Can anyone verify this?

[Laura's Babies]

Or prove this is wrong... I am hearing more and more and not liking what I am hearing....

http://fredthompsonshow.com/premiums...lsaXN0U2l6ZT01

[blue]

I dont see anything right off on funding but, starting in the middle of page 425...

‘‘Advance Care Planning Consultation
6 ‘‘(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the
7 term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a con-
8 sultation between the individual and a practitioner de-
9 scribed in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning,
10 if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has
11 not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such
12 consultation shall include the following:
13 ‘‘(A) An explanation by the practitioner of ad-
14 vance care planning, including key questions and
15 considerations, important steps, and suggested peo-
16 ple to talk to.
17 ‘‘(B) An explanation by the practitioner of ad-
18 vance directives, including living wills and durable
19 powers of attorney, and their uses.
20 ‘‘(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the
21 role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.
22 ‘‘(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list
23 of national and State-specific resources to assist con-
24 sumers and their families with advance care plan-
25 ning, including the national toll-free hotline, the ad-


f:\VHLC\071409\071409.140.xml (444390|2) July 14, 2009 (12:51 p.m.)
VerDate Nov 24 2008 12:51 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00425 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\AAHCA0~1.XML HOLCPC
F:\P11\NHI\TRICOMM\AAHCA09_001.XML 426


1 vance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal
2 service organizations (including those funded
3 through the Older Americans Act of 1965).
4 ‘‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the
5 continuum of end-of-life services and supports avail-
6 able, including palliative care and hospice, and bene-
7 fits for such services and supports that are available
8 under this title.

Link

[blue]

Im not finding the direct quote from DR Emanuel right off.

[Medusa]

They've been talking about hardly anything else on TV. My objection is to why they're so intent on rushing it through. What's the hurry now? I don't like the direction this is taking. The govt. needs to stay out of my life, out of my health care and let me and my doctor decide what's the best course of treatment. The govt. is going to counsel my dr. as to what options are available? Why? Absolutely not. This is Soylent Green.

[Logan]

Laura, which interview are you talking about? I'm listening now and it is the one with Betsy McCaughey. Is that the one, in regards to care for the elderly?

[Freedom]

I haven't been following too closely (too much else going on w/my Dad and such), but I do know the health care system needs help desperately.

Here in RI, the reimbursement levels are so low that doctors can't maintain a general practice. All the GP's are closing or moving to another state. Try finding a "Primary Care Physician," PCP, it is just about impossible.

[Laura's Babies]

Here it is Blue... I couldn't find it last night.. (tired eyes) Found it first try this morning..http://www.nypost.com/seven/07242009...ors_180941.htm

What scears the daylights out of me is the fact that he has been in office less than a year and is wanting to PUSH this through before anyone has a chance to read it and ask him any questions about it as it is written..

OK, WHERE did this come from? Who wrote it up? When was it written? Who helped write it? WHO's input and suggestions helped develop what it is (as is). Were they Americans? This was NOT written up in the 7 months he has been in office so WHEN was it written? I'd like to know WHO's plan this really IS!

How many doctor are we going to loose as a result of this? If it is no longer profitable to be one, there will be fewer and fewer doctors... meaning longer and longer waits to see one.

I agree, something needs to be done and health care costs need to be cut but there ARE other ways to do that without someone else making life and death decisions for US. A cap can be put on profits not only in health care but a lot of other things. We have been taught that life has value, THIS devalues life.

Is that the one, in regards to care for the elderly?

Yes, you may be 25 now but you will be 65 someday and that will be your future and your parents future.

[Laura's Babies]

http://www.frcaction.org/health-care-webcast

[Prairie Purrs]

If you're concerned about anything Betsy McCaughey is saying, don't be. She's just making stuff up: Pants on fire

[Laura's Babies]

Prairie Purrs (and everyone else)- This is what I want, BOTH sides of the story.

Anyone have the other side of the story on them cutting the budget on Medicare? As asked in the frcaction webcast, when so many baby boomer's are retiring and going on medicare...It just isn't possible to cut that budget when so many more are retiring without cutting out the care they get. I'd really like the other side of that story if anyone has it.

Freedom-As for the cuts being made now in what they are paying for services for the elderly to the doctors, I don't see that being increased under this plan when it is going to be cut so much and so many more on the program. I see doctors just quitting being doctors # 1, because of the money factor, # 2 being forced into doing things against their beliefs and conscience and # 3, not being allowed to use something to treat their patients that they know will help but the decision makers not deem cost effective. I see a really bad shortage of doctors ahead for us ALL.

Again, I agree, something NEEDS to be done but not at the cost of denying/delaying treatment to those who need it. Under this program, I see Brandon being denied any help and just left to die as it wouldn't be cost effective with his history of brain tumors.

Open invatation here .... Can anyone please prove me wrong?

[Medusa]

I believe we have a good health care system. It's the insurance companies that need overhauled. We have good health care and people from other countries come over here to get it. I do not want the govt. to be an intercessor between me and my doctor. It's unnecessary and downright scary. They don't need to advise my dr. of available options for treatment. My dr. and I can do this on our own.

This line from the Pants on Fire link posted above bugs me: "We want to make sure people are making the right decision. If some one wants to take every life-saving measure, that's their call. Others will decide it's not worth going through this trauma just for themselves and their families, and that's their decision, too." Excuse me but that's the way it is already. Now because the govt. steps in suddenly it'll be the right decision? According to whom exactly? The govt.? If our decision differs from theirs, that makes it wrong? Government, stay out of my health care decisions. I do not need you telling, cautioning or advising me as to what to do. I'll decide that for myself.

[cassiesmom]

I believe we have a good health care system. It's the insurance companies that need overhauled. We have good health care and people from other countries come over here to get it. I do not want the govt. to be an intercessor between me and my doctor. It's unnecessary and downright scary. They don't need to advise my dr. of available options for treatment. My dr. and I can do this on our own.

"We want to make sure people are making the right decision. If some one wants to take every life-saving measure, that's their call. Others will decide it's not worth going through this trauma just for themselves and their families, and that's their decision, too."

I worked for a couple of Fortune 500 insurance companies. I (and other nurses I worked with) did not want to be intercessors between patients and physicians. But at times it felt like that was exactly what we were doing, in a rather thinly-veiled way (McCaughey refers to it as "embedded clinical decision support -- computers telling doctors what to do").

Who is to say, ultimately, whether that decision is right or wrong? It might be right for you, but wrong for me. Or right for me now, but wrong for me later. Giving information to patients and families so they can make an informed decision is good. Creating a government panel that decides who gets what is very bad. (What kind of a physician would agree to serve on a panel like that anyway?)


Here's a link.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ome_editorials

[Prairie Purrs]

This line from the Pants on Fire link posted above bugs me: "We want to make sure people are making the right decision. If some one wants to take every life-saving measure, that's their call. Others will decide it's not worth going through this trauma just for themselves and their families, and that's their decision, too." Excuse me but that's the way it is already. Now because the govt. steps in suddenly it'll be the right decision? According to whom exactly? The govt.? If our decision differs from theirs, that makes it wrong? Government, stay out of my health care decisions. I do not need you telling, cautioning or advising me as to what to do. I'll decide that for myself.

The article is addressing (and refuting) the specific claim that people on Medicare will be required to have counseling regarding end-of-life decisions. I think you're taking the quote out of that context.

There is no proposal that would require anybody to be counseled about such things as hospice care and living wills. There is a proposal that would require Medicare to cover such counseling if a covered person wants it. There's no government intrusion into health care decisions involved. Just because Medicare covers appendix removal, for example, doesn't mean that everybody is required to have their appendix taken out.

[Medusa]

The article is addressing (and refuting) the specific claim that people on Medicare will be required to have counseling regarding end-of-life decisions. I think you're taking the quote out of that context.

There is no proposal that would require anybody to be counseled about such things as hospice care and living wills. There is a proposal that would require Medicare to cover such counseling if a covered person wants it. There's no government intrusion into health care decisions involved. Just because Medicare covers appendix removal, for example, doesn't mean that everybody is required to have their appendix taken out.

I read the entire article so I didn't take anything out of context. It said what it said and I don't like what it said. Period.

[lizbud]

The article is addressing (and refuting) the specific claim that people on Medicare will be required to have counseling regarding end-of-life decisions. I think you're taking the quote out of that context.

There is no proposal that would require anybody to be counseled about such things as hospice care and living wills. There is a proposal that would require Medicare to cover such counseling if a covered person wants it. There's no government intrusion into health care decisions involved. Just because Medicare covers appendix removal, for example, doesn't mean that everybody is required to have their appendix taken out.

From all that i've read on this issue, you are correct in the real facts
involved in health care reform. Health care has been a serious issue in
this country for a long time. Previous Bills have come up to reform care.
This current effort did not just sprung up overnight. The issue has been
simmering for a long time. Each previous change proposed have been
met with scare tactics & outright misinformation by people who know
better, but have a vested interest in keeping the system unchanged.

Think money, Think insurance companies, think Phamacutical Companies.