a).''.

http://origin.www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/html/PLAW-111publ148.htm

Do you have any idea what you're posting?

Yes I do and I also said just for starters.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Not that any of this matters, the first court case has already started to dismantle this BS unconstitutional piece of garbage.

 

[The Infidel]

How?


The way I see it.... This lying regime will do anything.

Right there. You reached a conclusion and the only argument you can make to get from A to B is basically "I believe this."

In other words, it doesn't follow.

OK.... How does this sound?

"I have seen THIS regime lie about one thing after another, and I know they are'nt planning on stopping anytime soon."

There,
That better?

You are still skirting around every one of my points and bringing semantics into it.

Nice job....

 

[Greenbeard]

I don't; and I'll bet the idiots who voted for it didn't either.

It's about Medicare Advantage bids. Private companies submit bids against certain benchmarks to contract with Medicare to provide managed care plans to Medicare beneficiaries. The quoted bit just clarifies that bids of a Medicare Advantage organization can be rejected, particularly "if it proposes significant increases in cost sharing or decreases in benefits offered under the plan."

Why this is showing up in a thread on end-of-life care is unclear.

 

[Greenbeard]

You are still skirting around every one of my points and bringing semantics into it.

Pointing out that your belief here is baseless isn't semantics. Allowing providers to bill Medicare for the time they spend discussing end-of-life issues with patients doesn't somehow mean Medicare is no longer reimbursing for various treatments. There's no argument there and on its face the suggestion doesn't make sense. You're simply saying that you believe someday this will happen. And that's fine, believe what you wish. But this policy change doesn't entail all the rest.

 

[The Infidel]

You are still skirting around every one of my points and bringing semantics into it.

Pointing out that your belief here is baseless isn't semantics. Allowing providers to bill Medicare for the time they spend discussing end-of-life issues with patients doesn't somehow mean Medicare is no longer reimbursing for various treatments. There's no argument there and on its face the suggestion doesn't make sense. You're simply saying that you believe someday this will happen. And that's fine, believe what you wish. But this policy change doesn't entail all the rest.

thanks for letting me know you know nothing about the original subject.

Im done with you.

I KNOW I'm right about it, and when the end does come for you.... I hope for Gods sake YOU and your family get to make the choices, not some gov't blowhard and a commitee.

 

[xotoxi]

you know what, you are an idiot.
go back and READ the article to find out wtf it is about.

I've applied for a position in the Death Panel.

And when I am given the position, one of my first orders of business will be to summon YOU before the panel for TERMINIAL STUPIDITY.

As long as you don't decide on if my dad should get that 4th heart surgery or just go on pain pills and die peacefully...........ahem ahem

I leave that up to him and his family.

But terminal stupidity has to be taken care of by the government.

 

[Luissa]

Stephanie quit while you are ahead, you have no clue what you are talking about.

First off this programs would be good, especially now that baby boomers are starting to get dementia and alzheimers. These doctors will only be ADVISING on what a patient should do when they are close to death, so maybe they don't waste large amounts of money on treatments that will not help, or could speed up the death process.

Death Panel..... right?

Thought there were'nt any.....

An out & out lie that Sarah was rediculed for.....

The doctors were not be compensated before.
When someone is in the last year of their life, they can have more than one care meeting. If the doctor can help the family come to the conclusion that their mother doesn't need chemo, because she is going to die from dementia anyways, and the doctor then comes up with a directive for their end of life care, they should be compensated for their work.

Yes they were.... you have ALWAYS been able to discuss end of life options with your family physician.
The govt just wasnt obligated to pay for it before.
Now they will have to.... and the govt will decide if you are worth the treatment, not you and your physician.
This is sick and we were lied to yet AGAIN!

Where did I say they couldn't op to have the treatment, anyways?
And the article she posted never said the decisions would be made by a panel, just that a doctor will be compensated for giving end of life counceling. So, like you said, now they will be compensated for work they are already doing.

 

[xotoxi]

Yes they were.... you have ALWAYS been able to discuss end of life options with your family physician.
The govt just wasnt obligated to pay for it before.
Now they will have to.... and the govt will decide if you are worth the treatment, not you and your physician.
This is sick and we were lied to yet AGAIN!

Not true at all. This discussion will remain voluntary and the decisions that are made as the result of the discussion will exclusively be made by the patient and the physician.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I've applied for a position in the Death Panel.

And when I am given the position, one of my first orders of business will be to summon YOU before the panel for TERMINIAL STUPIDITY.

As long as you don't decide on if my dad should get that 4th heart surgery or just go on pain pills and die peacefully...........ahem ahem

I leave that up to him and his family.

But terminal stupidity has to be taken care of by the government.

And you think putting the government in charge is not terminal stupidity in itself?

I may have to knock you down a peg or 2 on my "who is smart and reasonable on the forum" ladder you were up near the top....... .