DEATH PANEL vs END OF LIFE?

Question

What happens at the end of your life?

It is an undisputed fact that the House version of the health care bill includes mandatory "end of life" counseling for those on Social Security...

So, Liberals... What happens at the END OF you LIFE?
Is that not DEATH?

The fact is, senior (under this plan) would be required to undergo such counseling... Explain how Palin was wrong when she described this as a DEATH (what happens at the "end of life) PANEL?

Answer 1

They're currently referred to as "ethics committees" at corporate healthcare providers.



What I take fault with is the notion that the panel/committee/caucus/massive/whatever else you wanna call it will automatically choose "death." I work in healthcare and can tell you that this is simply not true. It is simply nonsense, it's just rhetoric that people with vested interests use to freak out the paranoid and gullible.

Answer 2

There are two issues that we need to deal with here ;the financial and the right of the individual

On the financial we have to address the issue of value

Value is best expressed as the relationship between what something costs [C] and how much utility [U} one gets from that something

Low C/High U = High V

High C/Low U =Low V

If a significant increase in C does not result in a significant increase in U then once again you have a low V

If both a low and a high C produce essentially the same U then there is no point of spending of spending the extra money on the high C

In English :If option A costs 100Gs to keep grandma alive for six months and option B costs 10 Gs to keep grandma alive for 5 months then only a fiscally irresponsible fool [ or Sarah Palin ] would spend the 90 Gs of somebody elses money to keep grandma alive for one more month

Even for Cons funds are finite and it makes no sense to throw good money away on a hopeless cause when it could be better spent on more worthwhile causes

To the individual rights

I'm a big strong 56 year old adult man and I know that someday I will lose my strength get sick and die

When that happens I do not want the Republican Christian nanny state telling me that I cannot ask a friend, a family member or my doctor to give me a fatal dose of an appropriate deadly drug so that I can end my life on my own terms and with dignity.

If I am legally allowed to refuse the medical treatment that will save my life then I should also be legally allowed to accept medical treatment that will end my life.

The Cons really need to get out more and ask the opinions of the real people who this" end of life counseling "provision most directly effects >the Cons may be surprised at the results

Answer 3

you put 'end of life' in qoutations but not mandatory. i dont think its mandatory. and there is no final version of the bill. they didn't reach agreement before break and there hasnt been a vote.



i think the more insidious insinuation is that there would be some board or death panel doing cost benefit analysis on each old person. or even with some general rules or policies. not true either.



if palin meant end of life counseling as her concern, it need not be mandatory or even mentioned. it can be assumed that counseling or therapy is available under the coverage. she does insinuate death panels are going to kill you. and if its one person counseling you about making a will and whatever other business and things one goes through. then thats not a panel, you dont get counseling on how to write a will from a group of people with death eater masks sitting behind a long wooden table. so any suggestion that she was speaking about end of life counseling is just as fictitious as the rest of it. she was either mixing/ waxing poetic, or flat out talking about corporate insurance cost benefit analysis, meaning if you cost more to be an insuree then you get the boot. decided by a group of dark hooded figures. this already happens, thats why shes afraid the govt would do it. but i dont have insurance anyway, you keep your private insurance with a group of hooded dark men and i'll get the discount package from the cousins of the dark cloaked men you serve.

Answer 4

No, it is NOT mandatory. Mandatory requirements regarding end of life counseling has already been rejected and will not be present in any bill to reach Obama's desk. Now, if this survives the unbelievable and disgusting spin that conservatives are putting on it, it will be completely voluntary with the doctor of the person's choice. You keep asking as if this bill you link is the end all and be all of what will be passed. It isn't. There are other bills that have been proposed and part of the job of Congress when they return will be to go through them all, argue it out, and a new final bill will emerge.

Answer 5

Section 1233 does not create "death panels". It does create a financial incentive for doctors to sit patients down every five years and discuss end-of-life care. The physician initiates these discussions, not the patient. It is included in a bill whose primary purpose is to control the costs of health care. The purpose of these discussions is to reduce the utilization of medical interventions in the elderly. Costs are reduced because less care is given.

Answer 6

"end-of-life" means "elderly", not "ZOMG!! UR GONNA DIE!!1!!"



I'm sure you glossed over whenever a Republican said "end-of-life" when they talk about the elderly. And as for Palin throwing her baby in the mix, well, that woman will do anything to her kids if it gets her ahead politically. What really sad is the Republicans who actually fought to have that provision in the bill (Senators Isakson, Luger, Collins) have backed off because of the Parrot Brigade's outcry over the imaginary "death panels".

Answer 7

The government has NO business in any end of life counseling, much less paying counselors to generate certain results (hospice vs. surgery)..



This is a decision only for the person, their family, doctor, and clergy... the government needs to STAY OUT of it!



EDIT - the "counseling" is like an implied consent.. you have to make a positive statement to NOT get it, otherwise, you get the "couseling"...



Voluntary? Only in the world of 0bamian/Clintonian parsing.



Hiring a PRIVATE counselor is a good idea that any responsible person will do... requiring a government counselor - ABSOLUTELY NOT!! It simply emoves the responsibility from the individual and gives it to Big Brother. No thank you ...

Answer 8

Bill Gates is one of those who Democrats give total support to! As an Independent, I support what he does for those less fortunate but he will pay for being wealthy! No tax breaks for him, right? Maybe he should have given more to the teacher's Union, LMFAO!

Answer 9

Before my father died he was on life support and he had no living will... I was the only surviving next of kin and had to decide to keep him on life support or not...



I was not sure of his wishes but trusted my heart that he would not want to be kept alive artificially-



after his death all of his personal affairs were a disaster, because he didn't have regular will either-



If he had the benefit of end of life counciling... there may have been a living will with an outline of his wishes as opposed to me having to guess-



(I guess thumbs down think that they'll live forever... News Flash we all die... better to die with a plan if not for yourself at least think of your loved ones)

Answer 10

Seniors would not be required, they would have the option! You never look smart when you twist the truth to push your weak agenda,i know it cant be all the fun being a republician, but it was your stupid choice!!!

Answer 11

Sorry, this is a cut and paste because I just posted this.



"Death panels" was snarky, but there was an issue there. Taking out end of life counseling is just a cosmetic change. The financial drivers still push for rationing, and the enforced compensation scheme to providers, required for public and private plans, is designed to enforce 'general compliance' with 'cost effective practices and procedures' determined by a government committee purposely insulated from congress so it will 'have the guts' to cut coverage for procedures.



This was discussed quite frankly before it became a public issue, and you can google it.



So long as they took out the compensation drivers to make doctors talk to patients about end of life counseling whether or not patients ask for it, and make it wholly an option for those who want it, I think it is a good thing to have. It is the idea that seniors or the terminally ill may choose to die rather than fight BECAUSE they have been denied quality of life treatment that might have made life worth living that makes this a very slippery slope. A Senator tried to put in an amendment saying there could be no rationing of medically indicated care, but it was voted down. And in actual questioning on this, Obama uses very careful wording that 'you may be asked to give up care that won't make you healthier'. Well, a hip replacement, for one example, can be very important in raising quality of life, but can you say it 'makes you healthier?' It's a stretch.



Also, he vaguely says the $500 billion in cuts from medicare will be made up with 'cost savings by cutting fraud and inefficiencies' but the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office has said those 'savings' provisions will save only $1 billion. The other $499 billion has to come from somewhere, and medicare's obligation to give service will drop to a 'cost effective standard'.



In short, removing the end of life provisions doesn't change the issue of rationing care, it just was creepy for doctors who are denying treatment because they won't be paid by the government to be pushing end of life counseling, and more creepy to base doctor compensation in part on how successful they were at having patients choose certain options.



But this plan was not created with us in mind, it was created for the insurance companies and drug companies which is why they were at the table drafting it, and we are demonized as 'astroturf' and 'selfish' if we object to this invasion of our rights.

http://www.gooznews.com/node/3045

Answer 12

I tried to read all the mumbo jumbo in that section of the bill and what I think I read is were screwed cause if they end of life with you, you are pretty much history, personally I don't want anyone discussing my fate with me but my LORD AND SAVIOR.

Answer 13

No, a senior is not required to undergo such counseling.



The insurance company is required to pay if the senior decides to get that counseling.



My insurance covers me if I get a broken arm. That doesn't mean I'm required to get a broken arm.



The bill lists required coverage, not required actions.

Answer 14

The counseling is optional, not mandatory...and is a good thing. You and Palin are liars and idiots. The lies and fear-mongering is getting REALLY old.

Answer 15

The phrase "death panel" is automatically accompanied by the implication that they will decide your fate. Live.. or Die.

Not that they will discuss how to manage your affairs and health during your final years.

Answer 16

Do you even have a clue how much has to be decided when a person is in their final illness?



This is a good thing and you know it.

Answer 17

Come on back to Reality.



You know, Reality? Where sane thinking and logic and reason are the norm?

Answer 18

Liberals don't like common sense...we all know this.

Answer 19

Old folks home.