Can anyone verify this?

[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]

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.

Wow, chill out already. I think you've made yourself clear.

[Medusa]

Wow, chill out already. I think you've made yourself clear.

No need for me to chill out. I'm not upset to begin with, only stating that I didn't take anything out of context, liz.

[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.