It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused Stir

page: 6
15
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 



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.



While the new law does not mention advance care planning, the Obama administration has been able to achieve its policy goal through the regulation-writing process, a strategy that could become more prevalent in the next two years as the president deals with a strengthened Republican opposition in Congress.



Section 1233 of the bill passed by the House in November 2009 — but not included in the final legislation — allowed Medicare to pay for consultations about advance care planning every five years. In contrast, the new rule allows annual discussions as part of the wellness visit.



Thus far, it seems that no press or blogs have discovered it, but we will be keeping a close watch and may be calling on you if we need a rapid, targeted response. The longer this goes unnoticed, the better our chances of keeping it.”


As I said, why have a Legislature. We all know this law was passed by the most unethical ways. And even if not-technically, it was preceived as such by the American people. Hence the Nov 2010 elections.

This shows again that the POTUS Administration is not being forcoming and/or honest in it's actions. In a supposed Transparent administration.




posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by GirlGenius
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


You don't understand. Simply wearing a white coat and offering subtle cues will influence behavior. This was amply borne out in the Milgram studies.


Precisely...and that is one reason the status qou is sucks. Where grandpa is 91 years old has a heart condition that everyone agrees isn't going to get better and is in his last few months...and doc says they would like to keep him in the hospital till the minute he passes running maybe 100 different tests ....one about every few hours for weeks on end to make sure there is nothing peaceful or restful in his remaining time...and please see the "family visiting hours" sign and hope that your grandpa doesn't die during off-hours. The hospital makes tons of money following protocol...And that doc in the white coat knows better, but still follows protocol...protocol makes money.

This end of life counseling gives the patient the chance to say to his family and his doctor...no thank you...if it is clearly my time...let me go...at home...in my own house...with my family. Then again...if he wants to kick and scratch to the bitter end surrounded by doctors...he can choose that as well.

But when he is no longer able to communicate his choice...what you are left with is children fighting over what to do and a hospital doing EVERYTHING neccessary or not neccessary. It is like hitting the lotto for the hospital. they will hook up every machine...run every test...try every medication..Cha-Ching...they will poke and prod and keep him thier literally unto his dying breath....just following protocol! Doing everything we can...even though we know none of it will work.

It takes real MFers to demonize an iniative like this for political purposes. It empowers patients and families with rights and choices in very difficult times where doctors and hospitals routinely run-over patients wishes.


edit on 27-12-2010 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Actually patients can already refuse treatment.

And many at that age decide to do so. Some however like to exercise the hope that something will change in their condition.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by anon72
As I said, why have a Legislature. We all know this law was passed by the most unethical ways. And even if not-technically, it was preceived as such by the American people. Hence the Nov 2010 elections.

This shows again that the POTUS Administration is not being forcoming and/or honest in it's actions. In a supposed Transparent administration.



WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU CAN QUOTE TEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now can you actually address the questions I asked? I find it funny that you would dare accuse me of not getting the article when you yourself cannot explain how it says what you think it says in now TWO TRIES.

NICE!

Can you read my questions? Should I write them differently?



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


To be honest with you, the thing that really confounds me is not so much how people get this stuff confused but how people can watch a television show that tells them the government is setting up panels to decide how and when to start killing taxpayers off and doctors will line up to help kill off their patients and none of these people even remotely begin to question that kind of logic. Now that really really scares me. Maybe if one of them could make it make sense to me?



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish

Originally posted by GirlGenius
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


Unfortunately, a significant percentage of people will fall under the sway of authority figures.


Apparently, much like yourself.

It's not "end of life planning" that's so controversial, but rather it's people like you blowing things like this completely out of proportion and then propagating your own fears onto others that creates the political uproar that you speak of.

You don't work for Faux News, do you?
edit on 26-12-2010 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)


Nice try.

The end of life planning that was decried as fake by people like yourself is now revealed to be real. Next we will learn that, through an administrative decision that health care for older people will be rationed, and finally we will learn of measures to actively eliminate the elderly.

You don't work for Olbermann, do you? See how easy that was?



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   
My question is: If either the individual or their assignees will hold the power to make end of life decisions for Grandma or Uncle Joe, then why do we need Obama sticking his nose into their business? Why do we need a law to address this? We all know that any law will be like the proverbial camel's nose under the tent..

Come to think of it, Obama looks suspiciously like a camel...



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou
Nice try.

The end of life planning that was decried as fake by people like yourself is now revealed to be real.


Uh...when did that happen? Where? The end of life planning that was about the government deciding grandma needed to be put down because a new hip would cost too much that I said was fake, is still fake. When did that change?


Next we will learn that, through an administrative decision that health care for older people will be rationed, and finally we will learn of measures to actively eliminate the elderly.


You cannot learn anything "next" until you learn at least a first thing. What was that first thing?


You don't work for Olbermann, do you? See how easy that was?


How easy what was?

Am I being punked?



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
My question is: If either the individual or their assignees will hold the power to make end of life decisions for Grandma or Uncle Joe, then why do we need Obama sticking his nose into their business?


Because at the moment HUMANA makes those decisions and decides which options you get to hear about. Obama is trying to make sure that you get MORE OPTIONS than what your greedy insurance company wants to give you - you know, the one that will profit them the best.


Why do we need a law to address this? We all know that any law will be like the proverbial camel's nose under the tent..

Come to think of it, Obama looks suspiciously like a camel...


So this is retarded thread day? What the heck does that even mean?



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


It's because a lot of these posters watch a lot of FOX News and because FOX says it's bad, they say it's bad, ever since this story broke, all the FOX brainwashing team has been going into overtime to paint this as a horrible thing.

The fact is, it's in a doctors best interests financially to try and keep a person alive for as long as possible, a dead person can't be charged further for treatment. A living person can, and they can be milked for all they are worth.

So, the ridiculous idea of "Death Panels" as proposed by the brainwashing team at FOX News is erroneous, giving people more information does not equate to offing them.


The breakdown of the medical profession by the lawyers is what is causing the problem not the media talking heads. The 400 lb gorilla missing from Obama health care is tort reform. The prohibitive costs of practicing are persuading prospective doctors to go into other fields to make the best living from their talents. The government stepping in to regulate what the remaining doctors can charge for their services creates the potential for what is common in socialist nations. Wham, bam, thank you ma'am waiting rooms. The more patients serviced, the better. Fewer doctors and so more patients receiving less attention from those that remain. I've seen this from my GP for years. More doctors competing in an open market is what is needed. Competition not regulation.

The government will not get the lawyers out of the doctor's office as the government is filled with lawyers. They take care of their own. The television boogeymen pale in comparison to the lawyers. Many times the television creeps are lawyers. I know, creeps and lawyers is redundant. When was the last time you heard Billo or Barry barking for tort reform?



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by mishigas
My question is: If either the individual or their assignees will hold the power to make end of life decisions for Grandma or Uncle Joe, then why do we need Obama sticking his nose into their business?


Because at the moment HUMANA makes those decisions and decides which options you get to hear about. Obama is trying to make sure that you get MORE OPTIONS than what your greedy insurance company wants to give you - you know, the one that will profit them the best.


Here's a better idea than giving Barry the key to your O2 machine....keep both him AND Humana out of my end of life?


Why do we need a law to address this? We all know that any law will be like the proverbial camel's nose under the tent..

Come to think of it, Obama looks suspiciously like a camel...



So this is retarded thread day? What the heck does that even mean?


Tsk, tsk. Ad hominem slights. :shk: Time for a nap?



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   


Originally posted by mishigas

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by mishigas
My question is: If either the individual or their assignees will hold the power to make end of life decisions for Grandma or Uncle Joe, then why do we need Obama sticking his nose into their business?


Because at the moment HUMANA makes those decisions and decides which options you get to hear about. Obama is trying to make sure that you get MORE OPTIONS than what your greedy insurance company wants to give you - you know, the one that will profit them the best.


Here's a better idea than giving Barry the key to your O2 machine....keep both him AND Humana out of my end of life?


Why do we need a law to address this? We all know that any law will be like the proverbial camel's nose under the tent..

Come to think of it, Obama looks suspiciously like a camel...



So this is retarded thread day? What the heck does that even mean?


Tsk, tsk. Ad hominem slights. :shk: Time for a nap?


Yes to the poor dear saying people look like camels. That is the Ad hom attack you are referring to, correct?
edit on 27-12-2010 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


I think it explains my point(s) exactly.

I guess it where you stand on the fence line.

As far as the quoted text, you are the one who aske to have the specific parts I was referring to pointed out. Then you cut ar it.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia
[Because at the moment HUMANA makes those decisions and decides which options you get to hear about. Obama is trying to make sure that you get MORE OPTIONS than what your greedy insurance company wants to give you - you know, the one that will profit them the best.



Seriously, what are you basing that statement on? Hopes and dreams? Something your teacher told you? A printed list of democrat talking points? You actually read the entire bill and understand what is in it?

Hint for sinnthia: Your government is going to have to cut the budget. Cuts will have to come from across the board - including obamacare. That's when they wuill start telling people they can' afford for them to stay alive any more. How will you feel then when it's gramps, or your mom, or someday you?



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Actually patients can already refuse treatment.


That is a a naive statement.

Patients...specifically the elderly...are questioned on "capacity" if they refuse treatment. Sometimes children of the patient get on board with the doctor and bully the patient into various tests...and other times the elderly patient is declared incompetent and the child has legal authority.

Sometimes folks slip into a state of non-communication, handicap or coma..

Often the patient is under the heavy influence of drugs and is rolled over by Doctors telling them what they MUST do.

Otherwise your claim is technically accurate, but very dishonest in this context.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou

Originally posted by Flatfish

Originally posted by GirlGenius
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


Unfortunately, a significant percentage of people will fall under the sway of authority figures.


Apparently, much like yourself.

It's not "end of life planning" that's so controversial, but rather it's people like you blowing things like this completely out of proportion and then propagating your own fears onto others that creates the political uproar that you speak of.

You don't work for Faux News, do you?
edit on 26-12-2010 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)


Nice try.

The end of life planning that was decried as fake by people like yourself is now revealed to be real. Next we will learn that, through an administrative decision that health care for older people will be rationed, and finally we will learn of measures to actively eliminate the elderly.


You forgot to include links? Non - bias articles?

Really ugly dishonesty and fear mongering.

I think the anonymity of the interent brings out the worst in people.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anthony1138
Ok lets say person:a is brain dead the family wants person:a alive but the doctor can go ahead and pull the plug because keeping someone alive who is brain dead is unethical. Imagine being stuck to your body unable to think unable to leave because members of your family could not deal with your passing and thus are playing god by keeping you here.

So this isn't as bad as you are making it out to be, the doctor is merely giving the options, you cannot save everyone, plus we are over populated in a bad economic time, so this would be the logical choice of what would be needed to be done, no point crying over it, sometimes I think human beings are too emotional, it blinds you from the bigger picture.


By your logic we should just line up the unhealthy people and shoot them.
The BIGGER PICTURE is that NO ONE should interfere with personal issues... not by law, not by regulation and certainly not by decree!




top topics



 
15
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join