It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Feds May Reimburse Medicare 'End-of-Life Discussions'

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 3 2014 @ 06:41 PM

originally posted by: grandmakdw
a reply to: links234

The problem becomes unintended consequences.

Obamacare was a noble idea, but now more people are uninsured then before it started...

False. In U.S., Uninsured Rate Sinks to 13.4% in Second Quarter

This is the lowest quarterly average recorded since Gallup and Healthways began tracking the percentage of uninsured Americans in 2008.


and the average family pays a great deal more for insurance than before it was enacted. Unintended consequences.

The price of health insurance has gone down twice in the past 30 years.
Net Cost of Private Health Insurance, Including Administrative Costs, per Person Covered, 1987-2012

An increase in price has always occurred and was unlikely to go down by itself. If you ask me, the ACA had no effect on the price of health insurance.

Forbes also has a lot of data to show as well.

Michele O was trying to stop obesity with her lunch program. Now the children who rely on the lunch program for their only meal of the day are starving because food stamps have been cut at the same time to save money in the federal budget. Unintended consequences.

Are you really going to suggest that food stamp cuts were because of the president? Not the congress that was howling about welfare costs and demanding cuts? I'm not sure how the first lady's school lunch idea of healthier foods is supposed to tie into food stamps.

Welfare was instituted to help women and children and made it illegal for a family with a father in the house to receive welfare, now millions upon millions have been raised fatherless with all the societal consequences (in a fatherless home children are more likely to - not will - but more likely to do drugs, have casual sex quite young, engage in criminal activity) Unintended consequences.

I've found no evidence suggesting that welfare for two-parent households is illegal. I think you're pushing conjecture with that one.

Let's look at an example with a positive outcome:
the government first recommended people stop smoking when they found out the consequences
then the government put an age restriction on buying cigarettes
then the government put warning labels on cigarette packages
then the government made it illegal to smoke indoors
then the government made it illegal to smoke in certain outdoor areas

What started as a recommendation ended up in deeper and deeper restrictions and legislation

That's what happens when the government gets involved in things a rapid slide into intrusive "we know what is best for you because it is best for all of us"

So local government and national government are the same thing now? I don't think any of that is a problem, I don't think it's intrusive either.

Any doctor can right now, without medicare paying a dime, discuss end of life care, it is not illegal, it can be billed as a regular visit,
make it a special line item
if not to promote it?
why promote it?

Why promote it? I mentioned earlier, 70% of people don't talk about it. That's a huge reason to promote it. Isn't it?

posted on Sep, 3 2014 @ 06:47 PM
We already have doctor assisted suicide in America, it's called "hospice care".

They drug people up on enough pain killers to retard their breathing so they suffocate to death. No one wants to admit it, but it's true. I've known family members and friends's family members that were given obscene dosages of pain killers that caused them to go into respiratory failure.

Don't tell the spouse that, or the grieving family that the hospice workers intentionally dosed grandma with enough pain killers to make her stop breathing. Big elephant in the room people...

<< 1   >>

log in