Do you agree that the health care plan that has been presented is designed to gradually lead to a single payer system? Is that why you oppose it?
"end-of-life" care and rationing under Obamacare...
- Thread starter shagdrum
- Start date
Do you agree that the health care plan that has been presented is designed to gradually lead to a single payer system? Is that why you oppose it?
There He Goes Again (Just Don't Call Them "Death Panels")
Somebody call White House flack Linda Douglass at Fishy-1-1 - Mickey Kaus is circulating discouraging arguments suggesting Obama's risky health reform scheme might actually lead to "death panels", and yet again he is relying on Obama's own words:
Well, as are friends on the left will surely chant in unison, it's not in the bill right now so it is calumny and perfidy to suggest we might end up there. Even though Obama "suspects" we will.
HOW "NOT DETERMINATIVE" IS NOT DETERMINATIVE: Just how voluntary will Obama's voluntary guidelines be? If the government posts suggestions on a website and leaves it at that, that is one thing. But suppose governmnt watchdogs decide that a doctor who routinely fails to comply with the voluntary guidelines ought to be subjected to a full examination of his billing practices, treatment decisions and hiring practices. How many doctors will "volunteer" to comply with the guidelines rather than deal with that?
Think it can't happen? There is a cottage industry in helping people with chronic pain get prescription medicine; doctors hate the paperwork and the risk of a DEA investigation. Obviously this is not a perfect example - some people do get high on opioid pain pills in a way that probably would not apply to end-of-life care. But I stand by the point that doctors will allow a government hassle factor to guide their treatment decisions (and if they followed the voluntary guidelines, how are you going to sue them?).
Somebody call White House flack Linda Douglass at Fishy-1-1 - Mickey Kaus is circulating discouraging arguments suggesting Obama's risky health reform scheme might actually lead to "death panels", and yet again he is relying on Obama's own words:
If, as Harold Pollack argues, "rationing of life-saving or life-extending care" would not really be a priority for the "effectiveness" panels--such as the Obama-endorsed IMAC--then it was all the more stupid to bring the topic up, no? Here's the first graf from a Bloomberg account of an early Obama health care foray back in April:
April 29 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said his grandmother’s hip-replacement surgery during the final weeks of her life made him wonder whether expensive procedures for the terminally ill reflect a “sustainable model” for health care.
Gee, where could the misinformed town hall crazies have gotten the idea that Obama was thinking about saving money by denying expensive procedures toward the end of life? ... [via Dish] ... 1:49 P.M.
Ha! Folks who really want to stick it to Obama and sow hysteria about "death panels" will extract this from Obama's same fateful interview with David Leonhardt of the Times (my emphasis):April 29 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said his grandmother’s hip-replacement surgery during the final weeks of her life made him wonder whether expensive procedures for the terminally ill reflect a “sustainable model” for health care.
Gee, where could the misinformed town hall crazies have gotten the idea that Obama was thinking about saving money by denying expensive procedures toward the end of life? ... [via Dish] ... 1:49 P.M.
THE PRESIDENT: So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?
I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.
DAVID LEONHARDT: So how do you — how do we deal with it?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.
So Obama "suspects" that the legislative process will produce some sort of independent group that can give non-determinative "guidance" on end-of-life care for the chronically ill, with an eye towards saving money. Just don't call them death panels!I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.
DAVID LEONHARDT: So how do you — how do we deal with it?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.
Well, as are friends on the left will surely chant in unison, it's not in the bill right now so it is calumny and perfidy to suggest we might end up there. Even though Obama "suspects" we will.
HOW "NOT DETERMINATIVE" IS NOT DETERMINATIVE: Just how voluntary will Obama's voluntary guidelines be? If the government posts suggestions on a website and leaves it at that, that is one thing. But suppose governmnt watchdogs decide that a doctor who routinely fails to comply with the voluntary guidelines ought to be subjected to a full examination of his billing practices, treatment decisions and hiring practices. How many doctors will "volunteer" to comply with the guidelines rather than deal with that?
Think it can't happen? There is a cottage industry in helping people with chronic pain get prescription medicine; doctors hate the paperwork and the risk of a DEA investigation. Obviously this is not a perfect example - some people do get high on opioid pain pills in a way that probably would not apply to end-of-life care. But I stand by the point that doctors will allow a government hassle factor to guide their treatment decisions (and if they followed the voluntary guidelines, how are you going to sue them?).
Go ahead Cal, make this argument a different place - strip out the 'junk' and start a new thread with it. Like Shag wants.
"Death Panel" Indeed...
Tuesday, August 4th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Another Look at IMAC
Peter R. Orszag, Director
Yesterday, a group of some of the most distinguished health economists in the country sent a letter to the President and Congress in support of the Administration’s proposal for the establishment of an independent board of doctors and health experts to guide Medicare policy. This Independent Medicare Advisory Council (IMAC) would make recommendations on Medicare reimbursement policy and other reforms – playing a critical role in allowing health care policy to adjust flexibly to a dynamic health care market, thereby helping contain costs and improve quality over time.
As the authors note, "a properly structured Independent Medicare Advisory Council (IMAC), with a congressional mandate and authority to do so, can reduce the rate of growth of health expenditures substantially."
The signatories of this letter are household names to health policy wonks – Alan Garber, Jonathan Skinner, Joe Newhouse, and David Cutler to name just four – and they represent almost half of the Congressional Budget Office’s Panel of Health Advisers. Their support of the IMAC proposal underscores what most serious health analysts have recognized for some time: that moving toward a health system emphasizing quality rather than quantity will require continual effort, and that a key objective of legislation should be to put in place structures (like the IMAC) that facilitate such change over time. And ultimately, without a structure in place to help contain health care costs over the long term as the health market evolves, nothing else we do in fiscal policy will matter much, because eventually rising health care costs will overwhelm the federal budget.
Tuesday, August 4th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Another Look at IMAC
Peter R. Orszag, Director
Yesterday, a group of some of the most distinguished health economists in the country sent a letter to the President and Congress in support of the Administration’s proposal for the establishment of an independent board of doctors and health experts to guide Medicare policy. This Independent Medicare Advisory Council (IMAC) would make recommendations on Medicare reimbursement policy and other reforms – playing a critical role in allowing health care policy to adjust flexibly to a dynamic health care market, thereby helping contain costs and improve quality over time.
As the authors note, "a properly structured Independent Medicare Advisory Council (IMAC), with a congressional mandate and authority to do so, can reduce the rate of growth of health expenditures substantially."
The signatories of this letter are household names to health policy wonks – Alan Garber, Jonathan Skinner, Joe Newhouse, and David Cutler to name just four – and they represent almost half of the Congressional Budget Office’s Panel of Health Advisers. Their support of the IMAC proposal underscores what most serious health analysts have recognized for some time: that moving toward a health system emphasizing quality rather than quantity will require continual effort, and that a key objective of legislation should be to put in place structures (like the IMAC) that facilitate such change over time. And ultimately, without a structure in place to help contain health care costs over the long term as the health market evolves, nothing else we do in fiscal policy will matter much, because eventually rising health care costs will overwhelm the federal budget.
luxuryrules
Dedicated LVC Member
Shag and Foss both... to the two of you who so often accuse Fox of changing the subject and moving the goalposts.... look at what you just did to this thread.
This thread is specifically about end of life counseling. If you want to discuss with Fox specifically why she does not like the bill, there is no need to hijack your own thread - just make a new one.
For now, can we at least stick to the topic of end-of-life care?
Links, please. I'm sure you have done this, I'm just not sure where, and this way I can be sure I'm reading the correct thing and not misunderstanding you.
I again see that you're demonizing the bill based on assumptions about what will happen in the future. I understand you are looking ahead at unintended consequences, but basically what is at work here is the government is optionally encouraging people to set up living wills. This is not rationing. Rather, quite the opposite - a living will allows the patient to set their own limits; to 'ration' their own health care.
This thread is specifically about end of life counseling. If you want to discuss with Fox specifically why she does not like the bill, there is no need to hijack your own thread - just make a new one.
For now, can we at least stick to the topic of end-of-life care?
Links, please. I'm sure you have done this, I'm just not sure where, and this way I can be sure I'm reading the correct thing and not misunderstanding you.
I again see that you're demonizing the bill based on assumptions about what will happen in the future. I understand you are looking ahead at unintended consequences, but basically what is at work here is the government is optionally encouraging people to set up living wills. This is not rationing. Rather, quite the opposite - a living will allows the patient to set their own limits; to 'ration' their own health care.
There is a difference between counseling and care. I worded it very specifically as "'end-of-life' care and rationing under Obamacare".
Actually, I have done so mostly by posting other articles, blogs. The best one, IMO, is the Gingrich one I posted in post #6 of this thread. Frankly, I am not going to waste my time spelling it out myself to someone (foxpaws) who, in my view, is not discussing things in good faith and is downright hostile to anything I have to say on this, especially when it has been pointed out in previous posts though articles and blogs here. If you want me to better explain it, I would be happy to do so (though it will have to be later as I am short on time at the moment).
Not exactly. Understanding the thought process on this is very important, but first some basic philosophical premises need to be understood. I would love to lay it out, but first answer me this question...
Would you agree that examining and weighing the potential consequences of this bill is something that should be done before the bill is enacted in order to avoid (or at least minimize) irreversible and irreparable harm from the bill (the precautionary principle)?
FYI: I will have to get back to this thread later this evening as I as I am going to be very busy during the day today...
You should move these Cal to a new thread, as shag suggested
Clean thread- why do you support/oppose the proposed health care program:
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?p=555387#post555387
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?p=555387#post555387
luxuryrules
Dedicated LVC Member
Thank you Cal!
Shag, you've got PM. But I'd like to expand upon my request for more info, if I may. In your own words, can you link a voluntary living will with health care rationing for us please?
Shag, you've got PM. But I'd like to expand upon my request for more info, if I may. In your own words, can you link a voluntary living will with health care rationing for us please?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
You're some piece of work. What a hypocrite. You STILL haven't answered his question.
I asked my question -
Show me shag, the link between voluntarily creating a living will and rationing…
in post #10 - what question did Shag specifically ask me before that post Foss, I don't see one, but maybe I am missing it.He still hasn't answered my and luxury rules' question.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
He and others, including me, have asked you why you oppose the healthcare bill.
Keep dodging.
This thread is not about that - this thread is very specifically about end of life care and rationing. Cal even cleaned it up so it would remain that way - shag suggested it -
So, even if it was, where in this thread did shag ask me that before post #10.
I asked shag to show me the link between voluntarily creating a living will and rationing health care. Note I asked only about the very basic question here. We needed to establish whether or not the very bare bones of the discussion, the living will, and then by removing any idea of who counsels you on the will, or if they are paid or not, qualifies as rationing health care.
Building an argument - start at the bottom. Does just the act of having a living will dictate that health care will be rationed? I needed to discover his viewpoint on that before going on with the discussion.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
So, are you against school vouchers? This is the second time I've had to ask you this. Do you intend to reply or does the cat have your tongue?
Deary, unless and until you start showing good faith in your posts, I am not going to waste time engaging you. A good way to show that good faith is to answer the question asked in this thread and given to another thread at your behest (as well as mine) for you to answer. Continuing to not answer it just further shows a disingenuousness on your part that belies a lack of good faith in discussing and debating here...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
And shag, I am answering the 'big question' go look...
So, how about just giving me this little question - show me the link between living wills and rationing health care.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
So - are you against school vouchers?And shag, I am answering the 'big question' go look...
So, how about just giving me this little question - show me the link between living wills and rationing health care.
New thread Foss - new thread...
Oh, I like your new little quote at the bottom of your sig... too bad you had to edit my quote to get it to work...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Yeah, it's not good anyway. Your words only contaminate my sig.
Yeah, it's not good anyway. Your words only contaminate my sig.
However, every time I see the quote where you submit to authority I get to smile Foss...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Once again mischaracterizing. That's two strikes, fox. Want to try again?
It's becoming clear that your dishonesty is pathological. You have some mental problems.