Obama still going for death panels

[ugonow]

www.theblaze.com/stories/return-of-death-panels-obama-to-enact-end-of-life-planning-for-medicare/

[swamp]

Why is end of life planning considered "death panels?"

DH works in a cancer treatment center, and there are family members insisting on expensive chemo and radiation treatment when 95 y.o. gramma gets cancer. Gramma isn't all there mentally and the family is insisting on treatment, but gramma also doesn't have a Living Will or Health Care Proxy.

Why are we treating this woman with expensive medical treatments that will not help her quality of life, and will probably hurt her quality, but will extend her life.

Pull the plug on me. Geez.

[floridayankee]

Dec 27, 2010 10:13:57 GMT -5 swamp said:

Why is end of life planning considered "death panels?"

Beats me. Somebody else making the choice for you would be a death panel. EOL planning is simply discussing options. People like me are medical idiots and while we may say "Save me at all costs", we really have no idea of the consequences of that choice. Really, would you want to be "saved" if you were in a vegetative state for the rest of your life? Personally, I wouldn't want that. Discussion of issues like this make sense IMHO.

Dec 27, 2010 10:13:57 GMT -5 swamp said:

Why are we treating this woman with expensive medical treatments that will not help her quality of life, and will probably hurt her quality, but will extend her life.

Because it's her choice...or the family's choice with a MedPOA.

Dec 27, 2010 10:13:57 GMT -5 swamp said:

Pull the plug on me. Geez.

And that would be my choice as well. But it's not up to me to force that same choice on anybody else

[ugonow]

Health
Return of ‘Death Panels’? Obama to Enact End-of-Life Planning for Medicare
Posted on December 26, 2010 at 2:40pm by Meredith Jessup Print » Email » After public outcry over “death panels” forced Democrats to drop their proposed end-of-life planning from the health care overhaul legislation, the Obama administration is pressing forward to enact the same measures by bureaucratic regulations. The new regulations are set take effect starting Jan. 1, the New York Times reports.

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

Congressional supporters of the new policy, though pleased, have kept quiet. They fear provoking another furor like the one in 2009 when Republicans seized on the idea of end-of-life counseling to argue that the Democrats’ bill would allow the government to cut off care for the critically ill.

The final version of the health care legislation, signed into law by President Obama in March, authorized Medicare coverage of yearly physical examinations, or wellness visits. The new rule says Medicare will cover “voluntary advance care planning,” to discuss end-of-life treatment, as part of the annual visit.

Under the rule, doctors can provide information to patients on how to prepare an “advance directive,” stating how aggressively they wish to be treated if they are so sick that they cannot make health care decisions for themselves.

While the new law does not mention advance care planning, the Obama administration has been able to achieve its policy goal through the regulation-writing process, a strategy that could become more prevalent in the next two years as the president deals with a strengthened Republican opposition in Congress.



Despite the political firestorm of controversy surrounding such end-of-life planning, the Obama administration insists that research supports its decision to move forward with the controversial measure. “Advance care planning improves end-of-life care and patient and family satisfaction and reduces stress, anxiety and depression in surviving relatives,” the administration’s preamble to the Medicare regulation reads, quoting research from the British Medical Journal.

Several Democratic members of Congress, led by Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, had urged the administration to cover end-of-life planning as a service offered under the Medicare wellness benefit. A national organization of hospice care providers made the same recommendation.

Mr. Blumenauer, the author of the original end-of-life proposal, praised the rule as “a step in the right direction.”

“It will give people more control over the care they receive,” Mr. Blumenauer said in an interview. “It means that doctors and patients can have these conversations in the normal course of business, as part of our health care routine, not as something put off until we are forced to do it.”

After learning of the administration’s decision, Mr. Blumenauer’s office celebrated “a quiet victory,” but urged supporters not to crow about it.

Meanwhile, opponents of the measure, including Elizabeth D. Wickham, executive director of a pro-life Christian advocacy group told the Times she was concerned the so-called “end-of-life counseling” would actually encourage patients to forgo or curtail life-saving care.

“The infamous Section 1233 is still alive and kicking,” Wickham said. “Patients will lose the ability to control treatments at the end of life.”

[swamp]

"Because it's her choice."

Sometimes it is, but sometimes it's not. I live in very poor and rural area. A lot of these people don't have Medical POA's and the hospital is obligated to treat to the fullest extent, especially when the family is pushing for it.

[swamp]

I'm not seeing how that's government rationing health care, it's counseling people on how far they want to take treatment. I guess my tinfoil hat isn't tight enough.

[chiver78]

I posted this link on Facebook last night. Palliative care and end-of-life planning are not even close to a death panel. people need to stop spinning things to suit their arguments.

[floridayankee]

Dec 27, 2010 10:24:00 GMT -5 swamp said:

"Because it's her choice."

Sometimes it is, but sometimes it's not. I live in very poor and rural area. A lot of these people don't have Medical POA's and the hospital is obligated to treat to the fullest extent, especially when the family is pushing for it.

And...it's the choice of the family when the individual is unable to make that choice.

Such is the wonder of "feel good" social programming. If care is denied by the hospital, the left is crying about "old people dying in the streets". If care is denied by the government, the right is crying about "old people dying in the streets".

[swamp]

And nobody is able to talk about the huge cost of end of life treatment to Medicare without being branded a murderer and supporter of death panels.

[Tennesseer]

www.theblaze.com/stories/return-of-death-panels-obama-to-enact-end-of-life-planning-for-medicare

The link from post #1

[ugonow]

Thanks,ten. I take it I can't just copy and paste .

[floridayankee]

Dec 27, 2010 10:32:26 GMT -5 swamp said:

And nobody is able to talk about the huge cost of end of life treatment to Medicare without being branded a murderer and supporter of death panels.

And if you mention that perhaps the federal government shouldn't have gotten involved in this to begin with, you're labeled as a rich, greedy conservative that hates poor people.

Like Romneycare...I still believe this should be a state issue to take care of their poor/elderly citizens, not federal.

[chiver78]

Dec 27, 2010 10:39:53 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

Like Romneycare...I still believe this should be a state issue to take care of their poor/elderly citizens, not federal.

so when Romney (R) institutes mandatory health insurance, it's good, but when Obama (D) does it, it's the most evil thing anyone could ever do. I don't get it.

[floridayankee]

Dec 27, 2010 10:37:28 GMT -5 ugonow said:

Thanks,ten. I take it I can't just copy and paste .

You can...but you need to place your link between the ...not after it.

ETA:It's going to make me type it out longhand. HTML Programming Lesson 101.......
<upen bracket>URL<close bracket>Link goes here<open bracket>/url<close bracket>

[deziloooooo]

"http://www.mediaite.com/online/exclusive-glenn-beck-launches-news-and-opinion-website-the-blaze-tonight/"

Sorry but for me...Mr. Becks opinions are suspect, to say the least. A website sponsored by him just doesn't cut it for verasity and truthfulness..even if he's occasionally right on a subject, to much baggage for me.
"Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment"
Doctors are paid for the services they perform..and if they spend 30 minutes discussing medical options, that to is part of the treatment and are entitled to compensation. I was charged for a long talk on the reason to stop smoking..something to the effect of a medical discussion when I saw the statement that was sent to me..so I guess this is nothing new.
As far as end of life decisions..for the very young , this is something that many feel , every one but them, however , hate to break it to you, it's all of us, and the time moves faster then you think.
Bill Gates was interviewed on different problems we as a nation face and one of the things brought up was the cost of health care and how as one gets older , the treatment and expense of treating the elderly rises so much faster and higher as one ages. Brought up was should the Government , Medicare, be responsible for some treatments that are really not going to continue the value of life, and shouldn't the patient be responsible for those costs themselves. Example , a hip replacement for some one who is in their 80's..continuing tratment for the terminally ill , other treatments that really are not going to extend ones life in a meaningful way and possible to explain other options for a respectful way to wind down the process isn't the way to go.
I don't call them death panels, just a realistic way of dealing with he inevitable. My opinion of course.

[mudflap81]

Personally, even though I think everybody should go through it, if the planning is forced on people I can't be in favor of it no matter how good of an idea it is. Must be the libertarian streak in me, that or I can't see the process working well if the person it applies to is against the process. I think it's great that planning would be covered. My brother and I are going to start having these conversations soon with our parents (at their request) this year and if there is coverage for seeing a professional planner, that'd be great.

I can't see why every insurance carrier out there doesn't cover this now. Pay a couple thousand now to sit people down with a planner and avoid a few hundred thousand in a few years. Sounds exactly like something an insurance company would do. Wait, are we sure they don't do this already?

[Tennesseer]

ugonow-the comments from your link are readily available to anyone who wishes to read your link. Please tidy up post #3.

Posting the actual article here is fine. No need though to add the article's comment section as they are not members of this board.

[swamp]

Dec 27, 2010 10:44:20 GMT -5 mudflap81 said:

Personally, even though I think everybody should go through it, if the planning is forced on people I can't be in favor of it no matter how good of an idea it is. Must be the libertarian streak in me, that or I can't see the process working well if the person it applies to is against the process. I think it's great that planning would be covered. My brother and I are going to start having these conversations soon with our parents (at their request) this year and if there is coverage for seeing a professional planner, that'd be great.

I can't see why every insurance carrier out there doesn't cover this now. Pay a couple thousand now to sit people down with a planner and avoid a few hundred thousand in a few years. Sounds exactly like something an insurance company would do. Wait, are we sure they don't do this already?

Does the fact that Medicare is primary insurance for the elderly have something to do with the whole payment thing?

[deziloooooo]

While there Are those who are not happy with the current President..to me, whether I agree with every one of his decisions, I don't or at least I do question some of them , even though i don't have all the facts, "no need to know In many cases", to me one of the good things about the administration, particular the President, he is honest and tells it as it is, whether the news is that which many really don't want to hear.

"Like Romney...I still believe this should be a state issue to take care of their poor/elderly citizens, not federal. "

In a utopia situation possible , but with 50 states...local politics being what they are, there can be so many ways of interpreting things, many times by the party that is predominate which on some things is , if not fair, at least workable. However on others, certain rights and services which most citizens would be expected to have , at least in a minimum way , are not there.
Example , right now will be watching how my State, Florida , will govern itself for the next two years.
While it has been Republican run for some years now, there was still a influential minority of more left leaning Democrats in state office, Legislature . that at times would be joined by their conservative cousins from the other side who were more moderate in their views , and balanced extreme ideas from those on the extreme right, so all citizens felt at least they had a voice in Tallahassee , at times, rarely, even a more moderate governor to also moderate the extremest.
That is all gone now, extreme right are in power, a legislature with no checks and balances, the more moderate , less extreme Republicans have been swept out of government, a few democrats with absolutely no power besides their voices , and a extremest rightest Governor will be in power.
Now if there were just a few from the left there, Florida, I guess it would be semi acceptable, but Florida is a hugh State with MANY millions of population and even if a minority, say liberal , more to the left, at 47%, if that low, that's a lot who are now not represented in any meaningful way. So the next two years will be interesting.
Similar to those places where they are not represented at all, only positive , there is a public voice of opposition and possible some media that may tend to be on their side.
All the above, why I feel it's perfectly correct for the Federal to some times get involved in things some might feel is a States thing.

[mudflap81]

Does the fact that Medicare is primary insurance for the elderly have something to do with the whole payment thing?

I'm confused, please rephrase.

[swamp]

I know absolutely nothing about insurance, but I do know that Medicare pays first in the elderly, then their secondary insurance, if they have it, covers the rest. I'm wondering if the other insurance companies, since they aren't primary, don't think it's cost efficient to pay for this, since Medicare picks up most of the tab. If they were primary, they might have more of a reason to do it.

[ugonow]

Every hospital asks patients that come in with serious ailments if they have advanced directives or a living will,and if you don't ,they offer the forms.At the Catholic hospital I go to,they ask if you have one,and if you don't ,ask if you want one and if you want a clergy member to help you decide your choices. I chose to do it on my own because I did not want to take the chance of them forcing me into anything. I don't want the government telling me how to chose either.

[swamp]

Dec 27, 2010 11:20:42 GMT -5 ugonow said:

Every hospital asks patients that come in with serious ailments if they have advanced directives or a living will,and if you don't offer the forms.At the Catholic hospital I go to,they ask if you have one,and if you don't ,ask if you want one and if you want to be informed on them. I chose to do it on my own because I did not want to take the chance of them forcing me into anything.

The hospital asks, but the person being treated often hasn't discussed what they actually want with the family members.

[deziloooooo]

"I know absolutely nothing about insurance, but I do know that Medicare pays first in the elderly, then their secondary insurance, if they have it, covers the rest."

Citizen is responsible for 20% of the bill..plus a deducable at the beginning of the year that all are responsible for. Citizen can purchase a 'gap insurence " to cover the difference, for me personally it's $2900 this year, seem to go up a bit every year,what doesn't, but best to get as early as can to save costs, or many join HMO's with their different plans and restrictions for their coverage of the patients share and also the RX too.

[swamp]

Dec 27, 2010 11:22:48 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

"I know absolutely nothing about insurance, but I do know that Medicare pays first in the elderly, then their secondary insurance, if they have it, covers the rest."

Citizen is responsible for 20% of the bill..plus a deducable at the beginning of the year that all are responsible for. Citizen can purchase a 'gap insurence " to cover the difference, for m personally it's $2900 this year, sem sio g up a bit but best to get as early as can to save costs, or many join HMO's with their different plans and restrictions for their coverage of the patients share and also the RX too.

Or they have it through their former employment. My dad is a retired firefighter. He has full health insurance until he dies, my mom is covered at $200 a month until she dies.

[ugonow]

"Or they have it through their former employment. " In the private sector,that was gone a long time ago. Only taxpayers can afford to give free insurance to former employees nowdays.

[mudflap81]

Dec 27, 2010 11:16:02 GMT -5 swamp said:

I know absolutely nothing about insurance, but I do know that Medicare pays first in the elderly, then their secondary insurance, if they have it, covers the rest. I'm wondering if the other insurance companies, since they aren't primary, don't think it's cost efficient to pay for this, since Medicare picks up most of the tab. If they were primary, they might have more of a reason to do it.

No idea, I only know P&C not health, but it looks like Deziloo summed it up really well. After knowing that and looking back at your original post, it might just be the case.

I'm wondering if the other insurance companies, since they aren't primary, don't think it's cost efficient to pay for this, since Medicare picks up most of the tab. If they were primary, they might have more of a reason to do it.

So are you saying that if government got out of the way, private insurers would expand coverage on their own in response to free market demands? Sorry, I just couldn't help myself. Please don't hurt me.

[swamp]

Dec 27, 2010 11:31:36 GMT -5 ugonow said:

"Or they have it through their former employment. " In the private sector,that was gone a long time ago. Only taxpayers can afford to give free insurance to former employees nowdays.

It's not available to current employees who are going to retire in the future.

This is another issue nobody is talking about. There are all these retirees who have health insurance through their former employer and this benefit is being phased out. All these people are going to rely on Medicare as their sole health insurance, and they're gonna be shocked at the price. It may even toss more people onto the Medicaid rolls. We're fucked, IMHO.

[swamp]

I'm wondering if the other insurance companies, since they aren't primary, don't think it's cost efficient to pay for this, since Medicare picks up most of the tab. If they were primary, they might have more of a reason to do it.

So are you saying that if government got out of the way, private insurers would expand coverage on their own in response to free market demands? Sorry, I just couldn't help myself. Please don't hurt me.[/quote]

Believe it or not, I agree with you. I'm fiscally conservative, socially liberterian. I don't give a crap what you or anyone else does, I just don't want to pay for it.

[billisonboard]

Dec 27, 2010 11:31:36 GMT -5 ugonow said:

"Or they have it through their former employment. " In the private sector,that was gone a long time ago. Only taxpayers can afford to give free insurance to former employees nowdays.

True. But of course the government isn't paying multi-million dollar bonus to top executives either.