Palin 'death panel' claim sets Truth-O-Meter ablaze

reply to post by weedwhacker


I never said there was a death panel, but there is this... Goverment panel

.
11 SEC. 123. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
12 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—
13 (1) IN GENERAL.—There is established a pri14
vate-public advisory committee which shall be a
15 panel of medical and other experts to be known as
16 the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to rec17
ommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced,
18 and premium plans.
19 (2) CHAIR.—The Surgeon General shall be a
20 member and the chair of the Health Benefits Advi21
sory Committee.
22 (3) MEMBERSHIP.—The Health Benefits Advi23
sory Committee shall be composed of the following
24 members, in addition to the Surgeon General:
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:22 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
31
•HR 3200 IH
1 (A) 9 members who are not Federal em2
ployees or officers and who are appointed by
3 the President.
4 (B) 9 members who are not Federal em5
ployees or officers and who are appointed by
6 the Comptroller General of the United States in
7 a manner similar to the manner in which the
8 Comptroller General appoints members to the
9 Medicare Payment Advisory Commission under
10 section 1805(c) of the Social Security Act.
11 (C) Such even number of members (not to
12 exceed 8) who are Federal employees and offi13
cers, as the President may appoint.
14 Such initial appointments shall be made not later
15 than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this
16 Act.
17 (4) TERMS.—Each member of the Health Bene18
fits Advisory Committee shall serve a 3-year term on
19 the Committee, except that the terms of the initial
20 members shall be adjusted in order to provide for a
21 staggered term of appointment for all such mem22
bers.
23 (5) PARTICIPATION.—The membership of the
24 Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall at least
25 reflect providers, consumer representatives, employ-
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:22 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
32
•HR 3200 IH
1 ers, labor, health insurance issuers, experts in health
2 care financing and delivery, experts in racial and
3 ethnic disparities, experts in care for those with dis4
abilities, representatives of relevant governmental
5 agencies. and at least one practicing physician or
6 other health professional and an expert on children’s
7 health and shall represent a balance among various
8 sectors of the health care system so that no single
9 sector unduly influences the recommendations of
10 such Committee.
11 (b) DUTIES.—
12 (1) RECOMMENDATIONS ON BENEFIT STAND13
ARDS.—The Health Benefits Advisory Committee
14 shall recommend to the Secretary of Health and
15 Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as the
16 ‘‘Secretary’’) benefit standards (as defined in para17
graph (4)), and periodic updates to such standards.
18 In developing such recommendations, the Committee
19 shall take into account innovation in health care and
20 consider how such standards could reduce health dis21
parities.
22 (2) DEADLINE.—The Health Benefits Advisory
23 Committee shall recommend initial benefit standards
24 to the Secretary not later than 1 year after the date



As well as this
ANNUAL LIMITATION.—
4 (A) ANNUAL LIMITATION.—The cost-shar5
ing incurred under the essential benefits pack6
age with respect to an individual (or family) for
7 a year does not exceed the applicable level spec8
ified in subparagraph (B).
9 (B) APPLICABLE LEVEL.—The applicable
10 level specified in this subparagraph for Y1 is
11 $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a
12 family. Such levels shall be increased (rounded
13 to the nearest $100) for each subsequent year
14 by the annual percentage increase in the Con15
sumer Price Index (United States city average)
16 applicable to such year.
17 (C) USE OF COPAYMENTS.—In establishing
18 cost-sharing levels for basic, enhanced, and pre19
mium plans under this subsection, the Sec20
retary shall, to the maximum extent possible,
21 use only copayments and not coinsurance.
22 (3) MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE.—
23 (A) IN GENERAL.—The cost-sharing under
24 the essential benefits package shall be designed
25 to provide a level of coverage that is designed
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:22 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
30
•HR 3200 IH
1 to provide benefits that are actuarially equiva2
lent to approximately 70 percent of the full ac3
tuarial value of the benefits provided under the
4 reference benefits package described in sub5
paragraph (B).
6 (B) REFERENCE BENEFITS PACKAGE DE7
SCRIBED.—The reference benefits package de8
scribed in this subparagraph is the essential
9 benefits package if there were no cost-sharing
10 imposed.



Theres to much room for goverment shannigans........



Forgot to add the URL frwebgate.access.gpo.gov...:h3200ih.pdf

Page 22-50 and theres much more where this came from.

[edit on 10-8-2009 by poedxsoldiervet]

I heard that the death panels will review your case and either accept or shoot you in the head. We must fight this!!! Palin 2012!!!

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Keep up the [politically charged insult removed] talking points. At least some brain cells will get agitated.

Fortunately, as regards to the actual truth, I happen to have downloaded the proposed bill and it's riddled with death care advisories and bureaucrats deciding who gets to live and who gets to die.

So here are some quotes. First it clearly shows the death care goons are mandated to visit grandma every 5 years.

‘‘(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the
7 term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a con8
sultation between the individual and a practitioner de9
scribed in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning,
10 if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has
11 not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such
12 consultation shall include the following:
13 ‘‘(A) An explanation by the practitioner of ad14
vance care planning, including key questions and
15 considerations, important steps, and suggested peo16
ple to talk to.

....
‘‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the
5 continuum of end-of-life services and supports avail6
able, including palliative care and hospice, and bene7
fits for such services and supports that are available
8 under this title.
9 ‘‘(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of
10 orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar
11 orders, which shall include—

Here's the part where the bureacrats decide if you grandma gets to live to die,

‘‘(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement
6 for explanations under clause (i) to consultations
7 furnished in a State—
8 ‘‘(I) in which all legal barriers have been
9 addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining
10 treatment to constitute a set of medical orders
11 respected across all care settings; and
12 ‘‘(II) that has in effect a program for or13
ders for life sustaining treatment described in
14 clause (iii).
15 ‘‘(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining
16 treatment for a States described in this clause is a
17 program that—
18 ‘‘(I) ensures such orders are standardized
19 and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;
20 ‘‘(II) distributes or makes accessible such
21 orders to physicians and other health profes22
sionals that (acting within the scope of the pro23
fessional’s authority under State law) may sign
24 orders for life sustaining treatment;
VerDate Nov 24 2008 12:51 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00427 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\AAHCA0~1.XML HOLCPC
July 14, 2009 (12:51 p.m.)
F:\P11\NHI\TRICOMM\AAHCA09_001.XML
f:\VHLC\071409\071409.140.xml (444390|2)
428
1 ‘‘(III) provides training for health care
2 professionals across the continuum of care
3 about the goals and use of orders for life sus4
taining treatment; and
5 ‘‘(IV) is guided by a coalition of stake6
holders includes representatives from emergency
7 medical services, emergency department physi8
cians or nurses, state long-term care associa9
tion, state medical association, state surveyors,
10 agency responsible for senior services, state de11
partment of health, state hospital association,
12 home health association, state bar association,
13 and state hospice association.

Please read Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

[edit on 10/8/09 by masqua]

2nd edit to replace URL

[edit on 10/8/09 by masqua]

Originally posted by SevenThunders
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

Keep up the demonrat talking points. At least some brain cells will get agitated.

Fortunately, as regards to the actual truth, I happen to have downloaded the proposed bill and it's riddled with death care advisories and bureaucrats deciding who gets to live and who gets to die.

So here are some quotes. First it clearly shows the death care goons are mandated to visit grandma every 5 years.

‘‘(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the
7 term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a con8
sultation between the individual and a practitioner de9
scribed in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning,
10 if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has
11 not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such
12 consultation shall include the following:
13 ‘‘(A) An explanation by the practitioner of ad14
vance care planning, including key questions and
15 considerations, important steps, and suggested peo16
ple to talk to.

....
‘‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the
5 continuum of end-of-life services and supports avail6
able, including palliative care and hospice, and bene7
fits for such services and supports that are available
8 under this title.
9 ‘‘(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of
10 orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar
11 orders, which shall include—

Here's the part where the bureacrats decide if you grandma gets to live to die,

‘‘(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement
6 for explanations under clause (i) to consultations
7 furnished in a State—
8 ‘‘(I) in which all legal barriers have been
9 addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining
10 treatment to constitute a set of medical orders
11 respected across all care settings; and
12 ‘‘(II) that has in effect a program for or13
ders for life sustaining treatment described in
14 clause (iii).
15 ‘‘(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining
16 treatment for a States described in this clause is a
17 program that—
18 ‘‘(I) ensures such orders are standardized
19 and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;
20 ‘‘(II) distributes or makes accessible such
21 orders to physicians and other health profes22
sionals that (acting within the scope of the pro23
fessional’s authority under State law) may sign
24 orders for life sustaining treatment;
VerDate Nov 24 2008 12:51 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00427 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\AAHCA0~1.XML HOLCPC
July 14, 2009 (12:51 p.m.)
F:\P11\NHI\TRICOMM\AAHCA09_001.XML
f:\VHLC\071409\071409.140.xml (444390|2)
428
1 ‘‘(III) provides training for health care
2 professionals across the continuum of care
3 about the goals and use of orders for life sus4
taining treatment; and
5 ‘‘(IV) is guided by a coalition of stake6
holders includes representatives from emergency
7 medical services, emergency department physi8
cians or nurses, state long-term care associa9
tion, state medical association, state surveyors,
10 agency responsible for senior services, state de11
partment of health, state hospital association,
12 home health association, state bar association,
13 and state hospice association.

Where does it say in there the government is going to kill your grandma? Seems to me there's some provisions there for making sure one's estate and wishes are in order. However, I don't see anything there about senior citizen death squads?

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

A question is politco an Obama outlet or a true middle of the road paper?

I have also read the thousand page bill and there are parts of it that are downright scary, like how the HHS secretary will apoint a board to review costly procedures.( Not Verbatim)

Also how they will have access to your bank accounts to collect fees that are due.

While it does mention you can keep your health insurance through your employer a goverment option would in effect either kill competion; by putting in low cost plans that insurance compaines couldnt compete with in effect driving everyone onto the goverment option which would drive other insurers out of buisness giving the goverment a monoply on your health insurance. Or fix the price of all health care needs which would in turn enforce insurance companies to also set there prices the same way in order to stay in buisness..... ( Similar with what the Oil Cartels Due.)

But the true kicker here that makes me really fear this things is this... Congress, the prez, and federal employess due not have to take this... If it is so good as they are saying it is, Why dont they take this option?????? That makes the whole thing suspect.....


Now I believe in a a free market I do not believe the government has the right to involve its self in private buinsess affairs. (yes to include the bank bailouts, even though it appears to be working) I belive the government should regulate things Thats there job, they shouldnt be in the buisness of running a buisness.

Whatcha think?

As a subscriber to the St. Petersburg Times(PolitiFact parent)I can assure it is a left wing rag. All the editorials fall right in line with Obama and the paper is working very hard to belittle and demoralize anyone opposing Obamas agenda.

[edit on 8/10/2009 by Missing Blue Sky]

And the next day, Palin calls for civil discourse on the healthcare issue.

Source

In her latest posting, Palin says there are many disturbing details in the bill. But she says people must stick to discussion of the issues "and not get sidetracked by tactics that can be accused of leading to intimidation or harassment."

Sounds like she's flip flopped on her "downright evil" comment.

Keith Olbermann's special comment tonight talked about the healthcare organized protesters. It was pretty good.

reply to post by weedwhacker

AND, this is different from the FOR-PROFIT Health Insurance Companies denying needed medical care and dropping patients rather than paying claims.....this is different how, again???

You should really read the bill it will really open your eyes. For one the government will decide which insurance companies get to take part in the Health Care Exchange, in other words the government will decide which companies you can buy insurance from.

I wasn't aware that health insurance companies had the power to deny other health insurance companies from doing business.

You second point is completely moot. I completely dismissed the existence of a "death panel", I just mentioned that there would be a panel that decides what treatments get provided.

So why wouldn't one exist? Health Insurance companies already do it don't they?

Ranting and raving about supposed propaganda, goes both ways. Except I'm not the perpetrator of it, seeing how I have actually read the bill.

And as far as wanting somebody to point you to the section, do yourself a favor and read the bill yourself.

[edit on 10-8-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Palin is an evil person. I have issues with a lot of things going on with the current administration, and the current Congress...but Palin - I have more issues with her.

Succinctly voiced...she's an idiot.

reply to post by weedwhacker


I like how people argue against the insurance companies denying health coverage by saying "How is this different" in reference to the government doing THE SAME THING. The whole damn point is to make it different, to make health care more affordable. If the government is going to do the same damned thing that the insurance companies are then we're trading one evil for the same evil in a different package.

Ridiculous reasoning skills.

With this kind of logic, no wonder this country is so screwed.

[edit on 10-8-2009 by projectvxn]

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

Palin is an evil person. I have issues with a lot of things going on with the current administration, and the current Congress...but Palin - I have more issues with her.

Succinctly voiced...she's an idiot.

And she'll be your next president. The birther movement is one that will grow into a movement I call "the destroyers", the destroyers will stop at nothing to ruin the country in an effort to destroy Obama's presidency. Once they do this Palin will be your new leader. In all honesty I really want Palin to be the next pres so I can watch the reaction of the Palinites when the entire country collapses under her rule. Who will they blame then? I guess they'll just blame Obama.

reply to post by projectvxn


Well....I phrased that rather poorly, I admit.

I should have clarified that a proposed Health Care plan that follows the general outlines and guidelines of the other, oh, two-dozen+ Industrialized Western Nations will NOT be able to withhold and drop individuals, deny care because they are deemed "too expensive" for the bottom line ( HMO CRE's compensation packages ) is going to be far superior to the current "system".

I rather think the current "PTB" in the large Insurance Corporations are dropping poo in their pants as they scramble to torpedo this, much as we say in the early 1990s.

Have no fear, though --- they will find an avenue for profit somehow. "Supplemental" insurance, anyone???

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

Palin is an evil person. I have issues with a lot of things going on with the current administration, and the current Congress...but Palin - I have more issues with her.

Succinctly voiced...she's an idiot.

I thought we were no longer allowed to call a political figure an evil idiot anymore...I thought that was against the new terms and conditions? I thought we had to intellectually make a point.

[edit on 8/10/2009 by Missing Blue Sky]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of the insurance companies. But if we're just going to have the government doing the same things as the insurance companies, with force of the law behind them and no judicial review, then we are going to have some serious problems. This is no reform at all and if it passes will be just as bad if not worse than the current system in place today.

We need American solutions to American problems. And the fact that we're trying to be like the EU scares the hell out of me as they are fast becoming a closed totalitarian society and thus far ahead of the American fascists trying the same game plan here. We really should NOT be trusting our government to do this.

What we need to do is reform how insurance companies deal with their customers. And cut down on mal-practice lawsuits that drive costs up. We need to stop these deals drug companies make with doctors that entice them to prescribe drugs and services that are not needed, but may further complicate a situation making it more expensive and pushing the insurance companies to deny due to costs. The Feds have their tentacles in nearly everything now, our body's should not be part of that.

reply to post by poedxsoldiervet


Thanks, poedx, for that. (dontcha hate when formats don't copy/paste between sites?? )

ON topic, I read through it, and still see no actual incriminating evidence of extreme heavy-handedness in denying or limiting access. It is pretty generalized sounding, more like just defining standards (what lawyers call "boilerplate") for the structure of the management bureaucracy of the organization.

I saw some dollar amounts, but anyone who has ever had an HMO or some sort of company-sponsored/shared Health Plan knows of these already. Not even sure if they apply, as they appear. I mean, if we wish to use a similar template to other Western Industrialized Nations, who have track records of successfully managed public Health Care systems, then I doubt any arbitrary "maximums" will apply.

AND, this thing has yet to go through committee, be hashed out, and sifted.

WHAT ARE THE GOP so afraid of????

THAT is the question you should be asking, and the "conspiracy" you should be looking for.

reply to post by projectvxn

And cut down on mal-practice lawsuits that drive costs up.

Correct, agreed. I've heard, that of all MDs, the OB-GYNs pay the highest premiums. BUT, this litigious nature of our society determines these, and the need for that kind of reform will come from elsewhere.

We need to stop these deals drug companies make with doctors that entice them to prescribe drugs and services that are not needed, but may further complicate a situation making it more expensive and pushing the insurance companies to deny due to costs.

DING!!! Nail on the head!!!

THAT is why there's such a push to STOP reform....the money pit will dry up, because Big Insurance and Big Pharma will lose their little playground, and their monopoly.

I don't have all the answers, but I think I see some of the problems, as do you. This bill, as it evolves, is a start. AND, even though it may seem to emulate an EU country's system, it will never be an EXACT copy, and will always have a uniquely 'American' stamp on it.

Continuing in the same way, the current "status quo", is obviously the wrong path. Have to start somewhere.......

reply to post by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by poedxsoldiervet

 

poedx, OK...I'll bite.

I hear it's 1,000 pages long. Can you provide a page number that references the "death panel"???

It will help us out, and cut to the chase.

Read the bill.
Section 1233 is the part in question.

The section embodies what will be called "end of life" mandates.

Section 1233 of the health-care bill would pay doctors to give Medicare patients end-of-life counseling every five years -- or sooner if the patient gets a terminal diagnosis.

Link: edlabor.house.gov...

Though not mandatory, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren't quite voluntary. To most people "voluntary" means "not unless the patient requests one."

Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive -- money -- to do so. In reality, that's an incentive to insist.

Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they're in the meeting, the bill permits "formulation" of a plug-pulling order right then and there! (By a Doctor, rather than a legal professional!)

I question how Congress can authorize health care professionals to practice law in any State, don't you?

Section 1233 would place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign, or with 'programs' crafted by "professionals" they might not otherwise consult!

Even worse, Section 1233 dictates the content of the consultation.

The doctor "shall" discuss "advanced care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to"; "an explanation of . . . living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses" (even though these are legal, not medical, instruments); and "a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families."

The doctor "shall" explain that Medicare pays for hospice care (hint, hint).

The script is vague and subject to manipulation.

What are "key questions"?
Who belongs on "a list" of helpful "resources"? Jack Kevorkian?

Decisions about how to manage life's end should be made in a setting that is neutral.

Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it.

On its own terms, the measure would have an interested party – the government -- recruit doctors to sell the elderly end of life measures and their associated providers, professions and organizations.

I question that approach.

I'd say she got this one right.

deny ignorance

jw

[edit on 10-8-2009 by jdub297]

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

I like how people argue against the insurance companies denying health coverage by saying "How is this different" in reference to the government doing THE SAME THING. The whole damn point is to make it different, to make health care more affordable. If the government is going to do the same damned thing that the insurance companies are then we're trading one evil for the same evil in a different package.

Ridiculous reasoning skills.

With this kind of logic, no wonder this country is so screwed.

[edit on 10-8-2009 by projectvxn]

The difference is that the insurance companies are making those decisions based on how they can turn the biggest profit so they are more likely to try to deny treatment.

Originally posted by Strictsum
How is it a good thing if the Republicans get discredited and destroyed ? If you think this country has been bad with a 2 party system, imagine a 1 party system.

The Republicans have been discredited and destroyed by their own politicians.

There will always be a fiscal conservative movement in this country, even if every last fiscal conservative has to leave the Republican party.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Exactly there is a panel, but it is general there is nothing in there that states they are going to euthanize old people or ration care, but the language is so vague that potential for them to ration care will be there.

The GOP cannot stop this bill, the democrats have full control of the entire federal government. Also it isn't just people on the right that are afraid of this bill it is also people on the left.

This bill should not pass, for the simple reason that the government should not be able to decide which companies can sell health care, beyond just issuing licenses to be able to sell health care which is way different than the HHS Secretary being able to determine what plans get sold.

The fact is the only problem I ever hear wrong about our current system is the cost. There are ways to reign in the cost without the government take over of the health care industry.

What people are afraid of is the fact that the government is starting to act like they are dictators(over the past few decades) and people do not want to give control of their Health(aka lives) to the government.

It is a very legitimate gripe whether you agree with it or not.

reply to post by jdub297


I think you've found one of the cherry-picked "talking points" designed to instill the exact "fear" that is causing you angst.

Read again. The patient/family have the right to request the advice, and the provisions simply dictate that IF they opt for the advice, it will be free of charge.

Do NOT let the fear-mongers fool you, they are experts at it.

By carefully manipulating how they present the selected portions, "they" infer thiings that aren't there. It's clever, but just more smoke and mirrors. "They" are counting on innuendo and inference to stir the pot....