Death panels back, but keep it on the down low

[kiryan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/po ... age&src=me

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.

--the real danger of the healthcare reform bill was the power given to the executive branch.

After learning of the administration’s decision, Mr. Blumenauer’s office celebrated “a quiet victory,” but urged supporters not to crow about it.
...
Moreover, the e-mail said: “We would ask that you not broadcast this accomplishment out to any of your lists, even if they are ‘supporters’ — e-mails can too easily be forwarded.”
...
The proposal for Medicare coverage of advance care planning was omitted from the final health care bill because of the uproar over unsubstantiated claims that it would encourage euthanasia.

--Rule by decree, who else has that... oh yea, hugo chavez

I'm not arguing that this isn't a good idea... but I am in the slippery slope camp on death panels and its not very assuring when you just decree law that couldn't be passed by the legitimate government.

[Teflor Lyorian]

Little Timmy needs a life saving treatment? Aww. TOO BAD, GOVERNMENT DOES NOT APPROVE DIE TIMMY DIE BWHAHAH...

You know, if the result is the same, I'll just paint it any way I feel like it... because it ends the same.

[Corth]

I have no idea whether this is prudent policy or not. To me that's irrelevant. What I take out of this is that it is incredibly ballsy for the executive to take something that was expressly rejected by the legislative branch and make it the de facto law of the land through regulation. The power of the various cabinet secretaries to promulgate regulations is derived from legislative authority. To specifically make a regulation that is contrary to the intent of Congress is an insult to that body. I smell a lawsuit.

[kiryan]

after running on hope, change and transparency.

Obama's promise to Latinos and homosexuals 1 year ago tipped his hand... he said don't worry by the end of my administration you'll be happy. I took that to mean if I can't get it down legislatively, I can decree most of this stuff anyway... I'm somewhat concerned that Obama will start mass pardoning illegal immigrants if he believes he has no chance in 2012.

[Ragorn]

Death panels never went away. My insurance company (private sector) has one, always had one, and always will have one. Yours does too.

[Teflor Lyorian]

Yes, but it's now a highly politicized government run death panel. That we're forced to participate in and pay for!! YAY.

[Ragorn]

Oh, is your company forcing you to participate in government health care? You should find a new job.

[kiryan]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/12/ ... obamacare/

Doctors are going to be paid for giving "end-of-life counseling," one version of what was labeled as "death panels" during the health care debate this last spring. Combining this with Obamacare giving doctors a financial incentive for withholding medical care as well as financial penalties if they give out too much care, it is easy to see where things are going and what types of doctors will prosper.

Even with the massive Democrat majorities in both houses, the bill passed by only the slimmest of margins, and there was no way they were going to pass it if that provision had remained in the legislation. But the new regulation goes well beyond the original "end-of-life counseling" proposed in Congress. The original law proposed counseling take place every five years, but the new Obama administration regulations will make counseling part of people's yearly physical examinations and will cover how to prevent aggressive life-sustaining treatments when people become ill.

==

Ragorn, where do we go when the government finishes its take over of healthcare? Or do you really think that an industry can succeed when government has 100% control over your bottom line... interms of you must spend 85% on healthcare and on terms of we can change what constitutes that 85% at will. They will force us into government run healthcare eventually or it will be so regualated that it muight as well be government run.

and on the road there, they are going to make the decision on what kinds of treatments are paid for based on what is good for the public... not in the specific circumstance of what is good for you. Your doctor is goign to get a talking to, or a cut to his reimbursement rate, if he "over uses" procedures that government death panels have decided don't provide enough real tangible health improvement compared to the cost. If they decide you recommend chemo therapy to 70-80 year olds too often for "no health benefit" you will have your pay reduced.

The difference today is that you pay for insurance today and what your insurance covers is well defined. If you are covered, you are covered regardless of whether its only going to extend your life 3 months at a cost of 5 million as long as a doctor recommends it (although some plans require 2nd and 3rd opinions sometimes from their own on staff doctors). You bought a product, you are entitled to its benefits. In the future, you'll be paying taxes and getting whatever the government decides to give you. Huge difference.

[Teflor Lyorian]

Oh, is your company forcing you to participate in government health care? You should find a new job.

No, but the government is. Didn't you hear about the healthcare law?

[Ragorn]

"Government takeover of healthcare" is a buzz phrase invented by Republican pundits to cloud the issue. The government is not taking over health care, making it mandatory to join the public plan, or forcing citizens to abandon private care.

Straw man argument. Fearmongering. Fox News misinformation.

[Ragorn]

Oh, is your company forcing you to participate in government health care? You should find a new job.

No, but the government is. Didn't you hear about the healthcare law?

I have, actually. You haven't, apparently.

[Teflor Lyorian]

Oh, is your company forcing you to participate in government health care? You should find a new job.

No, but the government is. Didn't you hear about the healthcare law?

I have, actually. You haven't, apparently.

Pretty sure it's the other way around.

[Teflor Lyorian]

"It's not a government take over so long as the heavily regulated and controlled entities that have their profit limited by the state and are forced to accept the business decisions of the government are still somewhat, minority, and nominally private."

at the heart of ObamaCare is a vast expansion of federal control over how U.S. health care is financed, and thus delivered

Has the role of government been so enlarged that we can now assume Washington is in charge of what our physicians prescribe?

The idea here is to mandate a decoupling of premiums from the health status of individual applicants, that is, to offer all applicants within specified age groups a specified minimum benefit package at a common premium — an approach called “community rating with guaranteed issue.”

Thanks for stepping it up.

[Ragorn]

I'll skip the two meaningless out-of-context quotes and just beat you to death with the NYT quote you provided.

The idea here is to mandate a decoupling of premiums from the health status of individual applicants, that is, to offer all applicants within specified age groups a specified minimum benefit package at a common premium — an approach called “community rating with guaranteed issue.”

Yes. That is exactly what is happening. I will break the words down for you because you seem to think they mean the opposite of what they actually mean.

mandate a decoupling of premiums from the health status of individual applicants

Applicants who purchase the government plan will not pay higher premiums due to pre-existing conditions. I guess you saw the word "mandate" and somehow thought this entire sentence meant "citizens of America will be required to pay the government for health care," which is not what any of those words actually mean.

to offer

Offer is a verb meaning "to present for acceptance or rejection." It is not a synonym of "require." The government health plan is an offer made to all Americans. This is the part of the health care bill that you conservatives keep intentionally disregarding. You are offered the option of participating at your discretion.

all applicants

An applicant is "a person who opts to purchase the government plan." It does not mean "every citizen in America, all of whom will be forced to purchase government health insurance to the exclusion of private plans and in opposition to their desires." This is a departure from the current privately-owned insurance system, where health insurance is offered to "some applicants, who meet our requirements, and do not have any pre-existing conditions that would affect our profit margin."

minimum benefit package at a common premium

Anybody who purchases the government plan is guaranteed the same benefits at the same price.

Glad I could educate you a little about the government health care bill. If you don't like the plan, don't buy it.

[Teflor Lyorian]

I'll skip the two meaningless out-of-context quotes and just beat you to death with the NYT quote you provided.

The idea here is to mandate a decoupling of premiums from the health status of individual applicants, that is, to offer all applicants within specified age groups a specified minimum benefit package at a common premium — an approach called “community rating with guaranteed issue.”

Yes. That is exactly what is happening. I will break the words down for you because you seem to think they mean the opposite of what they actually mean.

mandate a decoupling of premiums from the health status of individual applicants

Applicants who purchase the government plan will not pay higher premiums due to pre-existing conditions. I guess you saw the word "mandate" and somehow thought this entire sentence meant "citizens of America will be required to pay the government for health care," which is not what any of those words actually mean.

to offer

Offer is a verb meaning "to present for acceptance or rejection." It is not a synonym of "require." The government health plan is an offer made to all Americans. This is the part of the health care bill that you conservatives keep intentionally disregarding. You are offered the option of participating at your discretion.

all applicants

An applicant is "a person who opts to purchase the government plan." It does not mean "every citizen in America, all of whom will be forced to purchase government health insurance to the exclusion of private plans and in opposition to their desires." This is a departure from the current privately-owned insurance system, where health insurance is offered to "some applicants, who meet our requirements, and do not have any pre-existing conditions that would affect our profit margin."

minimum benefit package at a common premium

Anybody who purchases the government plan is guaranteed the same benefits at the same price.

Glad I could educate you a little about the government health care bill. If you don't like the plan, don't buy it.

Your attempt to frame my entire argument on semantics from one supportive quotation of opinion is both dishonest and inaccurate. I will actually educate you.

Government takeover of healthcare

1) Government mandates that private entities provide a specific product with a specific methodology to SET the price. (This is the NYT quote, and you don't deny that's what it is.) < HINT: this sets the price on all comparable products
2) Government mandates HOW private entities MUST operate their business (85% of premium revenue must be spent on health care quality improvement). < FYI, across all plans.
3) Government mandates a myriad of other business decisions, including when coverage can be terminated from ANY plan, when young adults MUST be allowed to carry under parents coverage, and furthermore what conditions MUST be set on new plans.

And your only argument is a pathetic attempt to reframe an entire argument on ONE quote that doesn't even support your viewpoint.

Congratulations on your "private" at-your-discretion-yet-still-required health care choice that the government mandated, set the prices on, and told the business how it can spend its revenue.

Oh, and by the way, the citizens of America will be paying for these through higher premiums, since coverage can no longer be selectively denied on high risk patients AND since you are now required to have health insurance. Consider your education complete.

[kiryan]

I know we're going to fundamentally disagree on whether the current healthcare law is a take over or not... I may be fear mongering, but if the sky is actually falling, its not chicken little, its more like Paul Revere shouting a warning.

The simple fact that without legislating a law, the POTUS decreed a policy that implements a feature STRUCK from the original legislation because it couldn't pass... pretty much addreses the question of who has control... That would be government.

The other charge of chicken little is with regards to the death panels. The end of life planning I don't see as death panel as much as the "quality ratings" are which will be used to punish doctors who prescribe "too much healthcare"... without "results"... both highly definable and subjective terms. Right now, Dems are pushing the "voluntary" terminology of this new policy... however, politico makes a strong poin which ties back into death panels.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46863.html

“When end-of-life counseling first came up, doctors’ quality ratings were going to be determined in part by the percentage of patients who have a living will and those who follow it up,” she said. “If they make advance-care planning a protocol ... it’s not voluntary, despite the use of the word.“

So you can call it slippery slope or straw man or any other fancy term to denigrate the argument... but all you need to do is look at the history of social security, the federal bank, the commerce caluse or even the office of the president of the united states of america to see how these things grow and become more invasive over time. You can get SSI short term disability for being a drunk... is that really what they intended in 1935?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Sec ... ted_States)

The structure of healthcare reform is the pathway to dismantling private insurance in america. Its the structure to providing universal coverage to everyone regardless of whether they deserve / work / earn it. Its the next step in universal healthcare... started with medicare/medicaid, expaneded in the 80s with guaranteed access to emergency room care from the 80s and now is universal care for most things via mandatory insurance coverage.

Don't kid yourself for a moment that the eventual goal is not robust universal healthcare. Its redistributioninst and they aren't even close to being done yet. French women get tummy tucks and a personal trainer after they have babies, in Norway you get 18 months of baby leave (split amongst the parents). A brittish man who was "depressed" was getting government checks to sleep all day and party all night for I believe 2 years until he felt like going back to work... I don't have a problem with these benefits, but you should have to pay for them out of your own blood sweat and tears... not in a karl marx to each according to his need from each according to his ability socialist / communist point of view.

Get some honesty. This law is a huge fucking deal and these provisions are steps towards practical panels that decide if you get care you need to live. aka death panels.

[Kindi]

lol bubble boy was such a horrible movie