"death panels" obamacare

[Light]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

When I read the re-admission part, this is what I thought about:

My father was on Medicare during the last few years of his life. He and my mother never had much money, having pastored a small church for 25 years, let alone private health insurance. Any care they received was through the government or out of pocket. My mother is still paying on his medical bills, the parts that Medicare didn't cover.

Anyway, I remember he had to be in the hospital for a couple of extended periods during the last year of his life. I believe the maximum amount of days allowed by Medicare was 17 days of hospitalizing, and then the patient either had to pay out of pocket, or be discharged. Basically, every 17 days, my father would be discharged from the hospital, and within a day or two, they'd have to call an ambulance to transport him back to the hospital, where a new 17 day period would start.

Talk about INEFFICIENT!!!! Not only is the system messed up, BUT every 17 days my father would have to go through the pain and discomfort of being moved around, and having his health decline for a couple of days until he was in bad enough shape to go back.

I'm wondering if THIS is the kind of re-admission the plan is meant to eliminate. In my father's case, that would have been an early death warrant. He was eventually placed on hospice anyway, but if he hadn't been allowed to return to the hospital a couple of times, he most likely would have died at least a year earlier.

Now, I am NOT for prolonging life unnecessarily, but that should be up to the FAMILY and INDIVIDUAL, with the personalized care of their doctor[s]--not the government.

I may not be interpreting the penalties for re-admission correctly, but that's where my head went.

My father on Medicare died of bone cancer but left no bills for me or my mother. He had a supplement policy with Humana that picked up the 20% Medicare doesn't pay.

The Humana plan cost my father nothing. Mother was on the same Humana plan when she passed and there was no cost.

My wife and I have Human Gold and it cost us nothing. Medicare takes $96.00 dollars a month ea from our SS.

We have never been denied care by Medicare or Humana.

My wife had surgery two weeks ago. It cost us $30.00 for the Hospital and $10.00 for the surgeon.

I say the government is doing all right with the existing health care why not expand it to all that want it.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

When I read the re-admission part, this is what I thought about:

My father was on Medicare during the last few years of his life. He and my mother never had much money, having pastored a small church for 25 years, let alone private health insurance. Any care they received was through the government or out of pocket. My mother is still paying on his medical bills, the parts that Medicare didn't cover.

Anyway, I remember he had to be in the hospital for a couple of extended periods during the last year of his life. I believe the maximum amount of days allowed by Medicare was 17 days of hospitalizing, and then the patient either had to pay out of pocket, or be discharged. Basically, every 17 days, my father would be discharged from the hospital, and within a day or two, they'd have to call an ambulance to transport him back to the hospital, where a new 17 day period would start.

Talk about INEFFICIENT!!!! Not only is the system messed up, BUT every 17 days my father would have to go through the pain and discomfort of being moved around, and having his health decline for a couple of days until he was in bad enough shape to go back.

I'm wondering if THIS is the kind of re-admission the plan is meant to eliminate. In my father's case, that would have been an early death warrant. He was eventually placed on hospice anyway, but if he hadn't been allowed to return to the hospital a couple of times, he most likely would have died at least a year earlier.

Now, I am NOT for prolonging life unnecessarily, but that should be up to the FAMILY and INDIVIDUAL, with the personalized care of their doctor[s]--not the government.

I may not be interpreting the penalties for re-admission correctly, but that's where my head went.

MB I don't think that is what they are talking about. I have heard some discussion back before all this was an "issue" about penalizing over weight people and not allow them to have full coverage health care because of their weight. Same thing with diabetics. It is consider incurable so the doctors can't do anything more for you, no need to keep coming back.

[Light]

Originally Posted by Esther

MB I don't think that is what they are talking about. I have heard some discussion back before all this was an "issue" about penalizing over weight people and not allow them to have full coverage health care because of their weight. Same thing with diabetics. It is consider incurable so the doctors can't do anything more for you, no need to keep coming back.

Medicare will pay for morbid obese people to have a bypass. I was a diabetic and no insurance would have me until I was old enough for Medicare. I had a lap ban operation and now I am completely off medication for diabetics.
Diabetics that are obese and have a bypass operation are no longer diabetic after the operation according to my Dr..

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Light

My father on Medicare died of bone cancer but left no bills for me or my mother. He had a supplement policy with Humana that picked up the 20% Medicare doesn't pay.

The Humana plan cost my father nothing. Mother was on the same Humana plan when she passed and there was no cost.

My wife and I have Human Gold and it cost us nothing. Medicare takes $96.00 dollars a month ea from our SS.

We have never been denied care by Medicare or Humana.

My wife had surgery two weeks ago. It cost us $30.00 for the Hospital and $10.00 for the surgeon.

I say the government is doing all right with the existing health care why not expand it to all that want it.

My parents had a supplemental plan, too, but they were still stuck with quite a few bills they had to pay. Some of the largest ones were paid off with my father's insurance policies, and some others, my mother is still paying.

Regardless, my point was it doesn't work right for everyone, and if hospitals and doctors are having to manipulate the system just to get adequate care for their patients, then it obviously isn't as streamlined as it needs to be. Medicare has been around for a LONG time; you'd think they'd have worked out the kinks by now.

I'm not opposed to health care reform. I'm just opposed to a LOT of the bill that is being debated right now, and that is partially because of the content of the bill itself, and partially because I don't trust liberals to have our best interests at heart.

[Pressing-On]

And we wonder why the Seniors and others are alarmed?

Ezekiel J. Emanuel
Where Civic Republicanism and Deliberative Democracy Meet


This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic...cracy_Meet.pdf

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Light

Medicare will pay for morbid obese people to have a bypass. I was a diabetic and no insurance would have me until I was old enough for Medicare. I had a lap ban operation and now I am completely off medication for diabetics.
Diabetics that are obese and have a bypass operation are no longer diabetic after the operation according to my Dr..

Since I have lost about 20 lbs recently I am now off my BP meds and my sugar levels have dropped back down.

Weight does affect our health in a lot of ways.

But as to the bypass surgery, my SIL who is a diabetic and overweight was told by her doc that the long term results from that surgery are too risky.

I am glad you have a great success with yours.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

And we wonder why the Seniors and others are alarmed?

This quote has already been posted, but I was wanting the original source from which it came.

Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/P...-Interventions

[coadie]

Choices, formerly known as the Hemlock Society. is also says it had a hand in crafting Section 1233, writing July 27:

Compassion & Choices has worked tirelessly with supportive members of congress to include in proposed reform legislation a provision requiring Medicare to cover patient consultation with their doctors about end-of-life choice (section 1233 of House Bill 3200).Compassion & Choices calls itself part of the "aid-in-dying movement." About itself Compassion & Choices writes:

... An organization dedicated to care of terminally ill patients, including those seeking a hastened death....

Compassion & Choices... improves care and expands choice at the end of life....

Our professional staff and trained volunteers help thousands of clients each year by... guiding their search for a peaceful, humane death....

We offer information on self-determined dying....

Our team of litigators and legislative experts fights bills that would force patients to endure futile, invasive treatment....




Fight eh. Let the "death panel" know!!!



http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2...3_au.html#more

[coadie]

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):

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.

Panel of scientists, ethicists doctors

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!
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?

Not call it a panel and don't call it death. Call it guidance and notice the "costs" end immediately except for the funeral.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/ma...pagewanted=all

[coadie]

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=116471698434

Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly, and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these “unproductive” members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care.

The President made light of these concerns. He said:

“Let me just be specific about some things that I’ve been hearing lately that we just need to dispose of here. The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for death panels that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we’ve decided that we don’t, it’s too expensive to let her live anymore....It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, etc. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything.” [1]

The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” [2] With all due respect, it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.

Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual ... or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility... or a hospice program." [3] During those consultations, practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services. [4]

Part of what Gov Palin wrote last night.