»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
By any other name
| The Alley |
|
By any other name |
|
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia 
|
quote: quote: quote: |
||
| © Copyright 2011 Local Rebel - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I'd say that a 2,000 page law that levies all sorts of new taxes, imposes fines, mandates private physicians to comply with government regulations regarding treatment options under threat of fines and sanctions, mandates insurers to offer only policies approved by the government, creates 111 new government boards, bureaucracies, commissions and programs, and gives free reign to those government bureaucrats to flesh out the fine details of the law, sure sounds like a government takeover of healthcare to me. Ditto for the 'death panels' and 'job killing law' by virtue of the all-encompassing government intrusion into the healthcare insurance and delivery sectors. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused Stir By ROBERT PEAR Published: December 25, 2010 WASHINGTON — When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1. Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment. Congressional supporters of the new policy, though pleased, have kept quiet. They fear provoking another furor like the one in 2009 when Republicans seized on the idea of end-of-life counseling to argue that the Democrats’ bill would allow the government to cut off care for the critically ill. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/politics/26death.html Death Panels Revisited The left won't admit that Sarah Palin had a point about rationed care. At a stroke, Medicare chief Donald Berwick has revived the "death panel" debate from two summers ago. Allow us to referee, because this topic has been badly distorted by the political process—and in a rational world, it wouldn't be a political question at all. On Sunday, Robert Pear reported in the New York Times that Medicare will now pay for voluntary end-of-life counseling as part of seniors' annual physicals. A similar provision was originally included in ObamaCare, but Democrats stripped it out amid the death panel furor. Now Medicare will enact the same policy through regulation. We hadn't heard about this development until Mr. Pear's story, but evidently Medicare tried to prevent the change from becoming public knowledge. The provision is buried in thousands of Federal Register pages setting Medicare's hospital and physician price controls for 2011 and concludes that such consultations count as a form of preventative care. The office of Oregon Democrat Earl Blumenauer, the author of the original rider who then lobbied Medicare to cover the service, sent an email to supporters cheering this "victory" but asked that they not tell anyone for fear of perpetuating "the 'death panel' myth." The email added that "Thus far, it seems that no press or blogs have discovered it, but we will be keeping a close watch." Democrats and the press corps accused Mrs. Palin of misrepresentation to avoid reckoning with this inexorable rationing reality that President Obama has himself implicitly acknowledged. In a 2009 interview with ObamaCare advocate David Leonhardt of the New York Times, he called for "a very difficult democratic conversation" about the costs that are incurred in the last six months of life. The President even mused about whether his own grandmother's hip replacement following a terminal cancer diagnosis represented "a sustainable model." The real problem is the political claim that Medicare and other entitlements are imposing on the culture of U.S. health care. Everyone, on the left and right, now behaves as if every medical issue is a political matter that the government or some technocratic panel can and should decide. No wonder "the 'death panel' myth" has such currency among Americans who won't be doing the deciding. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203731004576045702803914780.html As far as Politifact is concerned, any agency that declares the White House had nothing to do with the planning of the memorial simply because the University says it didn't, doesn't rank very high in either investigation or intelligence. Good title, reb. Yes, a death panel by any other name is still a death panel. |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
They're bringing back the extension of end of life counselling? Well that's one piece of good news. I thought it was a really good idea when George Bush signed it into law. I must confess it was a little confusing when the Republicans, who had introduced the idea in the first place, attacked the proposed extension in the latest health care bill. Mind you, the Republicans didn't call it a "Death Panel" when it was a Republican idea, perhaps that had something to do with their apparent u-turn.  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I don't understand how anyone can be opposed to counseling people about their options, be it for end-of-life care, planned parenting, or how best to meet your tax obligations. I would call that education, not death panels. Death panels? Orwell was a genius. It's sad so few of today's citizens have read what he had to say. Or, at least, have failed to heed his warnings. How about we stop assigning meaningless (literally, without meaning) labels and talk about specific issues. quote: LOL. Yea, Mike, let's not allow the truth to confuse us. Universities lie all the time, don't they? Our politicians have a long history of being honest with us, right? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ron, please don't tell me you actually think that the White House had nothing to do with the planning or logistics of the gathering. You think maybe Obama just said, "You guys go ahead and set it up any way you want and I'll be there"? He had a national audience, millions of people to speak to, and you think they just left it to the university to handle all the details? Say it isn't so, Ron... No, Ron, in this case the university lied along with the politicians....and they both have a long history of that. Liberal universities and liberal politicians go well, hand in hand..... |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: Pretty close to what the Republicans called it when they introduced the idea Ron, I just checked, they called it "Consultation Services". That has a much better ring to it than "Death Panels", don't you think? It's also very descriptive of what it actual is too - I guess a rose by any other name doesn't always smell as sweet. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The President even mused about whether his own grandmother's hip replacement following a terminal cancer diagnosis represented "a sustainable model." So Obama would be educating his grandmother??? |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
I'm not buying the whole conspiracy theory about the memorial service, it doesn't make any logical sense. First you'd have to believe that Obama and his team actually sat down and thought it would be a good idea to hand out t-shirts and party balloons at a memorial service and that the Republicans wouldn't make political hay off it. Then you'd have to believe that Obama could actually convince the crowd to play along - Were they all diehard liberal plants, were there any Republicans there at all and if so how did they convince them to play along with Obama's cunning plan did they pay them? We're asked to believe this nonsense based on the fact that the Obama team are super slick marketing and PR geniuses which, if you think about it, is in fact the perfect argument NOT to believe it. Anyone with an ounce of sense would have seen what a completely numb idea it would be to try to turn a memorial event into a political rally. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
..and yet it turned into a political rally....go figure To my mind, anyone with an ounce of sense would realize that the university would not even consider the t-shirt deal without consulting with Obama's team first. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I can't speak for the President, Mike, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me. When I was younger (about Obama's age, I would guess), I believed we should fight for every single breath of life. Every moment, I believed, was precious. Then I got older. I started watching people die. My mom, my dad, my sister. A few others. Almost every single one of them suffered through medical procedures that were ultimately unnecessary and unhelpful. My parents, in particular, spent every moment of their last few months in pain, recuperating from extremely invasive surgeries. Does that mean they shouldn't have had them? Shouldn't have tried? No, not necessarily. But they certainly should have been better educated about what to expect. They should have been counseled, realistically, on what their options were and what the consequences of each of those options might be. They weren't. Almost no one ever is. quote: In what way, Mike? Was anyone asked to vote for something or someone? I didn't see it as a political rally at all. I saw it as an American rally. |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
If it was a planned political rally why did Obama forget to give a party political speech? The text of the speech is here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028366-503544.html Is it a political speech or a fitting address by the President of the United States? As an independent observer, I'd have to say that it's the latter. quote: Why? Do the tea party organisers consult guest speakers about what the crowd should wear? Could Obama, in a fit of pique, threaten to call the whole thing off unless all attendees wore dinner suits and black ties? If so your President has far too much power. That's ignoring the fact that, given even a basic understanding of your average student's dress sense, the t-shirts they eventually wore were probably a heck of an improvement over the t-shirts that they might have worn. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Does that mean they shouldn't have had them? Shouldn't have tried? No, not necessarily. But they certainly should have been better educated about what to expect. They should have been counseled, realistically, on what their options were and what the consequences of each of those options might be. They weren't. Almost no one ever is. I agree with that, Ron. However, do you think that's all it is about? Counceling them on their options? SO what will happen, after counceling, if they choose life, choose to fight the fight, no matter what? Will this health plan that the government is paying for say, "Ok, no problem. You fight and we'll continue to pick up the tab."? Or would it be more realistic for the government panel to say, "Sorry, but you are not going to get better and we are not going through the expense of keeping you alive" ? When did it become a political rally?? As soon as the t-shirts were distributed. Theme of “Together We Thrive” T-shirt came from Obama’s Organizing for America By Judi McLeod Friday, January 14, 2011 The “Together We Thrive” T-shirts that starred at Wednesday’s Arizona `Memorial’ originated from Organizing for America (here), a sad fact unearthed by The Drumbeat of Liberty and the Preservation of Freedom editor and Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Robert Rohlfing. In the controversy of the pep rally/rock concert style Memorial for those who lost their lives in Saturday’s Arizona tragedy, the mainstream media reported that the “Together We Thrive: Tucson & America” T-shirt given to mourners as they entered McKale Center was the idea of University of Arizona brass, not the Obama administration. Yet the “Together We Thrive” slogan dates back to a post to Obama’s own Organizing for America in a Feb. 11, 2008 post by self-described “globalist” John Berry IV. More than passing strange that the Obama campaign message of civility was the same on Feb. 11, 2008 as it was in his Wednesday Memorial speech, and the same one, too carried by the mainstream media in coverage of the Memorial. “For too long Americans have been set one against the other. It is a side affect of a free market society,” Berry IV posted. “How can profits be maximized, how can I get the work down for the lowest possible costs. This continually sets one group against the other, especially in the blue collar sectors of America. It has become part of the American Business model, whether it was indentured servants, slaves picking cotton, sharecroppers, the industrious people that built the railroads or today’s migrant workers. As long as we remain divided, fighting for the scraps that America has to offer it will be one group against the other. “What I see in Obama is a chance for revolution. (Italics CFP’s). A chance for every group to be heard; A chance to live the American dream that has been denied to so many… “In a previous career, I was the global leader of Diversity for a global fortune 500 corporation. I have studied the affects of diverse groups working together and the results can not be denied. Together we Thrive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” University of Arizona brass did not originate the “Together We Thrive” T-shirt. They merely recycled it for Obama—and recycled it in time for what should have been a dignified Memorial for the dead. If you were a mourner who took home a “Together We Thrive” T-shirt have a look at the bottom of your shirt. “Rocking America and Rocking the Vote” is a common theme of the DNC, and it’s right there on your Memorial T-shirt memento. Welcome to the era of Obama, where cheering and standing ovations, for the first time in history, became part of the Requiem for the Dead. http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/32138 |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Excellent response, Craig. The shirts were given out to upgrade the students' normal dress. Thank you for sharing that... |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: No problem Mike, though I think you probably missed the fact that I said that with my tongue firmly in my cheek. That's ok though, it's easy to misinterpret someone's intentions from a short post on an internet forum. It's slightly more difficult to miss the intention behind the claim that " Consultation Services" and "Death Panels", aren't one and the same thing. Or the intentions of the folk who are supplying that particular piece of misinformation. For the record, one is a good description used by Republicans to describe the end of life counselling that they introduced into law. The other is a not so good description of exactly the same thing, used by some Republican's to convince folk that it was a good idea when they suggested it, but that the Obama extension is just a conspiracy to kill your granny. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Yes, Mike, I do. If you'd like to show me something concrete to change my mind I'm certainly willing to listen. You know, like maybe some language within the bill that suggests otherwise? quote: Something concrete, Mike. Not conjecture? quote: Okay. I haven't seen the t-shirts, so I'll have to take your word for it. What or who did they ask people to vote for? If it's true, Mike, I'm honestly not sure how I would feel about someone trying to make political points from what is clearly a senseless tragedy. I have to wonder, though, how using the memorial to criticize Obama is greatly different? Aren't you trying to make political points in much the same way? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: It doesn't matter how many pages it is Denise. What matters is what's contained on the pages. The problem with the debate in this country is that K street has so muddied up the water with money that neither "side" can even agree on what the meaning of "is" is. All I see in your posts is regurgitation of talking points that have been marketed into your head. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Okay. I haven't seen the t-shirts, so I'll have to take your word for it. What or who did they ask people to vote for? Ron, it's right there in the article. Those were the t-shirts, along with the "Rocking America and rocking the vote" slogan that Obama's Organizing for America" that was used in the push for Obama for president. You don't need to take a wild guess to know that Obama was who they asked the people to vote for. If it's true, Mike, If what's true? That it was the slogan for Obama's group Organizing for America? That the Rocking America and rocking the vote slogan was on the t-shirts? Then welcome to the light.... Something concrete, Mike. Not conjecture? No, Ron, I can't give something concrete to what has yet to happen, no more than I could give concrete evidence that the lion is going to eat the dead lamb at it's feet it just killed. One has to go by reason, logic and past history to project. Health care costs will go through the roof under the government takeover. They will have to explore every area they can to cut costs. There will be thousands, millions, of old people with one foot in the grave and one on a banana peel. Perhaps you don't feel that the government will look at this as an area where they can cut costs by ceasing to provide coverage to the elderly with a limited life span. I don't envision it the same way. A government board will then decide who deserves to continue receiving life-saving treatment and who doesn't. If that doesn't scare you, then you are a better man than I. (Actually, you are probably a better man than I, regardless) I have to wonder, though, how using the memorial to criticize Obama is greatly different? Aren't you trying to make political points in much the same way? Go by the progression, Ron. Obama gave a good speech. Had there not been the circus atmosphere, the t-shirt hand out, the pep rally cheers and the like, there would have been no criticism of Obama in this regard. LR..and here I thought Clinton would be the only person with the audacity to say, "That all depends on what "is", is". Go figure...  |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: Ah, I see. It's not the end of life consultations that the Republicans introduced and then re-branded as death panels - it's another death panel that's got you so annoyed. So you're saying that the recently passed heath care legislation contains a provision to implement a board who are going to pick and choose who gets treatment and who doesn't. If that's true it's absolutely despicable, I've no idea how I missed such a heinous inclusion. Can you post the exact text relating to this death panel provision Mike, or give me the section reference so I can check out the text of the bill myself? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
If that's all you see, L.R., then perhaps you should go directly to the source for confirmation. Uncas, the problem isn't with the voluntary option for end of life counseling, either as initiated by the Republicans or by the Democrats. Everyone should be given full-disclosure on treatment and non-treatment options, whereby they can make informed decisions. The problem is that the current one is in conjunction with new boards and bureaucracies with the power and discretion to determine what the government will and will not pay for regarding treatment under Medicare and Medicaid based on value measurements like quality of life outcomes in light of age or other health issues, like with Obama's grandmother, for instance. Obama wasn't sure if that was the best use of money (hip replacement) in light of the fact that she had already been diagnosed with terminal cancer. That shouldn't be the govenrment's decision or an insurance company's decision, but the patient's decision only. When you have bureaucrats making those decisions that effect whether someone lives longer or dies sooner, then I think 'death panels' is a good description of what they are. Here is a link that lists 159 new government, boards, bureaucracies, commissions and grants created by obamacare (the previous number of 111 under Pelosi's bill didn't list the grants, I don't believe): http://fullmetalpatriot.blogspot.com/2010/04/list-of-159-new-government.html *my spelling is becoming atrocious lately* |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
Do you have the text from the bill that describes the formation and implementation of the death panel you just described Denise? I don't recall seeing anything like that when I read the legislation, I obviously missed it. The section or page number would suffice. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You can get the specific locations of the beauracracies, etc., in the list I provided. You can then invesigate, if you wish, the powers granted to them under the law to flesh out the details of the law, (as Pelosi said they would have during the 'debate' of the bill). There is no need for the law itself to mention 'death panels' (by that name or any other descriptive), all it had to do was lay the groundwork by creating the beauracracies and then give them the unbridled power to act (flesh out the details) in accord with the administration's agenda. |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
Denise, What's the name of the death panel that's going to decide who lives and who dies? If the bill outlines the creation of any, panel, commission or regulatory body it will also stipulate the function, funding and applicable members along with any powers granted to them. So which specific panel, commission or regulatory body are you talking about? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
My bet would be on one of the commissions or boards for Medicare and Medicaid that is charged with evaluating the value of expenditures. |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: Your bet! Are you saying that you don't actually know what the death panel is called? With respect Denise, if you don't know what it's called how the heck do you know what it's supposed to do or whether it actually exists at all? I presumed that when you were talking about a death panel that you actually had some evidence that it existed in the real world. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Medicaid quality measurement program (Section 2701, p. 518) Medicare value-based purchasing program (Section 3001(a), p. 613) Medicare value-based purchasing demonstration program for critical access hospitals (Section 3001(b), p. 637) Medicare value-based purchasing program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 3006(a), p. 666) Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 3021, p. 712) Medicare shared savings program (Section 3022, p. 728) Demonstration project for payment of complex diagnostic laboratory tests (Section 3113, p. 800) Independent Payment Advisory Board (Section 3403, p. 982) Primary Care Extension Program to educate providers (Section 5405, p. 1404) I would imagine that some or all of these agencies may have a direct impact on the health delivery decisions made under the new law. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The bottom line, Uncas, is that the government has new an unprecidented powers that will effect our healthcare delivery. They will hold the purse strings, they will mandate what doctors and hospitals can and cannot do, and for whom, under threat of fines and sanctions. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to ascertain where this will lead. |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: You've had a bet and now you're imagining Denise? quote: I agree, what it takes is someone to actually go through each of the points in the bill that you've listed and try and find evidence of this mythical death panel. Before I start is that your final list Denise? You aren't going to suddenly decide that the evidence is under the bed or hiding in the closet if I can't find it in the bill? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Check out all or most of the other ones on the list if you'd like to. No matter what you call it, death panel, advisory board, quality control commission, if the government has control to grant or deny care through regulation on healthcare providers or through the powers of the purse, then that is essentially a death panel, even though it isn't called that. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You aren't going to suddenly decide that the evidence is under the bed or hiding in the closet if I can't find it in the bill? Didn't take that long to get back to the way it was, I see. Refraining from personal potshots or insults seems to be too difficult to do for some. |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
If you have a complaint Mike then I suggest you report it, there's a button at the top right of each post. quote: What you're asking Denise is akin to claiming that pixies exist and then asking me to go catch you one to prove your case. I'm a little dumb, but not quite dumb enough to go on a wild pixy hunt without at least a couple of clues as to their possible whereabouts. I'll do a couple of searches relating to Death Panels and see if I can pinpoint which part of the bill prompted the claims, I'll let you know what I find. . |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
In the absence of a Living Will--which I believe should be accompanied by counseling in the form of information, an emergency situation forces the family of the person to become the 'death panel'. It's difficult enough to lose a family member without bearing the guilt of such a decision, and one can never gasp at medical miracles again without second-guessing the entire nightmare scenario over and over. And over. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Just an observation...no complaint. I'll simply wait for the forum to be closed again because of people unable to restrain themselves from tossing out personal insults and zingers. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
lol...I didn't ask you to do anything, Uncas, you offered! I accepted. If you don't want to, don't. |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
I offered to check the list you supplied Denise but I get the feeling you're just going to suggest that it must be somewhere else in the text when I've finished the first list. If you can supply some solid evidence that at least points me in the right direction my offer to look at e evidence is still open. If not I'll file the Death Panel remarks under "Unsubstantiated Claims" or "Hearsay". |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Well, I hope I didn't offend anyone--I confess I didn't read the entire thread--I'm having a bad head day.  And OH--Forgive me all for going off topic here--Reb, I wrote to you through Pipmail, but I guess I can ask you (or everyone) what happens to our Constitutional rights when Martial Law is put into effect? (I'm not sure if I know the answer, since I only really know what I know by personal experience.) |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
Thanks for the observation Mike. I'll keep my eye open for zingers and personal attacks and report any I see, I suggest you do the same. Confronting people about comments you believe are unacceptable in the thread itself is probably a bad idea. I'm fairly hard to wind up but other folk may take it as an invitation to start a slanging match and hasten the thing you're so dead set against happening - the closure of the forum. Then there's always the possibility that you might get it wrong Mike, that what you perceive as a zinger or insult turns out to simply be a bit of good humoured banter between people who have the greatest respect for each other. In that case your accusation is, in effect, an unwarranted attack on another member, or a false accusation, something I'm sure you'd rather avoided. I think that the safest thing all round is to just report the abuse. [This message has been edited by Uncas (01-16-2011 06:28 PM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I took it as an offer to add to the list before you got started, Uncas. I guess I misinterpreted what you meant. I think that this board would probably qualify as the most likey one to have the power to determine what is paid for and what is not paid for and for whom and therefore deny treatment based on a determination of quality of life/life expectancy formula: Independent Payments Advisory Board Do you believe that the government will not attempt to limit care to anybody once they are footing the bill? If not, then why the fines and sanctions on healthcare professionals who choose not to abide by the government issued protocols? Karen, why would you have offended anyone? And why would Martial Law have to be put into effect? |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Hey Denise. It is admittedly an off topic question and I probably should have formed it as a question in a separate thread. But when I start a thread, I feel compelled to follow it.  But trust that I have lived under Martial Law. "It" Happens. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: When did we stop calling that "insurance company," Denise? There's nothing wrong, I suppose, with conjecture. Except maybe when it's presented as fact? And when it's sole purpose seems to be to frighten people into doing what one wants? |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: Technically martial law is the temporary transfer of power of all three government branches to the military during a time when the local legal system and law enforcement is unable to function. It's basically a suspension of habeas corpus. The highest-ranking military officer would, in effect, be the legislator of what constituted an offence as well as the judge, juror and, potential, executioner. So under martial law your temporary constitutional rights would be whatever the military commander, or highest ranking officer on the ground, deemed them to be. But it's a lot more complicated than that. Louisiana was deemed to be under martial law after Katrina, though Louisiana doesn't have any reference to martial law in its statutes - Instead it's called something like " A state of public emergency". At that time the Governor took on the mantel of commander. Several other impositions of martial law have resulted in the mobilisation of military forces in the US while maintaining civil control. Lincoln put the whole country under martial law during the civil war, but the Supreme Court judged that it was unconstitutional to suspend habeas corpus in areas where the civil authorities could still function. So full martial law is unlikely. Oh! Only congress can suspend habeas corpus and therefore impose martial law, however the president can impose it in an emergency but it needs to be agreed or rejected by congress at the soonest possible time. It's one of those checks and balancey thingys. Hope that helps. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
No problem, Karen. Let me know what you find out? That's one of the new government boards, Ron, not an insurance company. Conjecture? Sure, I guess you can call it that, but can we safely assume that with all the new government powers created under this new law that they won't exercise any of that power when the money is under their control? Are they issuing mandates on healthcare providers and levying fines for lack of compliance to government protocols just because they have nothing better to do, or do you think it might have something to do with the money aspect and how and for whom they want it spent? |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Thank you, very much, Uncas. (My apologies for the intrusion, too, Reb.) I really should start a Karen's Krazy Kwestions thread...and OH--I don't really think that my pocket copy of The Constitution will get me through a National Guard checkpoint, but I carry it anyway. Love to all. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Hmmm. Even on a bad head day, I still have questions. I am confused (or mentally ill) depending on the definition. I do hope no one takes offense at my questions, but I am wondering, as we learn more about mental illness, regarding how the gap between mental illness and physical illness is bridged. The human brain (definitely physical) is subjected to so many trials during a lifetime, and the last information I'd read in science daily is the remarkable ability for some people's brains to overcome trauma, while others are fraught with emotional frailty. If we must talk about "death panels" I assert that we must also talk about, in the context of these trying times, of "sanity panels". As I hear protests of socialized medicine, I can't help but think of places with names such as "Pathways", "Promises" and yep, I even heard of one called "Serenity" which basically assists people who are deemed to be in need of social skills. These places are government sponsored and rely on communal contribution. This means, although I have never been directly involved in such a place, that if a person is "involuntarily committed" by the authorities (deemed as dangerous to themselves or the general public) and thereafter, during treatment, show promise of being able to become a contributing member of society yet again, they are sent to what we deem "Halfway Houses". These houses (one of which looks like any other home around the corner to me) operate with the support of government funding, as well as by seizing whatever privately owned funds or material objects to subsidize the "household". If someone has no such alternate funding, counselors are provided to apply for unemployment, disability, or welfare--each according to the applicant's need. Applicant. Sounds voluntary, and sometimes it is. Where is the cry of "slippery slope" of socialized medicine in these cases? If I'm wrong about this being a form of socialized medicine, somebody please be patient enough to explain to me what the difference(s) might be. Such places have been around for half of my life now, which happens to be nearing a quarter of a decade. In spite of all of my efforts otherwise. ? |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: Denise, Would that be the same Independent Payments Advisory Board that is restricted, by law, from acting anything like a death panel? "The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1818, 1818A, or 1839, increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria." Would you care to take another guess? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Safely assume? LOL. Those two words would should never be used together, Denise. Of course, I call it conjecture, Denise. I'd even go so far as to call it wild conjecture. Every single thing you've said about national health care (a misnomer for insurance) applies to private health care (i.e., our current insurance industry) and has for something like a hundred years. You haven't offered one single thing that isn't conjecture and guesses. Not one thing. quote: No, they're doing it, Denise, because our present health care is system is broken. They "think" they know how to get the costs back under control, but nothing will work so long as there are outliers who refuse to cooperate. Here's just one example of what I mean. Let's say you and nine other people become a state. You and eight of those people agree to fund a program to cover everyone's health insurance. Doing so manages to drive down the cost of health care a little bit for everyone. But there's that tenth guy standing over there doing nothing. He doesn't pay into the fund. He does, however, soon enough get sick. Do you let him die? Of course not. That wouldn't be humane. So you pay for his care when he gets sick -- and the savings you thought you had are very quickly gone. That's pretty much our current system. Your only two choices are to let him die or FORCE him (you used the words mandate and fine) him to cooperate with everyone else and pay his fair share into the fund. The government thinks cooperation will help bring costs down for everyone. It would be nice if that cooperation was unanimously voluntary, but I suspect you and I both stopped believing in fairy tales a long time ago, Denise. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Something just came to mind, Uncas. There was a provision inserted into the Stimulus Bill creating a Federal Health Care Panel to decide which medical treatments and drugs were medically necessary and cost effective. That's probably what was in the back of my mind. It's not part of the main healthcare law, but law nonetheless. Ron, I was thinking more of the mandates, fines and sanctions against physicians and other healthcare providers who don't come into compliance with the government's regulations regarding electronic medical records and treatment protocols. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Again, Denise, they're simply mandating cooperation. The doctor who keeps your records on the back of an envelope in the top drawer of his desk raises costs for everyone when you inevitably have to see another doctor. In a free enterprise system, all the doctors and all the patients could do anything they wanted. The market would cull all those outliers and force costs into line. But we don't have a free enterprise system and we won't unless you and everyone else agrees to start paying your own bills. No one seems to want to do that, though, do they? The alternative, at least the way our government sees it, is to eliminate this partial-not-quite-Socialist-cooperate-if-you-want-to system that clearly isn't working and go to one where everyone cooperates whether they want to or not. Sort of like the IRS, you know? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
So far the courts are saying that the cooperate whether you like it or not is unconstitutionl regarding the purchasing of a good or service. We'll have to wait to see how that all turns out. The system won't work without it. Maybe they will go back to the drawing board, repeal this mess, including the provision they snuck into the Stimulus Bill, and start over with more market-based solutions. I know it won't be a true free market based system but they have to come up with something better than this socialist one. One thing they could do, and I don't know why they don't, is to make Medicare voluntary. Not everyone needs it, and yet as the law stands, there is no choice...boom...once you hit 65 you are on Medicare and your own private insurance becomes your secondary insurance. They might also consider making Social Security means tested...not everyone needs that either. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Why not just advocate for that true free market based system, Denise? Free enterprise, to mangle an old cliché, is a bit like being pregnant; there is no half-way. Rent control, price fixing, and insurance don't just make a mockery of Capitalism, they eviscerate it. Maybe those things could actually work if done correctly; I don't really know, in large part I suppose because they've NEVER been done correctly. We've never had a society smart enough to improve on a free market. And every time they've tried, they've just gummed up the works. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I'll add that to my wish list, along with waking up one day and finding out the IRS has been abolished and the Fair Tax has replaced it! I don't think we'll se either in our lifetime. |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: That would be the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research Denise. quote: Not quite. The council was established to coordinate the existing comparative research that's undertaken and to create annual reports, including recommendations to improve the collection and distribution, of comparative research data. In plain English Denise, if bill in New York is collecting data on the effectiveness of drug A and Bob is undertaking a similar study on drug B to treat the same condition, the council is tasked with working out how to ensure that both studies are available for comparison. They have no power to dictate to clinicians or patients which treatment is used - their job is simply to make sure that all the facts are available to those making the choice. Sounds like a darn good idea to me. Any more possible death panels Denise? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I would imagine that they would present their recommendations based on the data that they have studied and compared to HHS or some of the other boards or panels under HHS who will then take it to the next level of declaring certain procedures or drugs as medically necessary or not (cost effective based on age or secondary health issues), in their opinion, based on an average of outcomes, found in the studies. It probably isn't any one board or committee, but the whole system working in tandem to eventually arrive at a consensus of acceptable and mandated protocols to be followed by physicians, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies. Somebody will be creating such protocols, otherwise why have fines and sanctions against healthcare providers in the law for not following the government mandated protocols? It's already happened on the state level where the state refused to pay for a life saving treatment or drug for people unfortunate enough to have to be insured through the state. I read of one woman who was refused a proven lifesaving cancer drug and told that the state would only pay for end-of-life pain pills and another person was taken off a transplant list because the state refused to pay for it. I'm sure there are many such stories around the country than these two that I happened to come upon. I don't think that the federal level will be more compassionate, nor more compassionate than private insurers, for that matter. Having the government calling all the shots regarding healthcare delivery is a very bad idea. They will be picking winners and losers just as they do under Crony Capitalism. So I would call any system where government beauraucrats formulate protocols that impacts treatment options that lead to a shortening of life a death panel, the same as I would call insurance company review boards who make the same decisions a death panel. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
You know, I have to admit I haven't done much reading on it. I like some of the things on the bill, but for the most part, I believe that this bill is just the beginning of the governments move to socialism. Very sad. People should be allowed to make mistakes and pay for them. I think if uncle sam foots the bill, it would suck. I work hard to keep healthy, I work hard to earn money and I will have to pay out more money, because others didnot. It just annoys me. -Juju |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "I work hard to keep healthy, I work hard to earn money and I will have to pay out more money, because others didnot." Apart from politics, in a national health care system with limited resources, why not death panels? The question arose out of reading: "The Hot Spotters" by Atul Gawande in the January 24th issue of The New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/01/24/110124fa_fact_gawande . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear John, I read the New Yorker article as an invitation to death panels, the way I think you did from your comment. I confess, though, I am unclear about your comment, so I can't be sure. I did really enjoy the article and thought it was fascinating. I can't really comment on how the delivery of health care in general might be affected by the approaches talked about in the article, since my experience is more specifically in mental health care delivery. There, it does fit pretty well, and I think the comments about (my word here) morale in chronic patients are spot on. What's your take on the same problem with chronic patients who use the system for physical illnesses? You can spot areas where the system is broken without needing to kill the people who have the problems that are identified, which is I think what the article was talking about. I think it was also talking about morale problems not only with the patients but with the caretakers. I thought the little story about the poor cops at the beginning of the article was very sad indeed. Cops are generally such idealists when they go into the field, and to see them so terribly discouraged and burnt out is very sad indeed. It's easy to overlook the care they need and are often too frightened to seek. Anyway, Best to you, Bob K. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: It's actually the case Juju -- that with Obamacare (and shouldn't he feel honored that a hundred years from now your descendants will still be calling their health insurance system after him?) you are actually going to be paying LESS because others did not. You're already paying MORE. But, what's really cool -- is that people can get primary care now -- and not have to wait until a condition becomes an emergency -- and nobody will need to die because of a lack of money. Isn't that cool? Isn't that more important than your pocketbook? |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
