In another brilliant appointment, obama has nominated a radical ideologue to be in charge of medicare and medicaid. Has this joker seriously forgotten that seniors vote?
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/op … ByU8H9sxBK
This was yet another horrible choice by obama and further brings into question either the judgement or the true values of the president.
Translation: He may actually have some new ideas for improving Medicare.
What's wrong with death panels, if by death panels you mean taking a look at the incredible amounts of money spent on futile care in the final months of life? Often this care is provided against the wishes of patients and their closest relatives.
[N.B., the health reform law does not have anything in it that remotely resembles death panels.]
If you don't believe change is needed in elder care read this article which is an example of our health care system totally out of control.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/magaz … ker-t.html
Ralph your post is confusing. Do you think there are death panels or not? Then you want to define what death panels are? Well if someone is determining that money is being wasted on futile care that you say goes against the family's wishes, isn't someone deciding 1) what futile care is 2) aren't giving patients that might want the option and don't think it futile and 3) withholding care to a whole group of people whether they determine it's right for them or not because it's deemed futile and a waste of money. So basically you're okay with letting the dying die faster because it's futile to extend their life, no matter what quality that life may be and for however long it may be. And because it is Obamacare that spends the money and makes the rules, the patient and their family don't have the option to pay for it themselves. And you don't consider the people who decided on these things a death panel?
As I've said several times Death Panels were never proposed as claimed by a usually unreliable source, Sarah Palin. And nobody including me is advocating death panels. You are putting words in my mouth and you didn't read my previous post. What I said was that we need to look at the huge expenditures on end of life care for procedures which are unlikely to restore the patient to a life outside the hospital under extraordinary care. I don't look forward to being stuck full of tubes, oxygen tanks, pacemakers, let alone with late stage Alzheimer's under the care of the likes of Jim.
You don't have to call them a death panel for them to be a death panel.
What have you heard or what have I said that resembles a death panel?
Look at the OP which refers to a news item.
You asked what was wrong with death panels! You seem to be in favor of denying the elderly life saving measures because gee, how much longer can they live?
All countries effectively do so. Currently bases on geography and ability to pay. No country provides free unfettered access to any medicial procedure that might extend life.
That's a good point. U.S. health care results are quite poor compared to other countries because of the maldistribution of income and health care. The rich get good health care at great cost and the poor get theirs in emergency rooms when the problem becomes acute. Poor pre-natal and post natal care is lacking for the poor in this country. The result is that the U.S. ranks down with third world countries on infant mortality and nearly as bad on life expectancy. Canada provides better health care at half the cost in the U.S. They don't have quite as many multimillionaire doctors coming to work in top-of-the-line Mercedes Benzes.
"nobody including me is advocating death panels."
says the guy who said:
"What's wrong with death panels?"
Do you really believe that there will not be decisions made on life and death because of the expense? How will government be any different than an insurance company? The answer is they wont be, there will be a bureaucrat somewhere making decision on who gets care and who does not. They will just be slower to make the decision because of the usual red tape.
That's why a living will is important to everyone, so you can tell them exactly what they can and cannot do.
What I wrote has nothing to do with the patients choice, you may want to reread that.
Yes I do. And there should be. How much should be spent to keep someone alive for a couple more days, or months when there is no possibility of cure or for the patient to leave the hospital? Medicare spends $50 billion for futile care in the last two months of life. Mostly for procedures that offer no chance of a cure.
Well, you are a caring and compassionate man, an example of pure love.
I bet when Obama was speaking about those dastardly insurance companies you were gritting your teeth with anger at them! But now that YOUR money will be spent you have become fiscally conservative!
Thanks for the insight into the progressive mind!
Health care costs can't be allowed to continue skyrocketing or health care and banking will consume the entire economy. Something must be done and eventually will be done to control the rate of cost increases. There is an incredible amount of waste in hospitals and the health insurance industry is a parasite that performs no necessary or useful function.
Gee, I wonder why some people worry about concepts like 'death panels' and the like given the unbelievably crass and inhumane attitude that is apparently acceptable on the left. I guess devaluing and dismissing human life comes easy to the left given some of their other popular positions.
Unlike you pubbies, who only care about life when it's in the womb, or if it VOTES. cough cough.
No money for single moms, right??
No money for those lazy bums right?
What about those kids? Don't they matter as much as old people???
Oh yeah...they don't vote. There's my answer! There's a word for that you know. Starts with wh.
(CBS) Every medical study ever conducted has concluded that 100 percent of all Americans will eventually die. This comes as no great surprise, but the amount of money being spent at the very end of people's lives probably will.
Last year, Medicare paid $50 billion just for doctor and hospital bills during the last two months of patients' lives - that's more than the budget of the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Education.
And it has been estimated that 20 to 30 percent of these medical expenditures may have had no meaningful impact. Most of the bills are paid for by the federal government with few or no questions asked.
You might think this would be an obvious thing for Congress and the president to address as they try to reform health care. But what used to be a bipartisan issue has become a politically explosive one - a perfect example of the costs that threaten to bankrupt the country and how hard it's going to be to rein them in.
Yeah, us damn Americans just want to hang on for dear life instead of pulling the plug.
The plug gets pulled when your insurance runs out. At least panels would make decisions based on ethics and need, not zip code and wealth.
Not necessarily true, actually the records shows that Medicare is more likely to deny than the insurance companies.
What records? I'll assume you made that up unless you point to something to look at.
This website references the AMA National Health Insurer Report Card which shows that for both 2008 and 2009 Medicare denied claims more often than the insurance companies.
That's interesting. I'm not disputing the numbers, but some questions I'd like to see answers to:
- do older people (skewed to Medicare) file more claims than younger people (skewed to private insurance)?
- is the claim filing process easier for Medicare than it is for private insurance?
I had a claim denied by my private insurer a couple of years ago, and followed their labyrinthine procedures to contest the denial (my appeals failed). I then appealed via the California Department of Managed Health Care (a government agency started by Schwarzenegger) and they ruled in my favor.
I'm in the Medical field and specifically geriatric care. Your compassion for the elderly is lacking, most patients at this stage of their lives have accepted the fact that they will not live forever and I assure you no care is being given against their wishes. I assume you have heard of patient rights?
Your attempt to justify not giving medical care to save a little money is frightening.
"What's wrong with death panels?"
It's official. Some people will say, do, or defend anything if they believe it serves the political position to which they have committed themselves.
Well well, we can always bring Ralph into the picture whenever one of the lib hubbers say that there are no death panels.
THERE ARE NO DEATH PANELS AND THERE WERE NO PROPOSALS FOR DEATH PANELS. If you think there are or were please document your opinion.
Didn't YOU say "what's wrong with death panels?"
You don't consider the group of people who decided "85 and no pacemaker for you!" a death panel?
Nobody has decided that. If you think they have please document your opinion. There are plenty of examples of people being subjected to care that they would prefer not to have. I would be interested in your reaction to the NYT Magazine article I linked above.
I know no one decided that. I'm responding to your statement that you didn't want 85yrold alzheimer patients to not get pacemakers and extrapolating it to what if they made a blanket rule for this group of people because the gov't wanted to save money. That was what the discussion was about wasn't it?
Do you think that will be more, or less funny when you are 85?
Flightkeeper, allow me to put aside our clear differences in personality and our disagreement yesterday to attempt to offer an external perspective.
At current, most Americans have private healthcare. Many have no healthcare. The introduction of socialised healthcare means that everybody has accessed to healthcare of some standard. This system works, generally, quite successfully in the UK. That is where I live.
There are however those who decide that they do not want to benefit from nationalised healthcare, or the NHS as it is known, and instead decide to pay for private healthcare. It can be assumed that those who do not need socialised healthcare can afford private healthcare.
The provision of a national healthcare system does not take away your right to private healthcare. If you wish to remain protected by private healthcare then continue to pay your premiums, it really is that simple. It should be noted that your private healthcare will become much cheaper when it is forced to compete with 'free'. My auntie pays $500 a year for fully comprehensive healthcare cover. How much does a 48 year old smoker pay in America? A hell of a lot more than that.
And what happens if the private insurer/institution decides that your illness is outside of your policy cover? In the US you either die, or spend your childrens intended inheritance on trying to survive. In the UK, if your insurance wont pay out then you go national.
Those who would prefer to remain private in the US will actually save a lot of money, nobody seems to understand just how much good this will do to your employment rates and disposable income levels. Do corporations want to remain in America when they can establish operations in other parts of the world where they are not responsible for aspects of their employees health?
The UK spends 8% of their GDP on healthcare, the US spends 16% of their GDP on healthcare. The world rankings make for some interesting reading, everything that we can get in the US is available in the US. If you want to remain private in the UK that is. Personally I can see no greater way to rejuvinate your economy then to take out a huge financial burdeon and to maintain the health of almost 50 million capable individuals. The way things are going you will bankrupt yourselves, sorry but that is the truth, socialised healthcare works fantastically in developed countries throughout the world. In fact, every developed country in the world apart from America.
Translation being a senior is hard enough. Putting some looney toon in control that thinks everyone ages the same is another idiotic move by Obumble and if he keeps shoveling at the rate he is going in 2012 maybe he will be China's problem!
He is just another Harvard Socialist. He believes in spreading the wealth and spoke publically about it. I find it very unsettling that our President continues to have a lack of transperency and continues sneaking appointments in the back door without vetting. Shame on you Obama.
Yes, Medicare needs new ideas and a lot of help, but not from someone with ulterior agenda whereby Health Care is just a "way to the means" for that agenda.
Thats a riot, seeing as Repubs just remembered that seniors vote RECENTLY!
Just like AIPAC and the NRA, they RUN things....the squeaky wheel and all.
That's why tons of money is wasted to kiss butt on all three organizations.
That's why you can't even make seniors take a DRIVING test under 75 yrs of age! Their RIGHT to drive. Their right, my priveledge. And I have a 75 yr old mom, so this is NOT personal...it's societal.
And the idiot repub righty brigade screams about ACORN.
Hey Beckles....do a show on the NRA why don't ya? Oh yeah......you're in their pocket! I forgot. You won't be shutting THEM down any time soon, huh?
Beckles College, How to Run the Gvt. to the Ground. Repub 101.
I haven't read the whole thread, so I dunno if anyone else caught the guy saying he is "romantic" about the NHC and is gonna find the "romance" in it........
Sheesh. That in itself is weird enough to be leery of his agenda.
This Berwick guy doesn't want the doctor to make decisions based on individuals but on "important subgroups" "defined by age, disease affliction or socio-economic status -- should be the "unit of concern," not the individual patient"
So doesn't this mean that some people are more equal than others?
No matter what the sick libtards are saying this is the beginning of socialist medicine.
"So doesn't this mean that some people are more equal than others?"
It sure does.
Yes, a baby born with its brain outside of its head, making it literally as alive as a vegetable is more important to you than a living breathing little kid who happens to have a poor mother.
Your dumb ideology costs a fortune to maintain, while kids who don't fit your status-check can starve for all you care. In My Opinion.
I'm hoping the the AARP will snap out of it and sic the seniors on Obama.
By the time 2012 rolls around he is gonna have a pretty tiny base of support to rely on.
Yeah, it would be gratifing to see him run and do a Mondale. And the libtards will probably be placing Black Panther members in the polling places. I have a feeling it might get violent.
He might end up doing a Dukakis if he keeps going the way he is!
Just bring your gun. You teatards are good at that.
Don't worry, the teatotalers will definitely be prepared to kick some panther butt.
I liked Sag Oh too...too bad pubs lack a sense of humor about themselves!! But BOY can they lay it on Obama!!
There's a word for that. Starts with hyp.
Don't hold your breath, AARP supports the new health reform law.
Does anyone still believe Obama cares at all about anyone but himself?
Yes, I do.
Do you believe he enjoys his new old-man look? Grey hair came on fast.
Fear of being exposed as incompetent will age a man pretty fast!
Whats a teatard and is it an acceptable word to use in adult discussions?
Obama appointed Berwick during the Congress's recess. It's very sneaky, Obama knew Berwick was going to be controversial but instead of being transparent, he decided to go around Congress instead. Does Obama not respect any part of this process?
Much more so than his predecessor. Too bad you can't appreciate it.
I would call you a name, but that would be SO repub of me.(starts with anti)
I think you have blinders on when it comes to Obama. He had to lie and make all sorts of deals to get his bills passed and the only way they passed was because the dems were the majority.
I see what he wants to do and I like it.
The problem is the rethugs who's care is only to be re-elected. Not for America at all. As we saw with their outsourcing of jobs and companies faster than you could say American Dream.
HUGE difference between now and 2000.
America has been sold.
And it didn't happen since 2008. It was already a fait-de acompli.(spelling i know)
If anyone has blinders, it's you.
Listen to what he says and watch what he does. Not the spin and propaganda of the media machine, who seem to get the same memo's and talking points as the Republican Party.
Unfortunately it was you who didn't listen, he hasn't closed guantanamo bay, he hasn't pulled out of Afghanistan, he's kept the patriot act and even pried more into of our privacy and he's even put a hit out on the american terrorists, he promised transparency and we know we didn't get that, he said unemployment would go down after his stimulus bill has passed -- oh yeah it didn't.
I'm not sure what the current admin plans to do about it, but since I'm a caregiver I have first hand knowledge about the cost of care for seniors. It is not pretty. Because our current medicare system allows it seniors who need special equipment like hospital beds, oxygen delivery systems, wheelchairs, and crutches usually have no choice but to rent these things for anywhere from a month to years and years - and guess what the rental companies charge medicare for these things! currently have a client who has been using for three years all of the above at the following costs per month:
bed = $587 per month
oxygen equip = varies from $300 to $500 per month
wheelchair + $565 per month
crutches = $100 per month (he recently bought some and sent the rentals back but the PURCHASE was not covered, only the rental!)
That's the way it is. What the heck would you suggest the medicare - medical people do about it? If they can't make evaluations on the kind of care people really need and make real estimates about what it should logically cost, how can we go on with the status quo? There are more people over 60 now than ever and that segment of the population increases daily!
I won't even go into the costs for the 4 different doctors he regularly sees and the medicare share of the 10 prescriptive meds he takes daily. He hates that it costs so much to rent these things, but the cost for him to purchase all of them is beyond his fixed income.
I don't for a minute believe the radical right ragers who are trying to skew things to sound like there will be "death panels". Already our medical and insurance system has in place research methods that select "groups" and focus certain kinds of care on these portions of the population. Like OB-GYN care and service for women between age 15 - 50 etc. It makes ultimate sense to deliver the right kinds of care to the right people. All kinds of people, not just the geriatric population
Alarming people by making the claims you are making is moronic.
Counseling people about how they want to live out the last years of their lives, especially when they have terminal illnesses that are draining their lives, is also very necessary and sensible. Deciding ahead of time when you want your family or designated close one to "pull the plug" does not have anything to do with planning your death. You guys are paranoid and probably have some other political tea-party type agenda going on.
Keep your propaganda politics out medical issues, thank you. I think you guys might want to listen to something besides Fox TV now and then just to get a clearer perspective on reality!
Did you make a big issue out of it when certain states started asking people to agree to be an organ donor when they got a driver's license? Or do you think that is a death panel deal, too?
" Counseling people about how they want to live out the last years of their lives, especially when they have terminal illnesses"... "Deciding ahead of time when you want your family or designated close one to "pull the plug" does not have anything to do with planning your death. "
Really? That's sort of exactly what it sounds like. When it is the government making those decisions it sounds like something down right sinister.
By the time Fox News gets through with it, anything Obama proposes is spun to sound sinister. It works though as shown by the usual frantic protests here.
The government deciding how and when you die, when you have only committed the crime of growing old, doesn't sound sinister to you?
Spinning again. The proposals are that patients be allowed to make these decisions themselves, not doctors or the government.
Not always, many times the patients have a very vague idea of what their illness means to their life and quality of life - unless you are already extremely pro-active with your health decisions, you are not going to get this kind of counseling from any of the doctors and nurses you usually see. Also, the psychology of the situation is undermined by our own fears of dying and being ill. We can often read the literature they hand out that spells out, for instance, a patient is given literature that tells him he might suffer from severe loss of memory, seizures and a gradual diminishment of body metabolism etc - but what he absorbs from reading it is that he could get dizzy, lose his appetite and have to rest more often. This is an actual scenario of the way one older patient interpreted what he read and was told. So later when he was experiencing the actual symptoms of Alsheimer's he had no idea, no idea at all why he felt so miserable.
No, this kind of caring, compassionate, counseling is not already happening for the large majority of people.
Yes, always! Only you have the right to determine your care.
But do you always understand, really, what your illness involves, what the care for it involves, what your choices for care are? and who you enlist to provide your care? Do you think everyone in our country gets the information in a way they can understand? Do you think relatives are always going to be there to interpret for you and give you the harsh news about some of the things that are going to happen in your body? When everyone you loved and who cared for you have gone on who do you ask?
If we can help plan for this kind of care, with well-trained people helping us, we will be much better off. The alternative, keeping things as they are, will actually bring about a diminishment of care for the elderly as the medicare system goes bankrupt - do the math. We can't continue to spend these exhorbitant amounts. And once again, NO ONE has suggested eliminating anyone from medical care, or planning other peoples deaths for them - NO ONE! The only people mentioning this are people with political agendas who want to get rid of the current administration.
I'm not usually super paranoid - but I think its really healthy to be suspicious of people who open threads like this and hang around ALL THE TIME furiously spinning their alarmist crap. It just makes it so difficult to have a reasonable discussion. AND they always refuse to have a reasonable discussion without twisting words and calling names. I think Hub Pages forums is being used by some paid political activists and so I'm calling them out - Sab Oh - what's your real game?
You really don't know much about this stuff do you? I would love to try and educate you on the laws concerning patients and their rights but somehow I don't think your ideology will allow it.
No more than letting a conservative decide for me. Look how long the Sciavo girl was kept alive when her brain was nothing but mush! What did this accomplish other than making the medical folks a pile of cash and making her husband into a villain.
Do you seriously believe the American people would stand for allowing curative treatment to be withheld from its elderly?
"No more than letting a conservative decide for me. "
So you are ok with letting the government decide for you if it is a liberal government?
If it is a choice between either party? A resounding YES!
There you go then. Partisanship taken about as far as it can go.
As opposed to an insurance company deciding?
I'll go with the government, thanks.
Good luck to you. For your own peace of mind though I'd avoid reading any history books.
How about a history of Medicare for starters?
As others have pointed out, this is all nonsense anyway, No Government plan is ever going to include anything even remotely like death panels. What DOES cause unnecessary deaths every year is insurance plans that won't pay for needed care.
right on - at least we have SOME (howbeit small) say in who our government may be -and there are non-partisan elements in our government who see that basic standards of competence and training are maintained when these programs are in place. Insurance companies can be anybody and are so unregulated at this point that their staffs - well, who knows how educated or under-educated those people are?
AT the very least I know FOR SURE with insurance companies the bottom line is PROFIT. They are profit motivated. oh, sure our capitalist blah blah blah - but if you go to the ones who profit from your illness for a cure you are going to stay alive as long as you are profitable for them - however long that may be, and who said anything about being cured? as long as its profitable for you to be sick, why should they even want you to be well?
These are fundamental questions that the newest health bill is trying to address. I still think that individual responsibility for our own health and individuals planning their own course of action for our health is the way to go. Thing is, not many people have even considered this option. They just go to the Doctor (who knows best, of course) and get some pills or have an operation (depending on what that doctor's specialty is).
I haven't seen any suggestions that the "government make those decisions." You are intentionally distorting the proposal that was ultimately dropped from the bill because of dishonest propagandists and opponents of health reform. You have more than a little trouble sticking with the facts Sabby.
can you show me where it is said that the government is going to make the decision?
"I'm not sure what the current admin plans to do about it, but since I'm a caregiver I have first hand knowledge about the cost of care for seniors. It is not pretty. That's the way it is. What the heck would you suggest the medicare - medical people do about it?"
Um, get rid of the more 'expensive' old people in order to save money? Is that the position? Put that money toward more 'valued' demographic groups?
For openers,I suggest we stop installing pacemakers on 85 year old Alzheimer's patients who no longer recognize their own family members or know their own name and who have executed living wills stating their wishes not to have such measures used on them.
There is a name for that kind of medicine, can't think of it right now. However the idea is you should make decisions about prolonging life based on quality of life instead of just keeping someone alive for the sake of it.
An 85 year old advanced Alzheimer's sufferer is in distress a lot of the time. You wouldn't take action to end their life but you'd have to question why you'd artificially prolong their misery.
Exactly, Marisa. They call it palliative care, I think.
I understand that patient with Alzheimer's is under stress, but I don't like the fact that a panel has basically determined as you and Ralph have done, that this group, regardless of individual condition will not be given the option of deciding what care you want. You've basically said that at 85 that's it, I don't see how palliative that is. It truly is Animal Farm doublespeak.
That's not what we're saying at all. We are saying that their wishes expressed before their minds were gone should be respected. Care should not be inflicted on them that they preferred not to have. If given the opportunity to choose many would choose not to have heroic measures which might prolong their life, while increasing their misery, for a brief period. That's what the hospice movement is all about.
Where is all of this ignoring of the patients rights occurring? I will stay away from there.
Please take the time to read this sad story. It will answer your question--
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/magaz … .html?_r=1
This is called a living will or DNR where I live.
Hospice is there to help in anyway they can. They help to clean the patient and monitor their vitals. Hospice comes in when the patient is unable to really do anything for their own self such as bathe, eat and most of the time the patient is bedfast.
They are really there to help ease the pain and suffering as the patient slips away, but sometimes the patient gets better. It has nothing to do with prolonging the life of the patient but has everything to do with making the patient as comfortable as possible. I know this from experience with my mother in law very recently.
I'm not saying that at all. Leaving aside the fact that an Alzheimer's patient probably isn't capable of making any decision for himself, the point is that a pacemaker isn't just pills. It's actively installing an artificial aid to prevent the heart taking its natural course.
There's a difference between making sure people have as long and healthy a life a possible, and taking steps to artificially prolong it.
So Marisa, you think that installing a pacemaker is artificially prolonging life?! Cause I don't think a lot of people think of it that way. I mean there'd be a lot more dead people right now because of how you are thinking.
Yes, it is artificial, literally. It is an artificial aid to correct a heart that is failing, often due to age, and is a boon for some people.
I'm guessing you're too young to have elderly parents and relatives so you can't conceive of the idea that some people get to a point where life is a burden rather than a pleasure. If the 85 year old himself was of sound mind and demanding the pacemaker, I'd be all for him having it. However if he's senile and has lost all quality of life, no one else should be allowed to make a decision to prolong his life by artificial means.
And no one is allowed to make those decisions that the patient didn't give the power to do so to!
Marisa, you don't have to be 85 to have a pacemaker. People in their 40s have gotten them and are very greatful for them and so are their children.
Eh? What does that have to do with it?
I'm saying that you think of it as artificially prolonging life in an 85 year old, how is that different from a 45 year old with a pacemaker?
The 85 year old will retain the right to continue making policy payments on private healthcare, just like the 45 year old. The private healthcare industry will still very much exist, it is up to each individual to make a choice. If that 85 year old chooses to place her trust in nationalised healthcare, or is not able to afford private healthcare, then who are you to judge? It is not rocket science.
Ryan - I don't know much about U.K.'s system - but can you tell me how involved are the political parties there with healthcare issues? Is there a raging debate about changes to healthcare policies that is purely politically driven, like there seems to be here? Or is it more exempt from politics and purely a bi-partisan deal (like I believe it should be) and if so, how was that accomplished? Or are the English just basically more reasonable and not so ruled by the media as we seem to be? (all loaded questions, but I'm sincere!)
To answer your questions to the best of my ability.... All three major political parties categorically agreed that the NHS (National Health Service) should be protected and cherished. It is the one area of politics which they all agree on. The right, left, centre, they all fully support the service.
Recently there were significant public spending cuts, across all public services, following the election of a new government (our 'right'). All departments apart from one of course, the NHS. The British people would never under any circumstances condone the scaling back or removal of a national health service, it is now untouchable. It is the greatest thing about our country.
So really, that answers all of your questions. The country is fully united behind the NHS, and that includes all politicians, subsequently all politically motivated media, and the public. They fight and disagree and spin everything else. The abolition of the NHS would result in riots, anarchy in fact. We are all very proud it it.
A simple guide to the structure of the NHS management system is given here...
http://www.cqc.org.uk/usingcareservices … ctured.cfm
It is effectively run locally and privately from government, the only real control that the government has over the service is its budgets. What IS true about the NHS, although something which will soon be rectified, is the existance of a problem which has been referred to in the media as 'the postcode lottery', where people in certain areas may not be able to benefit from treatments available in other areas. This is something which is being rectified in new central policies to make the system a fairer one. Like I have already mentioned though, there is a thriving private healthcare system in place at the fraction of the cost of private healthcare in America for those who have any doubts about the NHS.
I don't know anybody who hasn't had a friend or relative whose life has been saved by the NHS (not including me of course, as that would be silly - I was kept alive for 8 weeks in a critical condition by the NHS, the treatment would have bankrupted my father in the current American system...)
Thanks Ryan! see, now, that right there is the sanest defense of a National Health Care system I have ever heard and it makes complete and total sense that all parties would agree to it. I believe if our media weren't mainly controlled and owned by right wing trillionaires with profit motive always #1 we could have health care and some of the other services our country lacking. We just always get distracted and allow things to go shabby and underserved.
Whether or not measures like pacemakers should be provided should depend on their likely effect and the patient's wishes.
hear, hear! And also, how can people know what their wishes are when they have not been fully informed. This story really opened my eyes. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/magaz … 1&_r=2
although I was aware already that there are many times when patients are misled - intentionally or not - by doctors and nurses. Many many horror stories out there. In order to know what you want to have done or not done you really have to study things and ask so many questions and have the time and mental capacity to do so. When people call this kind of counseling "death consultations" it makes my blood boil! Have they really any idea what they are talking about? Or do they just want to discredit the Democrats at any cost? Have they even met or cared for elderly people who never had a chance to decide for themselves, who are now living like empty shells, and now their relatives think its too late. Shame on our medical system for allowing this! We really can't call ourselves the "best country in the world" when this kind of thing happens routinely, without a peep from anyone. This is exactly why I say politics have no place in the discussion re: health care!
I added a condition to my original post. I suggest you read the article I linked from the NYT Magazine above about the plight of two Alzheimer's patients who fell into the clutches of modern medicine gone wild.
So you suggest hastening their death because of an illness they cannot help having?
I love the way the true face comes out in liberals after they wooed us with their compassion and called us heartless.
Only criminal Physicians would ignore living wills and the wishes of the patient, they do it for financial gain and it is a very small percentage of the Medical profession. In 30 years in the Medical field I have never seen a single case of it happening.
Jim - I don't know if you are sincere or a troll. I will give you the benfit of the doubt. If you know anything about caring for the elderly or the health care bill and the clause that inspired the Palin 'death panel' quote - you MUST know that the provision Palin objected to ONLY provided for the Medicare doctor to get paid for end-of-life consultations, which including a discussion of patient's rights, living wills and directives.
In other words,liberals wanted to encourage doctors to inform patients about the legal devices you advocate - documents that empower patients and give clear binding instructions to to the doctors.
Yet you seem willing to distort that into non-existent 'death panels'.
I don't care if you give me the benefit of the doubt about being a troll or not, based upon the amount of hubs you have produced in 5 months the term troll may fit you better. See, I can do it too.
I have not said there are death panels I have kept my remarks to those who have expressed their own feelings on the elderly and their right to live. I suppose in your rush to label trolls you didn't read what I wrote.
Why doesn't that surprise me...
You are critical of how many hubs I wrote (five) - when you have written ONE???? I did read what you wrote - and it contradicts the facts regarding health care for the elderly, an area you claim to work in.
I am critical of people who call other people names, I have written 1 hub in four days, you have written 5 in 5 months, while calling other people trolls.
Nothing I wrote contradicts the facts, you see I know the facts, what is your specialty in Medicine? How many years have you been working in the Health care system?
I have forgotten more than you will ever know about the facts.
My father died of Lou Gherig's Disease. He didn't leave directives or have a Living Will, so when he was in ICU on a respirator, the decisions fell to the family. This is EXACTLY the situation which was being addressed in the Health Care bill by providing payment to Medicare doctors for end-of-life consultations. And the provision was attacked by Sarah Palin with her famous 'Death panel' quote.
Maybe you know how to change a bedpan, but I wrote a hub about this situation. You can brag about how much you have forgotten, but if you watch your father draw his last breath, you NEVER forget. Especially if you made the decision to remove life support. On the subject of 'death panels', medical directives, the living will, hospice, and wingnuts who use those subjects to exploit the senior vote - I am an authority.
No you are not even the least bit educated in this matter.
And, pray tell, what are your qualifications?
Qualifications?! All you had to show was one news article.
Jim was the one who was dissing others qualifications, and implying that he has expertise on the subject. I don't have any special qualifications other than my experiences and involvement in the care of several relatives over the years as in the case of my uncle which I cited above in response to Jim's assertion that patients and their designees make the decisions on care.
BTW, did you take the trouble to read the article? I'll bet you didn't.
He wasn't dissing anyone's qualifications, if you call one hub a qualification and one person's experiences. And yours and his are individual experiences, it does not speak for the whole.
Dissing? The bedpan comment came from Doug, I find it humorous that everyday a liberal or at least an Obama supporter insults someone and the liberals find that it was an attack coming from a conservative.
Deny,deny,deny the Clinton philosophy of debate
I am a Nurse Practitioner with over 30 years in the health care field. And yours?
Stick 'em on the ice floe and set 'em adrift, eh? How humane. Maybe this is like the abortion debate in that the extreme left-wing position requires a denial that old people are really human, thus making it more palatable to do anything with them - including elimination (whether fast or slow).
Sago, you have a nasty little habit of mischaracterizing others' comments in this forum.
This from a guy who supported the human massacre of Operation Cast Lead, white phosphorous rained down on babies, and the flotilla murders.....
I guess none of those people were human to you sab-eh.
Oh let me guess...Only people with your ideology deserve to live. Am I right? This is my opinion, which I have the duty to speak as my 1st amendment right.
I carry my mouth in my holster at all times.
when you open the door to the gov for one thing many other things step threw
ido not think this door should be opened at all
no one said anything about getting rid of anyone - the costs need to come down = the system is being used by corporations like those companies that rent the equipment. I said nothing at all about eliminating people - I want to lower the costs with some regulation - but, oops, can't say words like regulation around you and your ilk - that might be "socialism" - haha
fortunately, most people don't even bother to try to have a discussion with people like you, Sab Oh - you don't make sense, you don't even contribute one positive solution, you just berate others, place blame and then ridicule people who ARE being sensible. and you DO twist what others say to further your own ends - which are? I wonder who pays you to sit in forums and start your agenda? Course, I knew about you when I joined in this thread, but I just hope some reasonable people who have real concerns and questions, will read what I write and get another view of the situation.
"Fortunately, most people don't even bother to try to have a discussion with people like you, Sab Oh - you don't make sense, you don't even contribute one positive solution, you just berate others, place blame and then ridicule people who ARE being sensible."
Yes, sensible and might I add non berating.
I'm glad the insults don't come from liberals.
Well, thanks for understanding what I say and I hope you see its validity. But, lets do try to keep politics out of the debate on medical care. It really has no place there. I don't mention whether I'm a liberal or conservative politically when I debate about medical care, so pretend you don't know what I am and just consider my words. Ok?
How are we to keep politics out of the health care debate? Politicians have thrown themselves into an area they know absolutely nothing about. Did you miss the entire health care debate and not see the POTUS wielding his plan as a political tool?
I think we can end on this note.
We can start with ourselves - I am not those others who debated healthcare on tv. You don't hear many people trying to keep partisan politics out of most discussions if you are watching TV or hearing the radio or reading the paper - all the media is an arm of political establishment. Labelling people liberal or conservative or radical or anything like that doesn't have anything to do with the real life issues - people's health, in this instance. Do you ask your Doctor whether they're Republican or Democrat or Independent before you allow them to determine treatment for you? Probably not, you don't usually want to bring your politics into the operating room - it wouldn't be very wise. But, hey, maybe you do! Your decision.
That's exactly right, my decision! Not the Doctors or the Nurse or a family member who is not appointed to do so by my living will.
The idea that hundreds/thousands of patients are being kept alive against their wishes is ludicrous!
But I have seen it said throughout this thread, I have also seen people who want to decide who is worthy of life and who is not.
Insurance companies decide now they don't want to pay to save your life.
Their decisions are and will be driven entirely by profit motives.
Political decisions on similar issues will be driven by both cost issues (not exactly the same as orifices, but close ) and by public opinion.
I trust public opinion far more than I trust bean counters.
You want to keep politics out of a discussion of the role of government in health care? impossible.
"fortunately, most people don't even bother to try to have a discussion with people like you, Sab Oh - you don't make sense, you don't even contribute one positive solution, you just berate others, place blame and then ridicule people who ARE being sensible. and you DO twist what others say to further your own ends - which are? I wonder who pays you to sit in forums and start your agenda? Course, I knew about you when I joined in this thread, but I just hope some reasonable people who have real concerns and questions, will read what I write and get another view of the situation."
It certainly strengthens your position when you try to make me the boogeyman.
Oh wait, no it doesn't.
"Keep your propaganda politics out medical issues, thank you"
So, only the extreme left-wing politics of radical ideologues like berwick are allowed? Thank you?
I notice no one mentioned the writer of the article linked by Sab! Goggle her name and you'll know why!
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezra … etsy_mccau
Or google the hundreds of other reporters writing about this topic.
Thanks for noting that, Randy. I remeber reading about her last year. Some acrobats are renowned for working without a net - She's famous for writing without consulting facts. I suspect SabOh is right - there are hundreds of bloggers repeating her bile and pretending it's truth.
one more thing!
The article in the OP from the New York Post mentions "healing each individual patient" as the responsibility each Dr takes - well, yes, but when you reach 85 and have about 6 different chronic ailments plus a heart valve that cannot be healed and a back fused so you can no longer walk - no Dr is going to try to really HEAL your sorry ass - instead, you will be kept going with medications that cost thousands a month - and you have to pay your share of that, too, no matter what your income is. My profession is caring for people like this, and I love it. I believe people should aim for the best quality life they can possibly have until the bitter end, I took on the responsibility of helping to make that possible.
BUT - think a moment about the medical establishment dilemna - when you get there and you are hobbling around, miserable most of the time, irritable and sometimes mean to the ones you love, hurting, frightened, maybe with Alsheimer's and can't recall your own name - who's to say how long you should keep taking those (expensive) meds? Will you be able to do anything about it? How long should you keep employing Doctors and staff to keep you alive, no matter how awful you feel and how much you would prefer to gracefully slip into your well-deserved rest? Are you sure you're really going to be able to decide when enough is enough at that point? Because no one else can do one thing about it if you just keep struggling along, supporting some Doctor's kids college educations and helping to drain the nation's medical budgets. Isn't it a good idea to have some counseling from a professional early on, when those diagnoses are made? You won't know ahead of time just what shape you'll be in at 90, so making some plans for those last decades of your life is not only reasonable, but responsible to yourself and others.
And unfortunately, presently there is no way for a family to get this kind of counseling for their elderly relative - most Doctors don't include an overview like this in the 15 minutes they allow their elderly patients. Most people just struggle on without an inkling of where they are headed and what they can expect when they have these chronic and terminal diseases. They may get some counseling if they're diagnosed with cancer, but even that is aimed at people much younger who can and probably will heal.
Something has to change. I'm all for a lively debate about what should be done, and hopefully not all of it will be in the political arena where its more like a fist fight than a discussion.
"The article in the OP from the New York Post mentions "healing each individual patient" as the responsibility each Dr takes - well, yes, but when you reach 85 and have about 6 different chronic ailments..."
"well, yes, but..."
It must be comforting for those of the "well, yes, but..." age to know they are so valued as human beings.
An individual who is brain dead has a minimal claim to being a human being. Medical care that he has requested not to be used should not be forced on him by the medical profession or misguided members of his own family.
"who's to say how long you should keep taking those (expensive) meds? "
Well sure, the state might be gracious enough to let them live a little longer if their meds weren't so expensive. Can't let the old and infirm be a burden on the state now can we?
Regarding 'Death Panels'
Voters at Politifact awarded Sarah Palin the not-so-coveted 'Liar of the Year Award' for her 'death panel' proclamation. (Aug 7)
"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."
The accuracy of Palin's comment was disputed by every impartial fact-checking organization who researched Section 1233 of HR 3200, the House version of health care reform. In a huge bill, Palin finds fault with the one section that allows payment to Medicare doctors for voluntary end-of-life counselling.
Let me explain 'voluntary' - nothing in the bill requires the doctor to offer the consultation - and nothing requires the patient accept if the consultation is offered. Section 1233 lists topics that must be included the discussion in order to qualify for payment, including the living will and advance directives.
Sarah Palin's facebook claim (Aug 12) in defense of her original claim does NOT dispute:
1) There are no 'death panels'.
2) Her child with Down Syndrome wouldn't be affected. (until 2074 when he qualifies for Medicare)
3) There are no 'bureaucrats' anywhere in Section 1233 - only a doctor and patient in consultation.
4) There's no subjective judgement of anybody's 'level of production in society'.
The only element of the original statement that almost survives the original statement is that her parents, rather than meeting the 'death panel', might be offered a voluntary consultation with a medicare doctor to review information about end-of-life options.
Anybody working scare tactics on the elderly whether the NY Post or a blogger here is either hasn't checked the facts or is lower than pond scum for terrorizing the elderly. There is no middle ground on this issue.
On Qualfications - From Health Beat
June 28, 2010
....As the highly-respected president and CEO of the Institute for Health Care Improvement, Dr. Berwick enjoys support that ranges from the AARP to three former directors of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) who served under Republican presidents. “This is not really about Don Berwick,” John Rother, executive vice president for policy and strategy at the AARP told McClatchy Newspapers. "In ordinary times, the nomination of somebody with Don's record and standing in the field would not be controversial.” Thomas Scully, who led the CMS under President George W. Bush agrees: "He's universally regarded and a thoughtful guy who is not partisan. I think it's more about ... the health care bill. You could nominate Gandhi to be head of CMS and that would be controversial right now."
Berwick also enjoys warm endorsements from the American Association of Family Physicians, the American Medical Association, and the American Hospital Association. He is known for his ability to listen to other medical professionals, hear their concerns, and collaborate with them.
They prefer to believe the sky is falling, Doug! "The liberals will kill all of the old folks, run, hide, you geezers!" LOL! What nonsense!
You noticed that, too. And the list of endorsements by doctors, nurses, hospitals - AARP, for crissake. I WISH I could have posted his credentials right after the OP. It would have taken a lot of the steam out of the arguments of the teabaggers - when almost everyone has seen the objective facts.
Ryan thank you for the information but I was talking to Marisa and I really don't feel up to catching you up with what we were talking about and then have to deal with the systems where you live and how it may differ under Obamacare.
I'm not trying to be rude.
That is fine, and respected, I am just trying to lift your doom and gloom. Socialised healthcare would be the most capitalist thing that Obama could do though. Goodnight.
But it would help if you understood "Obamacare," as you call it, first!
I'm a therapist working with the elderly, and I gotta admit sometimes I wonder why we are giving some patients therapy who look like they may be on their death beds. However, by the same token I have seen patients who did not seem to have any hope, at a very old age, rebound with therapy and go on to live quite a few more quality years. So It is hard if not impossible to say which ones could benefit,and which ones would not. And to even think about depriving them of help that could help them, would just be cruel.
But I do think that if the patient and the family do not want therapy they should not have to take it. So If a patient tells me they do not want to participate in treatment, I just mark it down as the patient declines treatment. No sense in adding to their misery by making or cohearsing them into doing something they do not want to do.
I do advise them of the benefits of therapy and allow them to make their minds up themselves.
Thats exactly what you are supposed to do, patients decide what care they get and what they will or will not do. If you listen to these MD's practicing on Hubpages you may get the Idea that someone other than the patient or their designate choose for them.
It's not always true that "patients and their designees" make critical decisions on patient care. Several years ago an uncle of mine in Massachusetts had a massive stroke or brain hemorrage. He had signed a living will designating his wife as his medical representative and he had specified in writing that he did not want measures taken to revive him unless they would likely result in a recovery of his life functions or words to effect. Anyway over his wife's objections brain surgery was performed and my uncle was kept alive for a year during which he never uttered a word or gave any sign that he had heard, let alone understood, his wife's communications on her daily visits to the facility where he was warehoused at great cost.
I urge you to read the article linked below about the 85 year old late stage Alzheimer's patient who was given a pacemaker against the wishes he had expressed earlier and against his wife's wishes and give us the benefit of your comment on it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/magaz … .html?_r=1
I commented on the post of yours yesterday, seek it out and you shall see.
You didn't respond to my post and you haven't bothered to read the NYT article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/magaz … .html?_r=1
You have asserted that patients and their designees wishes are respected and I have cited two instances where they were not respected. One described in detail in the NYT article and the other involving my uncle's end of life care. You haven't responded to either of them. I have been involved in end of life care for several relatives and I read a lot about health care. I don't have any special expertise beyond that. However, I'm naturally suspicious of self-proclaimed "experts."
I did respond, do I have to find it? Surely you can hit the page link and go back.
Even Max Baucus a tried and true Democrat is pissed off about Obama trying to sidestep Congress and Install Berwick !
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/he … outrageous
Oh and Ralph, I did read the article you pointed out. Again, it is one family's experience and learning curve, it does not speak for the whole.
In over 30 years in the biz I have never seen that sort of thing, but wouldn't you know in just two days there are two experiences of this type of patient abuse, and both in favor of Obamacare!
What are the odds of that?
Well you know, it was in The New York Times Magazine so it must be true for everyone.
Do you recall the Terry Schaivo fiasco?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-raus … 56473.html
Medicare Cost of Dieing--$50 billion.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/ … 1689.shtml
That's true, but there's plenty of documentation on the excessive cost of futile end-of-life health care.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/refor … /19084515/
Yes, there's that darn excessive cost again. Can't have those 85-year olds taking up too much life.
The elderly must be eliminated for the greater glory of the people's collective! What value does an individual have in light of the collective?
Exactly Sab, what is the value of one individual amongst a group? You get treated and die as part of a collective and pretty soon children in the future are born and reared as part of a collective. Remember that it takes a village...
It's just too creepy.
Funny how average life span in socialised countries is longer than in the US, and infant mortality is lower too. (As are taxes).
But never mind, the US system is clearly perfect and without fault despite being the most expensice in the western world and only in the middle of the pack for effectiveness way behind nasty commies like Canada and New Zealand with their death panels.
There are lots of very old people here in Canada Just thought I'd put that out there.
Whatever, it is something that should be left up to the individual to decide. Personally, if I had the choice and knew I was not going to get better, I would not want useless treatments.
And that is your right! Just as it is the right of the patient to want care. But you are ok with denying it because of how you feel?
If so that is very arrogant, but not unexpected.
Why is that arrogant? I said "it is something that should be left up to the individual" and gave my personal opinion.
What don't you understand? If you think I should not receive a treatment because you would turn it down then that is arrogant!
Your English comprehension must be lacking tonight...
I said "it should be left up to the individual" THAT INCLUDES YOUR RIGHT TO HAVE TREATMENT CONTINUED.
My English comprehension is fine, thank you.
"And that is your right! Just as it is the right of the patient to want care. But you are ok with denying it because of how you feel?"
"If so that is very arrogant, but not unexpected."
You see that little thing after the word feel? That is a question (quotation) mark and it helps those reading what someone writes in determining meaning!
You're free to get insurance, or pay out of pocket, if you think Medicare is going to force you to die. We do have a free market for medical services, one that dictators and other billionaires the world over enjoy when they run into serious health problems.
I'm pretty sure you know that any for-profit insurance plan, and your own bank account, will dry up far sooner than Medicare, for all your talk about government death panels. This is why seniors are not going to give up their "socialist" Medicare, no matter how much the Republicans want to kill it.
I'm free to get health care from my employer until it is cheaper for them to pay a fine for not providing health care. That will happen and I think already has.
Yes my bank account will dry up far faster than medicare, I am not able to threaten people with jail and fines if they do not pay me what I think they owe. Government has an unlimited supply of money for just those very reasons.
And can you tell me which republican(s) is clamoring for the death of medicare?
Doesn't matter. Now you will have what you want: the ability to buy your own insurance or pay for your medical care on your own, unfettered by government restrictions.
As for Republicans wanting to end Medicare: take a look at Paul Ryan's GOP "roadmap for america's future." It also will force seniors to buy insurance on the open market.
It's amazing. The one clause in the health care bill that gets the 'death panel' lie - is a clause that would emposer seniors in health care choices.
Look at the GOP's historical opposition to Medicare (they voted as a party to opposse Medicare) Look at their refusal to fund Medicare now, and look at the choices they propose - like the one by Ryan you pointed out - and yet conservatives STILL petend they will protect seniors. And they will - as long as they are RICH seniors.
That should be the right of all Americans, but it doesn't always work out that way. Or very possibly we wouldn't be spending such huge sums on ineffective procedures during the last two months of life.
You and Sag Oh are the ones in this discussion who are arrogant and insulting to others participating in the discussion. Try looking in a mirror.
Are you really having trouble with my screen name, or are you deliberately misspelling it for some reason?
Sag Oh? That's not insulting at all. is it.
Don't know if it is 'insulting' in itself, but playing around with a name just to take a dig at someone is down right infantile.
Its insulting and it is meant to be insulting.
See, we don't always agree.
And it seems that uninvited writer has plenty of people agreeing with her, but she begrudges us.
It's so nice you've found someone who agrees with you all the time, you and Jim have become fast pals.
Majority leader Nancy Pelosi said '' we need to pass the bill so that we will know what's in it''
June first a tax on tanning businesses started, result more people will be added to the unemployment rolls and some businesses will fail.
June first payments to doctors and other Medicare providers were to be cut 21%.The cost of $265 billion was not in the CBO's original estimates. A recent review of the healthcare bill shows that the bill will add an additional $365 billion to the deficit.President Obama and the Democrat Congress said the bill would be deficit neutral, another wrong projection.
President Obama's appointment of a radical is just another in a series of appointments that never would have been passed by Congress. When you add government bureaucracy to a equation, it only means that the doctor and the patient will not be making the final decision as to the decision of what to do or not to do.
The super Democrat controlled Congress passed the healthcare reform bill without reading the bill in it's entirety. All amendments requested by the ( do nothing )Republicans were rejected. To continually hear President Obama and the Democrat leaders tell the American people that the Republicans are holding up legislation is untruthful and disingenuous. Wake up America, the press and mainstream media need to expose those hypocrites in Washington.
by SassySue19633 years ago
The President announced his big fix today. Once again, circumventing Congress and the Constitution to do as he pleases. You can now keep your plan, well, for the next year. The message? I don't want you to suffer, well,...
by OLYHOOCH6 years ago
A NEWS FLASH, to Mr Obama, from, WE THE PEOPLE. There are 3.4 Billion of us, SENIORS.We are wise to your, OBAMA PLOY'S.Obama Care, no thanks.......Libya NO FLY ZONE TRICK, this will end soon and you think, WE THE...
by Susan Reid4 years ago
Forget for a minute the amount of money involved.Think philosophically only.Ask yourself this simple question:Why in God's name would President Obama, in his sweeping legislation to extend healthcare benefits to as many...
by Scott Bateman2 months ago
Odd that the House was able to pass 60 bills repealing Obamacare when Obama was president but can't pass one when Trump is president.
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.