Joe Wilson is rapidly being proved right; illegals are going to be covered...right after Obama makes them legal. And Sarah is rapidly being right.

So-Called 'Death Panel' Measure Survives in House Health Bill - Political News - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/29/called-death-panel-measure-survive-house-health/)

The Medicare end-of-life planning provision that 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin said was tantamount to "death panels" for seniors is staying in the latest Democratic health care bill unveiled Thursday.



If we root around long enough through all 1,900 pages, I feel certain will find provision for porn in the student union hall.

I don't think we'll cover illegals. I think Obamy will give them all amnesty and then we'll cover them with everything including healthcare. :lol:

Joe Wilson is rapidly being proved right; illegals are going to be covered...right after Obama makes them legal. And Sarah is rapidly being right.

So-Called 'Death Panel' Measure Survives in House Health Bill - Political News - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/29/called-death-panel-measure-survive-house-health/)



If we root around long enough through all 1,900 pages, I feel certain will find provision for porn in the student union hall.

No "death panels" here.......

"The legislation would allow Medicare to pay for a counseling session with a doctor or clinical professional once every five years. The bill calls for such sessions to be "completely" voluntary, and prohibits the encouragement or promotion of suicide or assisted suicide."

No "death panels" here.......

"The legislation would allow Medicare to pay for a counseling session with a doctor or clinical professional once every five years. The bill calls for such sessions to be "completely" voluntary, and prohibits the encouragement or promotion of suicide or assisted suicide."

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

FACT: The vast majority of health care dollars are spent end of life, much of it rather questionable in terms of how much it costs vs. how much more life it gains.

That means, obviously, if there is to be ANY serious attempt at cutting cost in order to cover more people who aren't at deaths door, we will have to discuss this stuff.

Now that it is going to be a government health care system, then we are all paying for it and that means there WILL be discussion, public discussion, of what is reasonable and what is not.

If there were a single adult in Obama World with the maturity to discuss this in terms of the facts of the matter, we're not having this discussion.

Seeings how Obama World is filled to the brim with "Bush lied, people died!" and Florida 2000 freaks, we will continue to talk about this in terms most uncomfortable for their childish world view.

:buddies:

No "death panels" here.......

"The legislation would allow Medicare to pay for a counseling session with a doctor or clinical professional once every five years. The bill calls for such sessions to be "completely" voluntary, and prohibits the encouragement or promotion of suicide or assisted suicide."
Sounds like a good provision to me... and I like to see the majority of seniors take advantage of the counseling.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

FACT: The vast majority of health care dollars are spent end of life, much of it rather questionable in terms of how much it costs vs. how much more life it gains.



Where is the data that support this contention? I have never seen a study or collection of data that proves that for the system as a whole the majority of money is spent in the last year of life. I have seen studies that show that on an individual the majority of money is spent in the last year of life, but the number of consumers in the last year of their life is vastly outnumbered by the non-dying healthier consumers.

More money is spent on vaccinations than is spent for end-of-life care in the United States. More money is spent on teen drivers/passengers injured in automobile accidents than on end-of-life care for the aged.

It is too easy to accept as fact the conclusion that ending care for the elderly will save billion$ on healthcare. Just because it's conventional wisdom does not mean it's correct. Taking care of wastage, elimination of charlatan medical devices and products and implementation of proven public health laws will have a vastly greater impact on healthcare consumption.

Sounds like a good provision to me... and I like to see the majority of seniors take advantage of the counseling.

And what is the point of the counseling? Without a doubt, some people will choose to give up on life sooner than they might otherwise. If not, there is no point. I'm making no judgment on that other than the obvious; this is government sponsorship of discussions on end of life, on death.

Whose gonna determine who is fit for this or not? You? Me? Obama? How long before the first lawsuit claiming grandma wasn't mentally fit enough to understand what was going on and that the mean old government paid shrink got grandma to pack it in? Or, worse, how long before kids are pressuring grandma to go see the shrink and stop being selfish?

This is simply the murky waters that exist and used to be personal and private but will now be public. This yet another reason why government, not us, government, is supposed to be limited.

Where is the data that support this contention? I have never seen a study or collection of data that proves that for the system as a whole the majority of money is spent in the last year of life. I have seen studies that show that on an individual the majority of money is spent in the last year of life, but the number of consumers in the last year of their life is vastly outnumbered by the non-dying healthier consumers.

More money is spent on vaccinations than is spent for end-of-life care in the United States. More money is spent on teen drivers/passengers injured in automobile accidents than on end-of-life care for the aged.

It is too easy to accept as fact the conclusion that ending care for the elderly will save billion$ on healthcare. Just because it's conventional wisdom does not mean it's correct. Taking care of wastage, elimination of charlatan medical devices and products and implementation of proven public health laws will have a vastly greater impact on healthcare consumption.

Go ahead and cherry pick it. I didn't say 'last' year. I said 'end of life'.

Is a $250,000 quintuple bypass 13 months before death simply not part of your predetermined point?

How about $100,000 hip replacements 18 months before death?

We gonna argue that the gobs of money doctors HAVE to spend at the very end are not going to be discussed by the government when they take over?

And what is the point of the counseling? Without a doubt, some people will choose to give up on life sooner than they might otherwise. If not, there is no point. I'm making no judgment on that other than the obvious; this is government sponsorship of discussions on end of life, on death. Counseling to me is reviewing and understanding options. I am a 100% believer that quality of life takes precident over quantity of life and those that are in agreement about their own life should have a way to receive information as to how to best remain a comfortable as possible without prolonging the inevitable. There is dignity in maintaining some control of what you define as quality of life for your person. I believe having access to such counseling can lead to better INDIVIDUAL choices and not necessarily some cookie cutter choice meant to appease those around that person who selfishly would rather see them suffer just to keep them in this world that much longer.


Whose gonna determine who is fit for this or not? You? Me? Obama? How long before the first lawsuit claiming grandma wasn't mentally fit enough to understand what was going on and that the mean old government paid shrink got grandma to pack it in? Or, worse, how long before kids are pressuring grandma to go see the shrink and stop being selfish?Ill will and evil intent is doable this very day without any glorified healthcare provision. If someone wants to off granny "before her time" and granny isn't sane enough to avoid it then granny is a goner. But at this point in time , I don't think all grannies have access to complete, affordable counsel is they want it.

That's how I see it.

Counseling to me is reviewing and understanding options. I am a 100% believer that quality of life takes precident over quantity of life and those that are in agreement about their own life should have a way to receive information as to how to best remain a comfortable as possible without prolonging the inevitable. There is dignity in maintaining some control of what you define as quality of life for your person. I believe having access to such counseling can lead to better INDIVIDUAL choices and not necessarily some cookie cutter choice meant to appease those around that person who selfishly would rather see them suffer just to keep them in this world that much longer.

Ill will and evil intent is doable this very day without any glorified healthcare provision. If someone wants to off granny "before her time" and granny isn't sane enough to avoid it then granny is a goner. But at this point in time , I don't think all grannies have access to complete, affordable counsel is they want it.

That's how I see it.

Can't argue with a single word, especially the fact that nowhere do you use the word 'government'.

:buddies:

Go ahead and cherry pick it. I didn't say 'last' year. I said 'end of life'.

Is a $250,000 quintuple bypass 13 months before death simply not part of your predetermined point?

How about $100,000 hip replacements 18 months before death?

We gonna argue that the gobs of money doctors HAVE to spend at the very end are not going to be discussed by the government when they take over?

OK, I'll give you end-of-life as opposed to last year but that's even harder to prove since end-of-life begins at birth. The actual end is unpredictable so what's your cut off? Perhaps age 65 as a nice biologically arbitrary but fiscally critical age to consider anything beyond as end-of-life.

Do we start withdrawing options once someone becomes MEDICARE eligible?

You see, the attempt to influence consumer behaviors by setting arbitrary gates is fraught with futility. As long as Americans have 'choice' they can and most frequently do chose 'me' as opposed to 'you' or even 'mine.' So counselling is really an opportunity to put the aged and ill on notice that the 'death panel' will be making those decisions from here on out.

OK, I'll give you end-of-life as opposed to last year but that's even harder to prove since end-of-life begins at birth. The actual end is unpredictable so what's your cut off? Perhaps age 65 as a nice biologically arbitrary but fiscally critical age to consider anything beyond as end-of-life.

Do we start withdrawing options once someone becomes MEDICARE eligible?

You see, the attempt to influence consumer behaviors by setting arbitrary gates is fraught with futility. As long as Americans have 'choice' they can and most frequently do chose 'me' as opposed to 'you' or even 'mine.' So counselling is really an opportunity to put the aged and ill on notice that the 'death panel' will be making those decisions from here on out.

Seems I have not been clear. This is NO arena for the government. Period.

:buddies:

Seems I have not been clear. This is NO arena for the government. Period.

:buddies:

100% agree.

As soon as Obama opened his mouth I was saying the same thing Joe Wilson said. No big deal...:coffee:

Seems I have not been clear. This is NO arena for the government. Period.

:buddies:
On a side note, if the gov't is involved those worrying about the gov't trying to convince granny to off herself don't have much to worry about because by the time granny gets through the red tape she'll have outlived the "cut off age"...:clap: