End of life counseling veto

[billc]

Obama snuck in the end of life counseling for seniors into the new health care bill. Apparently, some journalists believe that bush voted to pass this measure in 2008 but the truth is it was passed over his veto. A journalist on the video finds this out during the interview:

http://bigjournalism.com/sahiller/2...handle-the-truth-about-bush-veto/#more-153416

 

[Empty Hands]

Have you ever watched someone you love die?

 

[billc]

Yes, and I always thought that a mandatory visit by a government doctor or counselor would have made the whole experience that much more fun. Maybe we could combine the mandatory end of life counselor with an I.R.S. agent and get two things done at once, settle their tax issues and then recommend that they not opt for emergency measures to extend their lives.

 

[seasoned]

My father in-law once said that death was very sad. My reply then, thinking of a better place we may all go was, it is only sad if we make it so. After many years of pondering and goodbye's to loved ones I am left with these words said long ago, "death is very sad".........

 

[Empty Hands]

Yes, and I always thought that a mandatory visit by a government doctor or counselor would have made the whole experience that much more fun.

It's not mandatory, which you know very well you lying little ****. It's there for those that want it, and now medicare will pay for it. Leave those dealing with their approaching deaths out of your political games.

 

[billc]

look dude, when they first started the seat belt laws here in the states all of the politicians said that one, there would be no fine involved, that the police officer would just warn the driver that they should wear the belt and two, no one would be stopped just for seat belt non-compliance. Of course, now they can stop you for not wearing a seat belt, fine you and they even have seat belt inspection as part of their drunk driving check points.

What starts out as an "option" with the government soon becomes mandatory with your best interests left out of the equation. There is no way this is going to stay an option, eventually it is going to become mandatory and that is when the abuses are going to start, especially when the cost of health care starts to crash the government system.

Remember when obama said that if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. He lied. He knew that by charging a fine for companies that do not insure their employees, and making it less than the actual insurance premiums a company pays, businesses will start dropping there insurance and forcing their employees into the government program. I know someone who is friends with the human resources dept. person at the company where he works. This person told him, yes, they are looking into dropping their insurance coverage once the obamacare provisions kick in. So please, don't tell me it is an option. It will start there but it won't end there. It needs to be stopped now.

 

[Empty Hands]

What starts out as an "option" with the government soon becomes mandatory with your best interests left out of the equation.

In this case, that is absurd. It's like saying that Medicare paid chemotherapy will become mandatory, or Medicare substance abuse counseling will become mandatory. You obviously have no idea what end of life counseling is. Hint: it isn't telling people to kill themselves or stop treatment. It's psychiatric counseling to help people cope with and come to peace with their approaching deaths.

For you to put some sort of negative spin on this is, to be frank, beyond the pale, and is trying to advance your goals by someone else's pain. It's despicable, and you should go peddle it somewhere else.

You've also implicitly admitted to lying in your earlier post, since you did not deny or explain my charge, but simply moved the goalposts.

Go lie somewhere else. You are a vile person.

 

[Archangel M]

Dying (someday) is not mandatory?

BTW I have watched multiple people die. Loved ones and otherwise. I fail to see how that applies to this issue. That question and calling a person "Vile" with what I see as little cause makes me think that you are attacking a person here instead of the issue.

 

[billc]

Okay, I'll refute your charge, it will become mandatory, they are lying to you. They hid this provision so people couldn't see it. What does that say. Knock off the swearing and stay civil.

 

[Tez3]

Okay, I'll refute your charge, it will become mandatory, they are lying to you. They hid this provision so people couldn't see it. What does that say. Knock off the swearing and stay civil.

Firstly I don't think you understand that you have chosen a subject here that will hit a raw nerve with many people. You don't know how many of the thousands of people who will read this have just lost someone or are in the middle of watching someone die. It is unfeeling to use this subject as part of your political trolling. This is going to bring reactions that may seem to us to be uncalled for but in the mind of someone grieving seems appropriate. This is also going to make the thread untenable for many, both the subject matter being discussed in this way and the reactions of posters.

 

[WC_lun]

The end of life counseling is not mandatory and in your following post you admitt as much, by saying that someday it will be so it isn't a good idea now. How do you know this? Because Rush Limbaugh said it? This portion of the bill was about authorizing payment of services for a professional person for providing end-of-life counseling to patients who request it. Without such authorization there are people dying who would not get end-of-life services because they could not afford to pay for them and Medicare would not cover them.

If you are going to argue against paying for end-of-life counseling, then argue against that. If you are going to argue against payments from the government for such services, then by all means argue against it. At least be honest in the arguements, instead of argueing by proxy of talk show hosts that are creating false arguements and have no care of the truth as long as thier side wins.

 

[granfire]

Okay, I'll refute your charge, it will become mandatory, they are lying to you. They hid this provision so people couldn't see it. What does that say. Knock off the swearing and stay civil.

The use of swear words doe not make one necessarily uncivil, the lack of strong language does not adequately indicate civil behavior....

 

[billc]

If you think that this is too sensitive an issue, please move on to another thread.

I have watched family members be sick, I have watched them die. This is a political part of this forum and healthcare is incredibly important. The people advising Obama all have rationing care as a core belief, and that the government should be making these decisions, not you and your doctor. The government should not be any where near end of life counseling. Period. They should not pay for it, they should not offer it, and They should leave people and their families alone.

 

[billc]

Here is a question. For those who believe Bush violated the constitution, lied us into war with iraq and killed a million people for this oil, what makes you think that this millitary, industrial, beauracratic complex will hesitate to encourage your loved one to not take the steps to preserve their life if it saves this corrupt government a few pennies? This is why the government should stay out of end of life counseling, it is only going to lead to bad things.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Folks, relax/behave/etc before we have to get all moderatey, k?
Thanks.

 

[jks9199]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.

jks9199
Super Moderator

 

[granfire]

If you think that this is too sensitive an issue, please move on to another thread.

again, this is not how the internet works, Dear.

Throwing out the bait and then suggesting to avoid it is - trollish.

I have watched family members be sick, I have watched them die. This is a political part of this forum and healthcare is incredibly important. The people advising Obama all have rationing care as a core belief, and that the government should be making these decisions, not you and your doctor. The government should not be any where near end of life counseling. Period. They should not pay for it, they should not offer it, and They should leave people and their families alone.

Since you only take 2nd and 3rd hand information from limited sources, I am not sure how well you are informed.

Here is a question. For those who believe Bush violated the constitution, lied us into war with iraq and killed a million people for this oil, what makes you think that this millitary, industrial, beauracratic complex will hesitate to encourage your loved one to not take the steps to preserve their life if it saves this corrupt government a few pennies? This is why the government should stay out of end of life counseling, it is only going to lead to bad things.

One has nothing to do with the other.
Curtailing the nations civil liberties has really nothing to do with 'end of life counseling'

Not to mention I have yet t see a psingle person who would opt to safe governrment a red cent! :lfao:

 

[Empty Hands]

BTW I have watched multiple people die. Loved ones and otherwise. I fail to see how that applies to this issue.

End of life counseling has nothing to do with people dying?

That question and calling a person "Vile" with what I see as little cause makes me think that you are attacking a person here instead of the issue.

There is no issue. The now-paid-for counseling for dying people has been lied about to make it into an issue. That lie uses the pain of dying people to advance political goals. You may not consider that vile, but I certainly do.

 

[granfire]

The power of link:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinio...f-life-policy-gives-seniors-more-1152751.html

 

[billc]

Some thoughts on healthcare from Zeke Emanuel: http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdf

"Consideration of the importance of complete lives also supports modifying the youngest-first principle by prioritising adolescents and young adults over infants (figure). Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. Similarly, adolescence brings with it a developed personality capable of forming and valuing long-term plans whose fulfilment requires a complete life.77

The complete lives system also considers prognosis, since its aim is to achieve complete lives. A young person with a poor prognosis has had few life-years but lacks the potential to live a complete life. Considering prognosis forestalls the concern that disproportionately large amounts of resources will be directed to young people with poor prognoses.42 When the worst-off can benefit only slightly while better-off people could benefit greatly, allocating to the better-off is often justifiable.1,30 Some small benefits, such as a few weeks of life, might also be intrinsically insignificant when compared with large benefits.8

When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated (figure).7"

THis is from one of the people influencing Obamacare. So yes, I am just being paranoid when I see one of the advisors to the president with views like this.