Death Panel Discussion

[yeahwho]

The NYTimes printed this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/health/policy/14panel.html?em)yesterday exposing the roots of the Death Panel statements being used so liberally today with the current health care debate.

Once again it isn't the content of the way too late journalism the Times provided that draws attention, it's the reaction from the readers who lambasted them for co-opting this blatant bullshit to the point we're at today,



Comments (http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/health/policy/14panel.html?sort=recommended)

[Documad]

What's wrong with death panels anyhow?

[yeahwho]

What's wrong with death panels anyhow?
Actually nothing but the interpretation. They already exist and have for many years. I think the problem is many people are easily manipulated by fear in the United States. So if a politician can drum up fear and actually pervert the word "Death Panel" into multiple meanings outside of the context for personal gain... fuckin' A they'll do it.

The odd thing is it isn't mandatory, you can tell the insurer and the doctor to fuck off, you can have your own personal death panel if you want. It is an elective under every major health insurance policy in the United States today (unless it cuts into the profit margin). Numerous media conservatives have advanced a myth that this provision (Section 1233: Advance Care Planning Consultation) provides seniors mandatory counseling to end their lives. (only open this if your ready for a large PDF with full HR Bill 3200 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.txt.pdf#page=424))

Basically many elected officials are telling half truths or out and out lying. Which seems just a bit disconcerting.

[RobMoney$]

Palin Wins

If she's dim and Obama is brilliant, how did he lose the argument to her?

By JAMES TARANTO of the WSJ
The first we heard about Sarah Palin's "death panels" comment was in a conversation last Friday with an acquaintance who was appalled by it. Our interlocutor is not a Democratic partisan but a high-minded centrist who deplores extremist rhetoric whatever the source. We don't even know if he has a position on ObamaCare. From his description, it sounded to us as though Palin really had gone too far.
A week later, it is clear that she has won the debate.
President Obama himself took the comments of the former governor of the 47th-largest state seriously enough to answer them directly in his so-called town-hall meeting Tuesday in Portsmouth, N.H. As we noted Wednesday, he was callous rather than reassuring, speaking glibly--to audience laughter--about "pulling the plug on grandma."

The Los Angeles Times reports that Palin has won a legislative victory as well:
A Senate panel has decided to scrap the part of its healthcare bill that in recent days has given rise to fears of government "death panels," with one lawmaker suggesting the proposal was just too confusing.The Senate Finance Committee is taking the idea of advance care planning consultations with doctors off the table as it works to craft its version of healthcare legislation, a Democratic committee aide said Thursday.Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, ranking Republican on the committee, said the panel dropped the idea because it could be "misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly." . . .The Palin claim about "death panels" was so widely discredited that the White House has begun openly quoting it in an effort to show that opponents of the healthcare overhaul are misinformed.
You have to love that last bit. The fearless, independent journalists of the Los Angeles Times justify their assertion that the Palin claim was "widely discredited" with an appeal to authority--the authority of the White House, which is to say, the other side in the debate. One suspects the breathtaking inadequacy of this argument would have been obvious to Times reporters Christi Parsons and Andrew Zajac if George W. Bush were still president. And of course this appears in a story about how the Senate was persuaded to act in accord with Palin's position--which doesn't prove that position right but does show that it is widely (though, to be sure, not universally) credited.

One can hardly deny that Palin's reference to "death panels" was inflammatory. But another way of putting that is that it was vivid and attention-getting. Level-headed liberal commentators who favor more government in health care, including Slate's Mickey Kaus and the Washington Post's Charles Lane, have argued that the end-of-life provision in the bill is problematic--acknowledging in effect (and, in Kaus's case, in so many words) that Palin had a point.
If you believe the media, Sarah Palin is a mediocre intellect, if even that, while President Obama is brilliant. So how did she manage to best him in this debate? Part of the explanation is that disdain for Palin reflects intellectual snobbery more than actual intellect. Still, Obama's critics, in contrast with Palin's, do not deny the president's intellectual aptitude. Intelligence, however, does not make one immune from hubris.

For a wonderful example of such hubris, check out this post from David Kurtz of TalkingPointsMemo.com:

Is there anything quite as unsettling as when the nation's political class (and I use that term broadly to encompass the occasionally political, like the tea partiers) turns its fleeting but intense focus to a new (for them) and complex topic, like end-of-life issues?It seems like years of painstaking work to nudge our death-denying culture toward a more frank and humane approach to our own mortality and dying could be erased by one misguided national discussion set off by none other than Sarah Palin.

Except that Palin didn't "set off" this discussion; President Obama did by trying to ram through legislation postalizing the medical system with no time for debate or reflection. How to care for dying patients is a serious, sensitive and complicated matter, one with which American families struggle every day. If you truly don't want the "political class" involved, your quarrel is with the man who is pushing for more federal involvement in this most personal of matters. It's entirely understandable that people would respond to such an effort by shouting, "Keep your laws off my grandma!"

[Schmeltz]

So Barack Obama pointed out why Sarah Palin's remark about "death panels" was spurious and incorrect... but he still "lost the argument" due to having acknowledged that she made it?

If having the existence of your perspective noted by your opponents is what passes for a victory on the right these days, we really are living in wonderfully exciting times.

[Dorothy Wood]

I brought this up before, but private insurance companies have "death panels" too.

it's important to discuss your options and what sort of action you want to take when you get older. it's just a part of life.

they're not forcing people to commit suicide, for pete's sake. ugh!

my grandma passed away in feb., she had years before talked to her doctor about her end-of-life wishes and chose DNR. and...fuck this, I'm about to start crying.

[RobMoney$]

No, jerky.
What passes for a victory is the fact that because of the uproar over "Death Panel" or "Advance Care Planning Consultation", they were forced to take that part out of the bill.

This. has been removed.
SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION.
(a) MEDICARE.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended—
(A) in subsection (s)(2)— (i) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph (DD); (ii) by adding ‘‘and’’ at the end of
subparagraph (EE); and (iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:1 ‘‘(FF) advance care planning consultation (as defined in subsection (hhh)(1));’’; and (B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
‘‘Advance Care Planning Consultation
‘‘(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:
‘‘(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.
‘‘(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.
‘‘© An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.
‘‘(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the ad-vance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965).
‘‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.
‘‘(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include—
‘‘(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual’s family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;
‘‘(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and
‘‘(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is un-able to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decisionmaker (also known as a health care proxy).
‘‘(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement for explanations under clause (i) to consultations furnished in a State—
‘‘(I) in which all legal barriers have been addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining treatment to constitute a set of medical orders respected across all care settings; and
‘‘(II) that has in effect a program for orders for life sustaining treatment described in clause (iii).
‘‘(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a States described in this clause is a program that—
‘‘(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;
‘‘(II) distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law) may sign orders for life sustaining treatment;1
‘‘(III) provides training for health care professionals across the continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining treatment; and
‘‘(IV) is guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association,and state hospice association.
‘‘(2) A practitioner described in this paragraph is—
‘‘(A) a physician (as defined in subsection ®(1)); and
‘‘(B) a nurse practitioner or physician’s assistant who has the authority under State law to sign orders for life sustaining treatments.
‘‘(3)(A) An initial preventive physical examination under subsection (WW), including any related discussion during such examination, shall not be considered an advance care planning consultation for purposes of applying the 5-year limitation under paragraph (1).
‘‘(B) An advance care planning consultation with respect to an individual may be conducted more frequently than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or a hospice program.
‘‘(4) A consultation under this subsection may include the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order.
‘‘(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term ‘order regarding life sustaining treatment’ means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that— ‘‘(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as defined in subsection ®(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the individual and be followed by health care professionals and providers across the continuum of care;
‘‘(ii) effectively communicates the individual’s preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;
‘‘(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized within a given locality, region, or State (as identified by the Secretary); and
‘‘(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as defined in section 1866(f)(3)) if executed by the individual.
‘‘(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items—
‘‘(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;
‘‘(ii) the individual’s desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting;
‘‘(iii) the use of antibiotics; and ‘‘(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.’’11 and’’; and

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of reporting data on quality measures for covered professional services furnished during 2011 and any subsequent year, to the extent that measures are available, the Secretary shall include quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that have been adopted or endorsed by a consensus-based organization, if
appropriate. Such measures shall measure both the creation of and adherence to orders for lifesustaining treatment.

‘‘(B) PROPOSED SET OF MEASURES.— The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register proposed quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that the Secretary determines are described in subparagraph (A) and would be appropriate for eligible professionals to use to submit data to the Secretary. The Secretary shall provide for a period of pub-lic comment on such set of measures before finalizing such proposed measures.’’.



Palin 1, Obama 0

[Schmeltz]

What passes for a victory is the fact that because of the uproar over "Death Panel" or "Advance Care Planning Consultation", they were forced to take that part out of the bill.

That's actually not what your editorial says. It says that the Senate panel removed that part of the bill because they felt it was too confusing. It doesn't say that the Senate panel removed that part of the bill because Sarah Palin's wildly exaggerated and completely speculative comments exposed the Obama administration's sinister plan to euthanize everybody in America.

But you can still pretend that Palin's some kind of grand political guru, if it gets you through the night. You conservatives have so little left to hold onto, after all.

[RobMoney$]

I brought this up before, but private insurance companies have "death panels" too.

it's important to discuss your options and what sort of action you want to take when you get older. it's just a part of life.

they're not forcing people to commit suicide, for pete's sake. ugh!

my grandma passed away in feb., she had years before talked to her doctor about her end-of-life wishes and chose DNR. and...fuck this, I'm about to start crying.


I appreciate your post Dorothy. It reminds me of my Ex-In-Laws.
Father In-Law is an Old School Polish Immigrant. The ex-wife and I tried to get them to sit with a lawyer for a will and health care proxy with the lawyer. They were afraid even if my ex-wife was there. They were afraid of the idea of signing things they didn't understand.
I couldn't imagine them going to a Government mandated discussion on things like this.

People need to stop with the partisanship and realize that these are real issues, not "angry mobs using scare tactics". The reason this is so heated is because it will effect people more than any cap and trade or stimulus.
This hits home.

[RobMoney$]

That's actually not what your editorial says. It says that the Senate panel removed that part of the bill because they felt it was too confusing. It doesn't say that the Senate panel removed that part of the bill because Sarah Palin's wildly exaggerated and completely speculative comments exposed the Obama administration's sinister plan to euthanize everybody in America.

But you can still pretend that Palin's some kind of grand political guru, if it gets you through the night. You conservatives have so little left to hold onto, after all.


Meh.
At the end of the day they removed it, and they didn't want to.

[Dorothy Wood]

That's actually not what your editorial says. It says that the Senate panel removed that part of the bill because they felt it was too confusing. It doesn't say that the Senate panel removed that part of the bill because Sarah Palin's wildly exaggerated and completely speculative comments exposed the Obama administration's sinister plan to euthanize everybody in America.

But you can still pretend that Palin's some kind of grand political guru, if it gets you through the night. You conservatives have so little left to hold onto, after all.


yeah, I'd like to think they just shook their heads and said, "whatever, assholes, we'll rewrite it so nobody can in any manner construe it to mean that the government is going to force grandmothers to eat their grandbabies before they're put on a firing line at age 65."

[RobMoney$]

yeah, I'd like to think they just shook their heads and said, "whatever, assholes, we'll rewrite it so nobody can in any manner construe it to mean that the government is going to force grandmothers to eat their grandbabies before they're put on a firing line at age 65."


Read the bill and show me one place it says the word "VOLUNTARY"

[Dorothy Wood]

I appreciate your post Dorothy. It reminds me of my Ex-In-Laws.
Father In-Law is an Old School Polish Immigrant. The ex-wife and I tried to get them to sit with a lawyer for a will and health care proxy with the lawyer. They were afraid even if my ex-wife was there. They were afraid of the idea of signing things they didn't understand.
I couldn't imagine them going to a Government mandated discussion on things like this.

People need to stop with the partisanship and realize that these are real issues, not "angry mobs using scare tactics". The reason this is so heated is because it will effect people more than any cap and trade or stimulus.
This hits home.

rob, it's not going to be government mandated and it never was. and my grandma was covered under medicare. she discussed her options with a doctor voluntarily. so, I don't know what you mean about reminding you of anything.

DNR is what she wanted. when the time came, she was "ready for jesus" as she said one of the times she was lucid. she could've been kept alive on machines in a hospital for probably another couple of years...but why? what kind of life is that? it's not a life she wanted. people die unexpectedly when they're old, they need to tell people their wishes and discuss it with informed people or someone else will make their decisions for them. it's not scary, it's helpful and respectful.

[RobMoney$]

rob, it's not going to be government mandated and it never was.


Actually, it was.

[Dorothy Wood]

Read the bill and show me one place it says the word "VOLUNTARY"

well, I read that section and it doesn't say the word "voluntary", but it basically just says that you need to talk to somebody every 5 years to see where your health's at and what you want to do about stuff if you might be dying soon. seems perfectly logical. it also says that the person can choose what they want.

and like I said, private insurance companies already do this.

if someone doesn't want to consult with anyone about anything, then I think that's weird and they can just get private insurance that doesn't even have a consultation service or something. geez.

[Schmeltz]

Read the bill and show me one place it says the word "VOLUNTARY"

Read it and show me one place it says the word "MANDATORY". There's nothing in there about forcing people to sit in front of government-appointed doctors with the power of life and death over them (in fact the bill specifically allows for individual wishes and preferences). That's a blatant falsification dreamed up by fringe conservatives and used to whip misinformed people into a frenzy, all for the sake of damaging the Obama presidency. That's the only real partisanship being displayed here, so if you'd like to see a more rational and informed discussion of this very important issue you might start by writing a letter to your beloved Alaskan ex-governor and asking her to quit with the bullshit.

[Dorothy Wood]

I guess maybe I believe the people who've said it's not mandatory. and because the bill doesn't say it's mandatory. anyway, Salon.com says it better than I can.


Myth 1: Democrats want to kill your grandmother. This claim seems too outlandish on its face to get much traction, but Republicans actually made some headway on it recently. Two House GOP leaders put out a statement warning that the healthcare reform bill "may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia." (http://republicanleader.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=139131) To hear opponents of reform talk about it, the legislation would force seniors to go in for sessions once every five years -- and more frequently if they're sick -- where doctors will encourage them to end their lives. Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., summarized the scare tactic pretty well on the House floor last week, when she said the bill would "put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hea-4VJZXRE)," and therefore, wouldn't be pro-life. The GOP has pushed this line especially hard with some of the conservative groups behind the government's intervention in the Terri Schiavo case a few years ago, hoping to get antiabortion allies on board fighting reform. "Can you imagine the response of the American people when they find this out?" one-time GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson asked about the alleged euthanasia scheme (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25486.html) on his radio show last month. "They're going to counsel you on preparing you to die," Rush Limbaugh pronounced (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asaMKCt66a0) a few weeks ago. Proof of how far this attack has spread came last week, when a caller to an AARP forum asked Obama about it directly (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111341716). (Probably unwisely, the president tried to make light of the question, saying there weren't enough government employees to go meet with old people to talk about end-of-life care.)




There is a kernel of truth at the root of this attack: The legislation would order Medicare to pay for consultations between patients and doctors on end-of-life decisions, which it currently doesn't cover. But the consultations wouldn't be mandatory; if your grandmother doesn't want to go talk to her doctor about end-of-life care, she won't have to. Because Medicare doesn't pay for this kind of planning now, only 40 percent of seniors who depend on the government insurance say they have an advance directive (http://www.thirdway.org/data/product/file/233/Third_Way_Idea_Brief_-_Transforming_End-of-Life_Care.pdf) that tells healthcare providers what measures they do and don't want used to prolong their life, even though 75 percent say they think it's important. The lack of planning actually costs a lot of money. Medicare spends billions and billions of dollars annually on expensive treatment during the last year of a dying patient's life. Without allowing Medicare to pay for end-of-life consultations, it's hard to know whether patients even want to go to such expensive lengths.

[Bob]

wow, are we really discussing death panels? i thought this was a joke

sarah palin 1 - america 0

[RobMoney$]

I'm pretty sure that if this was in the bill that became a law, it would be mandatory. Law doesn't need to say MANDATORY in the description.


Also, you do realize that both sides are lying through their teeth about this bill right?

Was Obama's claim about the program costs (his projections were contradicted by the CBO) were they mistakes or lies?
Was Obama's claim about doctors amputating limbs to make money a mistake, or a lie?

Pelosi's claim that insurance companies are "evil" did not exactly add to a civil, rational discourse on this subject.
And obviously, neither did Palin's comments.

[Dorothy Wood]

wow, are we really discussing death panels? i thought this was a joke

sarah palin 1 - america 0



GET SERIOUS BOB, OBAMA IS GOING TO FORCE YOU TO KILL YOURSELF

[RobMoney$]

GET SERIOUS BOB, OBAMA IS GOING TO FORCE YOU TO KILL YOURSELF


AND THE DOCTORS ARE GOING TO AMPUTATE MORE LIMBS BECAUSE THEY WILL MAKE MORE MONEY.

[Dorothy Wood]

I'm pretty sure that if this was in the bill that became a law, it would be mandatory.


Also, you do realize that both sides are lying through their teeth about this bill right?

Was Obama's claim about the program costs (his projections were contradicted by the CBO) were they mistakes or lies?
Was Obama's claim about doctors amputating limbs to make money a mistake, or a lie?

Pelosi's claim that insurance companies are "evil" did not exactly add to a civil, rational discourse on this subject.
And obviously, neither did Palin's comments.


I don't know, I don't think Obama is doing a good job of explaining any of this. I honestly want everyone to have free healthcare, so slap me and call me a socialist I guess, because I'm not super pumped about this bill either. and the fact that the senate bowed to ignorance over this "death panel" thing doesn't make me feel any better. especially after reading in that salon blurb that NOT having end-of-life consultation is wasting a bunch of money.

oh, and, uh, insurance companies ARE evil, duh.

Palin's a civilian now, nobody should give two shits about what she says. she's rambling and nonsensical, and she exploits her own baby for political gain. it's so gross.

[Dorothy Wood]

AND THE DOCTORS ARE GOING TO AMPUTATE MORE LIMBS BECAUSE THEY WILL MAKE MORE MONEY.


probably!

meh. I'm going to bed, I have a really bad cold. I'm not going to the doctor though, it's too expensive!

(it's a virus, so there's nothing they could do about it anyway).

[Schmeltz]

I'm pretty sure that if this was in the bill that became a law, it would be mandatory.

But where do you get this idea? How on earth do you get that impression from reading the bill, the relevant portion of which you posted here yourself? All it describes is a standardized consultation procedure that would be covered under an already existing program, and while the rights, wishes, and desires of patients are explicitly protected, there is nothing in there about making these consultations mandatory, let alone about giving medical practitioners the power to euthanize whoever they want. Where are you getting these ridiculous ideas?

I guess making crazy shit up on your own is at least a bit better than cutting-and-pasting other people's writing, but it's still not as good as forming a logical conclusion based on reality.

[yeahwho]

But where do you get this idea? How on earth do you get that impression from reading the bill, the relevant portion of which you posted here yourself? All it describes is a standardized consultation procedure that would be covered under an already existing program, and while the rights, wishes, and desires of patients are explicitly protected, there is nothing in there about making these consultations mandatory, let alone about giving medical practitioners the power to euthanize whoever they want. Where are you getting these ridiculous ideas?

This is the level of idiocy our country has come to. Finally somebody has became president with enough intelligence and foresight to see we will most certainly bankrupt our own nation if we let health costs spiral out of control (43 million citizens uninsured) and the stoooopidest fucks I've ever heard or witnessed are talking about death panels and Obama being Hitler.

The logic is so moronic all I can figure is dumb shits love to hear themselves over and over and over again. Twitter and facebook have made a platform so easy narcissistic imbeciles can use it.

[RobMoney$]

But where do you get this idea? How on earth do you get that impression from reading the bill, the relevant portion of which you posted here yourself? All it describes is a standardized consultation procedure that would be covered under an already existing program, and while the rights, wishes, and desires of patients are explicitly protected, there is nothing in there about making these consultations mandatory, let alone about giving medical practitioners the power to euthanize whoever they want. Where are you getting these ridiculous ideas?

I guess making crazy shit up on your own is at least a bit better than cutting-and-pasting other people's writing, but it's still not as good as forming a logical conclusion based on reality.


This is just so precious.
"Just because it's going to be a law doesn't mean it's going to be mandatory"


...and you call me an idiot.
Such a half-assed, gutless defense

[Schmeltz]

First of all, anyone who thinks he can get away with copying somebody else's material and pasting it down elsewhere in an effort to pretend it's his own original thinking is most definitely an idiot. Idiocy. There's no other word for it.

Second - you have completely ignored the substance of my question to you, not that that's any kind of surprise. You posted the relevant portion of this (proposed) law yourself, and what that (proposed) law states is that the procedure for discussing end-of-life arrangements should be funded at the federal level and be subject to federal standards of compliance. It says, and I repeat, again for the benefit of somebody with a clearly evident inability to interpret the most simplistic written statements, that the consulted individual's rights and wishes will be explicitly defined and protected. It does not state, anywhere, that any type of consultation will be mandatory, nor is any power of lethality granted, anywhere, at any point, to any body of state-appointed practitioners.

Read the fucking text that you yourself posted. And answer my question, preferably without copying down something that somebody else wrote on another forum: where in the text of this legislation do you get the idea that people will be forced to defend their right to life before state-appointed medical professionals? Do you even understand what it is that this legislation is trying to say?

Jesus Rob. You have given a pretty piss-poor account of yourself and your opinions around here in the last few days. Do us all a favour and step it up a little.

[RobMoney$]

First of all, you keep pumping the "plagiarism" well for all it's worth.
I did that like 5 times. 1 was the B&W NYC photos thread, and kaiser was pretty much laughed out of the thread for saying it. Including by people who post over here.
The rest were things in here that reflected what I wanted to say, but were written better than I could have said it myself. It was lazy, but maybe I felt like you just weren't worth the effort that day. You act like everything I've ever posted has been stolen, get off your high horse already. This is the fucking internet, there's no ethical standard I have to adhere to. If you think every single person here hasn't done something similar, you're naive. I guarentee EVERYONE has read some comment somewhere on some blog or something and has echoed it here. Just because I didn't do an hours worth of research to respond to some issue doesn't mean that research isn't valid. Quit frothing over it deal with it.

Second - The bill didn't say Voluntary, and it didn't say Mandatory, but I would interpret it as being Mandatory, if it is a law. Why couldn't they have just put the word "VOLUNTARY" in there somewhere instead of scraping it all together? They scrapped it without a fight too, which raises my suspicions about it even more.
It got scrapped because it was hurting them. A lot. They haven't been able to stop the bleeding and the public approval numbers keep sinking by the day for this bill. You can only go with calling upset senior citizens speaking their minds "organized mobs" for so long.

Some people would rather just die peacefully at a hospice. And who's to say what kind of frame of mind people will be in at that point in their lives?
Panic, fear, dementia to name just a few of the things that will affect an elderly person's opinions on the type of care they want at that point.

Personally, I would rather just die with some nice pain meds and a hot nurse without the government intervening on my behalf.



But read the bill the way you want to. It's been scrapped, so it really doesn't matter anyway. Thanks to Palin.

[Knuckles]

Second - The bill didn't say Voluntary, and it didn't say Mandatory, but I would interpret it as being Mandatory, if it is a law.



Really?

I mean, I'm certainly no expert on law here but that seems like a fucking ridiculous way to interpret it. I mean, just because certain medical procedures and screenings and such are covered doesn't mean you have to have them done.

[Dorothy Wood]

First of all, you keep pumping the "plagiarism" well for all it's worth.
I did that like 5 times. 1 was the B&W NYC photos thread, and kaiser was pretty much laughed out of the thread for saying it. Including by people who post over here.
The rest were things in here that reflected what I wanted to say, but were written better than I could have said it myself. It was lazy, but maybe I felt like you just weren't worth the effort that day. You act like everything I've ever posted has been stolen, get off your high horse already. This is the fucking internet, there's no ethical standard I have to adhere to. If you think every single person here hasn't done something similar, you're naive. I guarentee EVERYONE has read some comment somewhere on some blog or something and has echoed it here. Just because I didn't do an hours worth of research to respond to some issue doesn't mean that research isn't valid. Quit frothing over it deal with it.



It's hard to understand why you don't understand why plagiarism is wrong, even on the internet. I personally have never tried to pass off someone else's opinion as my own. I've only said, "I agree with this person" *cite source* People are dealing with your plagiarism in the only way we can, by calling you out on it and saying it's wrong...and I'll say again, weird.


Second - The bill didn't say Voluntary, and it didn't say Mandatory, but I would interpret it as being Mandatory, if it is a law. Why couldn't they have just put the word "VOLUNTARY" in there somewhere instead of scraping it all together? They scrapped it without a fight too, which raises my suspicions about it even more.
It got scrapped because it was hurting them. A lot. They haven't been able to stop the bleeding and the public approval numbers keep sinking by the day for this bill. You can only go with calling upset senior citizens speaking their minds "organized mobs" for so long.

the only law is that end-of-life consultation would be covered, it never said anywhere that it was mandatory to take part in it.



Some people would rather just die peacefully at a hospice. And who's to say what kind of frame of mind people will be in at that point in their lives?
Panic, fear, dementia to name just a few of the things that will affect an elderly person's opinions on the type of care they want at that point.

Personally, I would rather just die with some nice pain meds and a hot nurse without the government intervening on my behalf.



see now, your point of view doesn't make any sense. the point of consultation is to talk to elderly people about how they'd like to proceed before they get to the dementia stage.

as far as you saying you want to die with pain meds and a hot nurse, you need to express that formally, or someone will decide for you whether or not that will happen. WHICH IS THE POINT OF THE CONSULTATIONS. to allow YOU to decide what kind of measures you want taken when you're knockin on heaven's door. Say you have a stroke and you go into a coma...if you haven't said what you want before that, your family can keep you alive on machines for as long as they want. You could be a lump of meat hooked up to electrodes, screaming on the inside for everyone to just let you die...but if your family's all, "keep him alive, there's still a chance he could wake up!" then you're shit out of luck, dude. I hope you know morse code (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzgGTTtR0kc)

[yeahwho]

The problem with this argument is the term "Death Panel" which is coined by those opposing not only universal health care insurance. The bigger picture is a mindset.

It's such an absurd abstract that is purely propaganda for conclusions to be jumped, such as nazism. Now any stance a reasonable American citizen has to counter the term "Death Panel" is going to be equally absurd.

Because the real agenda is to legitimize a falsehood. It isn't to perpetuate a discussion, the bottomline is to enrage and encourage people who are incapable of independent thought to protest against democrats in a dramatic dangerous form.

[Documad]

No, jerky.
What passes for a victory is the fact that because of the uproar over "Death Panel" or "Advance Care Planning Consultation", they were forced to take that part out of the bill.
Yeah, no doubt it's a victory for people who want to stop any sort of health care legislation. It created a distraction and a bunch of dumbasses got worked up about it and the media covered it and we all stopped talking about the merits of real reform. No surprise. It happens every month or so. I don't agree with the house democrats on this but it depresses me that the american people and media are so fucking stupid that we can't have a real discussion about an important topic. It's never a surprise but always a disappointment.

It's a little tough to crow about the particulars of this though. So I can't talk to my mom's doctor about her long-term prognosis and have it covered? Thanks Sarah Palin. (I'm glad that my dad's insurance company covered the family meeting 15 years ago when dad was in the ICU and we had to make tough decisions.)

[RobMoney$]

Obama was the one trying to push this thing through without wanting to take the proper time for discussion.
The minority GOP are the ones who said "wait a minute".

And I have to LOL @ the dunmb fucking Dems who hold the supermajority and still can't ram legislation down the Republicans throats.
What a joke of a party they've become.

[Bob]

Obama was the one trying to push this thing through without wanting to take the proper time for discussion.
The minority GOP are the ones who said "wait a minute".

followed by "can we trick people into thinking this will kill their grandmas? it's worth a try"

[RobMoney$]

You know what's hilarous about you? You act as if your guys aren't lying too.
It makes you appear naive.

[Dorothy Wood]

rob, what's bob's guy lying about specifically? and can you prove it?

[Bob]

You know what's hilarous about you? You act as if your guys aren't lying too.
It makes you appear naive.

my guys?

[RobMoney$]

You know what's hilarous about you and Dorothy? You act as if your guys aren't lying too.
It makes you appear naive.

.

[RobMoney$]

my guys?


Are you now implying that you don't support Obama or the liberal Democratic platform?

[Bob]

Are you now implying that you don't support Obama or the liberal Democratic platform?

sure, why not. i mean if that helps you make...whatever point you're making

[RobMoney$]

it doesn't.
It just sidetracks the topic off on another tangent.

[Bob]

it doesn't.
It just sidetracks the topic off on another tangent.

like death panels! good job, robmoney, or should i call you sarah palin

[yeahwho]

sure, why not. i mean if that helps you make...whatever point you're making

it doesn't.
It just sidetracks the topic off on another tangent.

Are you now implying that you don't support Obama or the liberal Democratic platform?

bob is probably a lot like me in the fact that he is smart enough to realize the country isn't being stolen, Hitler was not the inspiration for universal health care and the term Death Panels is actually a very good rallying point for idiots.

I could be wrong though.

Obama is a target for those too greedy to help out those who may need a hand, his first real venture into helping fellow Americans and he is targeted by idiots as a socialist. Corporate interests just may trump a very sick society. Then we'll see what being subservient to the almighty dollar really entails, as if the past year hasn't enlightened Americans yet.

We would of been so fucked if Social Security had been privatized.

[Dorothy Wood]

I know I'm hilariously naive, rob, but can you answer my question?

bob and my guys are lying about what, specifically? and where is the proof?

[RobMoney$]

I love how saying the name "Sarah Palin" to a liberal is like waving a red flag in front of a bull.
They start frothing at the mouth. It's great.

[Dorothy Wood]

I love how saying the name "Sarah Palin" to a liberal is like waving a red flag in front of a bull.
They start frothing at the mouth. It's great.

wait...but bob is the one who said "sarah palin"

[RobMoney$]

I know I'm hilariously naive, rob, but can you answer my question?

bob and my guys are lying about what, specifically? and where is the proof?

exhibit a
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIVieMfb2SI

exhibit b
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rrbQn6j0nM

[yeahwho]

I love how saying the name "Sarah Palin" to a liberal is like waving a red flag in front of a bull.
They start frothing at the mouth. It's great.
QUIT IT!

[Bob]

I love how saying the name "Sarah Palin" to a liberal is like waving a red flag in front of a bull.
They start frothing at the mouth. It's great.

it's totally worth standing behind a kook, yes

[Dorothy Wood]

exhibit a
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIVieMfb2SI

exhibit b
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rrbQn6j0nM


exhibit A just seems like he used a poorly researched example, not like he was lying. his point was that he'd rather see money been spent on preventative care.

annnd, for B, who is that guy and what is the context?

a 33 second youtube clip with no context isn't proof of anything.

[saz]

republican senator lisa murkowski condemns sarah palin's rhetoric regarding "death penals" and to "stop lying"




Murkowski: Don't tell lies about the health-care reform bill

By LISA DEMER
ldemer@adn.com

Published: August 11th, 2009 10:15 PM
Last Modified: August 12th, 2009 06:08 PM

U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski on Tuesday told an Anchorage crowd that critics of health care reform, the summer's hottest political topic, aren't helping the debate by throwing out highly charged assertions not based in fact.

"It does us no good to incite fear in people by saying that there's these end-of-life provisions, these death panels," Murkowski, a Republican, said. "Quite honestly, I'm so offended at that terminology because it absolutely isn't (in the bill). There is no reason to gin up fear in the American public by saying things that are not included in the bill."

Murkowski's analysis of the health-care reform measures was delivered to a Commonwealth North crowd of about 130 at the Dena'ina Civic and Convention Center. The nonpartisan group focuses on public policy issues.

Former Gov. Sarah Palin stirred up controversy last week by suggesting on her Facebook page that people like her parents and Down syndrome son might have to appear before "Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."

Experts who have reviewed the various pieces of legislation, which run for hundreds of pages, say there's no such provision.

Murkowski said it's essential the nation's health care system be reformed to improve access to care, boost existing cash-strapped programs such as veterans' health care and control escalating costs.

Still, she said, Congress should slow down and not rush into bad legislation. And critics shouldn't inflame the debate with lies, she said.

"I'll be honest with you," Murkowski said. "There are things that are in this bill that are bad enough that we don't need to be making things up."

[travesty]

This is all a moot point...there is not going to be a public option.

[RobMoney$]

exhibit A just seems like he used a poorly researched example, not like he was lying. his point was that he'd rather see money been spent on preventative care.

annnd, for B, who is that guy and what is the context?

a 33 second youtube clip with no context isn't proof of anything.


exhibit b is testimony at the congressional budget office (Dem controlled BTW) stating that Obamacare will not reduce costs as Obama is telling America (See exhibit a), but it will significantly increase costs.
Thus proving Obama to be propogating the same scare tactics you accuse Palin of propagating.

[RobMoney$]

This is all a moot point...there is not going to be a public option.


I'm not sure they all believe this yet. :rolleyes:
People were disputing this to me just an hour ago.

Denial.

[travesty]

I'm not sure they all believe this yet. :rolleyes:
People were disputing this to me just an hour ago.

Denial.

I'd bet a lot of money on this one. You have to read what politicians say VERY carefully. Read that NY times piece....no mention of public plan at all and heakthcare reform has no become health insurance reform. It's a done deal.

[Dorothy Wood]

exhibit b is testimony at the congressional budget office (Dem controlled BTW) stating that Obamacare will not reduce costs as Obama is telling America (See exhibit a), but it will significantly increase costs.
Thus proving Obama to be propogating the same scare tactics you accuse Palin of propagating.


no dude, there's no "thus". trying to convince people that healthcare will be cheaper if there's a public option is speculation, it's not a scare tactic.

[Bob]

Thus proving Obama to be propogating the same scare tactics you accuse Palin of propagating.

palin's scare tactics involved mandatory euthanasia, i'm not sure i'm with you on this one

[yeahwho]

I'm not sure they all believe this yet. :rolleyes:
People were disputing this to me just an hour ago.

Denial.

I looked around to see who was disputing you in the last hour (since your post time anyway), nobody.

I think that the health care reform to you is a scorecard, I honestly haven't seen any ideas out of your posts that involve helping the millions of people who just may lose everything. It's serious, If this reform does not pass, we'll probably never, EVER, get a chance to actually wrestle back our healthcare from corporate interests.

Just a few decades ago nobody ever would of thought every major hospital in America would be run by a CFO. But they are. It's about money, lots of money.

There is nobody really in denial here, if this is going to pass as a co-op of some sort and the government option is off the bill, it will be a Pyrrhic victory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory) and we will all lose.

Reason has left the population and crazy as batshit screaming has entered.

[travesty]

There is nobody really in denial here, if this is going to pass as a co-op of some sort and the government option is off the bill, it will be a Pyrrhic victory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory) and we will all lose.

Reason has left the population and crazy as batshit screaming has entered.

(y) That is the fact Jack!

I can't help believe that if someone would make a really basic, completely unbiased (and I mean truly unbiased) "after school special" type 1 hour program listing the pros and cons of completely nationalized single payer vs. private insurance that most folks would agree that a well run, efficient single payer plan is by far the best way to go for everyone. However, this rational explanation of the pros, cons and costs associated with both has never been done so people are on both sides are left to the whim of the spin doctors and the ad buying corporate structure.

[yeahwho]

Flashback (http://www.slate.com/id/2178896/) campaign Hilliary (http://www.slate.com/id/2174292/)vs Barack (http://www.slate.com/id/2168709/).

Which candidate is the most fit to get this job done so we can join the rest of the civilized planet and begin to care for our families without Profit deciding when to seek medical help?

Would Hilliary have been more effective at denouncing mobs and telling the media to SHUT UP and report actual health care facts.

[Burnout18]

Flashback (http://www.slate.com/id/2178896/) campaign Hilliary (http://www.slate.com/id/2174292/)vs Barack (http://www.slate.com/id/2168709/).

Would Hilliary have been more effective at denouncing mobs and telling the media to SHUT UP and report actual health care facts.

I don't know, but did you see her get pissy when that kid asked her what bill clinton thought about something? She shouted him down pretty quickly.

[travesty]

Flashback (http://www.slate.com/id/2178896/) campaign Hilliary (http://www.slate.com/id/2174292/)vs Barack (http://www.slate.com/id/2168709/).

Which candidate is the most fit to get this job done so we can join the rest of the civilized planet and begin to care for our families without Profit deciding when to seek medical help?

Would Hilliary have been more effective at denouncing mobs and telling the media to SHUT UP and report actual health care facts.

Unfortunately I don't know if any one could get a real single payer health system done in this country, ever. In fact, I'm not even sure it's Constitutionally legal right now. I can only imagine the legal drama that would go on with the federal government trying to eliminate and assume control of an entire business market that big. That shit would have some serious far reaching constitutional ramifications about federal power and who knows what else. I'm no legal scholar but I have to assume a move like that would at the very least set some precedents that all businesses would find a little scary. If single banks and car companies are deemed "too big to fail" because of the implications of lost jobs, tax base etc....then I can only assume that the entire health insurance business as a whole would make those companies look like small potatoes. I dunno bro.... like I said I don't know that there is a rational way to get this genie back in the bottle at this point without starting from scratch on a lot of other things as well.

[Bob]

I don't know, but did you see her get pissy when that kid asked her what bill clinton thought about something? She shouted him down pretty quickly.

are you talking about this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IchZ4HNgILQ

funny story - the translator fucked up, and the guy was actually asking her to speak on behalf of the obama administration, not bill clinton

[RobMoney$]

I looked around to see who was disputing you in the last hour (since your post time anyway), nobody.

I was actually talking about you. Check the first few posts of this (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=92391) thread.

I think that the health care reform to you is a scorecard, I honestly haven't seen any ideas out of your posts that involve helping the millions of people who just may lose everything. It's serious, If this reform does not pass, we'll probably never, EVER, get a chance to actually wrestle back our healthcare from corporate interests.

Let me make something clear, I'm not against trying to find a solution to this that helps the millions of people you're referring to.
People aren't against this because they want those millions to die, or are indifferent to them. People are against a Government run system primarily for two reasons.
1. They don't trust the government and 2. They don't see how we, as American taxpayers, can afford it without our taxes skyrocketing.
I believe that we all want to find an answer tho.

Maybe he can start by looking at the way the Wallmarts and the Home Depots of America treat their employees. Finding a way of requiring these thieves to provide healthcare for their employees would be a good place to start.
Unfortunately, I don't think he has the testicular fortitude to stand up to their corporate lobbyists.

Just a few decades ago nobody ever would of thought every major hospital in America would be run by a CFO. But they are. It's about money, lots of money.

There is nobody really in denial here, if this is going to pass as a co-op of some sort and the government option is off the bill, it will be a Pyrrhic victory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory) and we will all lose.

Reason has left the population and crazy as batshit screaming has entered.


I contend batshit craziness has been a constant. The only thing that's changed are the roles each party is now playing.

[Burnout18]

are you talking about this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IchZ4HNgILQ

funny story - the translator fucked up, and the guy was actually asking her to speak on behalf of the obama administration, not bill clinton

Thats what i heard too, but this is a week after President Clinton went to NK and helped get those two journalists outta there. She prolly heard the wispers that he got something done that she should have been on top of, and this is the result.

[Schmeltz]

First of all, you keep pumping the "plagiarism" well for all it's worth.
I did that like 5 times.

You're fucking right I'm pumping it, and I'm going to keep doing it. Because you're full of shit. You're so full of shit that none of us are under any obligation to take you seriously. What, you only ripped a stranger off and pretended his ideas were yours five times? That's five times more than I've ever done it. That makes me better than you, it makes me smarter than you, it means my statements and credibility hold a lot more water than yours do, and no, I am not going to let you forget it.

You say you don't care if nobody takes you seriously? Cool. I'll keep reminding everyone how you really feel, just in case they happen to make the mistake.

[RobMoney$]

You're fucking right I'm pumping it, and I'm going to keep doing it. Because you're full of shit. You're so full of shit that none of us are under any obligation to take you seriously. What, you only ripped a stranger off and pretended his ideas were yours five times? That's five times more than I've ever done it. That makes me better than you, it makes me smarter than you, it means my statements and credibility hold a lot more water than yours do, and no, I am not going to let you forget it.

You say you don't care if nobody takes you seriously? Cool. I'll keep reminding everyone how you really feel, just in case they happen to make the mistake.

That's good!
Because I have no intent to stop. I'm glad it bothers you so much.

[DroppinScience]

That's good!
Because I have no intent to stop. I'm glad it bothers you so much.

You've made it quite clear that you have no intentions of giving up your reputation of zero credibility? At least you're honest.

[RobMoney$]

You've made it quite clear that you have no intentions of giving up your reputation of zero credibility?


...and yet some apparently still don't seem to understand it.


Fucking Geniuses.

[Schmeltz]

That's good!
Because I have no intent to stop.

You have no intent to stop being full of shit? That's rich. You couldn't stop if you tried.

[travesty]

That makes me better than you, it makes me smarter than you,

Dooosh.