The Obama plan is nothing but government trying to control every aspect of our lives. I agree with you sideline, universal healthcare is no utopia. We are in for some big time health care issues if this goes through. I too, refuse to drink the kool-aid.:thumb:

 

How many are drinking Sarah Palin's kool-aid?

How many are drinking Sarah Palin's kool-aid?

 

I'm not...give her a public forum, and she is terrifying to behold.

The irony of this is that the Feds had to step in and take over senior care in AK due to so many of them dying and AK's inability to take care of them.

The irony of this is that the Feds had to step in and take over senior care in AK due to so many of them dying and AK's inability to take care of them.

 

Prior to April 2006 a state government contractor had been administrating certain Medicaid plans in Alaska (CMS, HCBS, and PCS). Because the state legislature was not happy with how the contractor was administrating the plans and in an effort to control costs (sound familiar?) the legislature passed a law allowing the government to administer the plans and establishing new guidelines for admitting persons into the programs. Since the state government took over, the backlog of applicants waiting to be enrolled has nearly doubled and there has been a significant increase in lawsuits by individuals who (according to their lawsuit) were harmed (a few died) because services were either delayed or denied instead of being provided in a timely manner. The biggest complaint was that the state government was arbitrary in interpreting their regulations.

 

The Feds came in and put a moratorium on enrolling new individuals to the federal program. The Feds also set out guidelines for the corrective actions that the state of Alaska needed to perform.

 

I'm not sure how much responsibility Palin bears for this situation but it certainly is not a story that ignites enthusiasm for greater government involvement in health care.

Prior to April 2006 a state government contractor had been administrating certain Medicaid plans in Alaska (CMS, HCBS, and PCS). Because the state legislature was not happy with how the contractor was administrating the plans and in an effort to control costs (sound familiar?) the legislature passed a law allowing the government to administer the plans and establishing new guidelines for admitting persons into the programs. Since the state government took over, the backlog of applicants waiting to be enrolled has nearly doubled and there has been a significant increase in lawsuits by individuals who (according to their lawsuit) were harmed (a few died) because services were either delayed or denied instead of being provided in a timely manner. The biggest complaint was that the state government was arbitrary in interpreting their regulations.

 

The Feds came in and put a moratorium on enrolling new individuals to the federal program. The Feds also set out guidelines for the corrective actions that the state of Alaska needed to perform.

 

I'm not sure how much responsibility Palin bears for this situation but it certainly is not a story that ignites enthusiasm for greater government involvement in health care.

 

Best argument yet against Governmental controlled heathcare reform. Thanks for everyone bringing the Alaskan debacle to light. In bashing Sarah Palin, they have actually been bitten by their own dog.

Edited August 12, 200917 yr by sidelinedoc
spelling

Prior to April 2006 a state government contractor had been administrating certain Medicaid plans in Alaska (CMS, HCBS, and PCS). Because the state legislature was not happy with how the contractor was administrating the plans and in an effort to control costs (sound familiar?) the legislature passed a law allowing the government to administer the plans and establishing new guidelines for admitting persons into the programs. Since the state government took over, the backlog of applicants waiting to be enrolled has nearly doubled and there has been a significant increase in lawsuits by individuals who (according to their lawsuit) were harmed (a few died) because services were either delayed or denied instead of being provided in a timely manner. The biggest complaint was that the state government was arbitrary in interpreting their regulations.

 

The Feds came in and put a moratorium on enrolling new individuals to the federal program. The Feds also set out guidelines for the corrective actions that the state of Alaska needed to perform.

 

I'm not sure how much responsibility Palin bears for this situation but it certainly is not a story that ignites enthusiasm for greater government involvement in health care.

 

"Few" is a bit misleading since it was 227 that died.

 

Secondly, you can't rail against a made-up "death panel" and imply that old people are going to die when under your watch you let the problem that you described get so bad that 227 people died and yet you still didnt do anything about it and the FEDS had to step in and put on the brakes.

 

If it weren't for the FEDs how many people were going to die before the problem was resolved?

 

A quote from the doctors says it all:

 

Doctors and other health care providers wrote to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid with concerns that the state wasn't responsive. Some alleged that the lack of state controls "has resulted in the death(s) of the active clients," the federal review said.

 

http://www.adn.com/life/health/story/864670.html

Best argument yet against Governmental controlled heathcare reform. Thanks for everyone bringing the Alaskan debacle to light. In bashing Sarah Palin, they have actually been bitten by their own dog.

 

Seems they just proved their point even more about Palin being clueless.

"Few" is a bit misleading since it was 227 that died.

 

While 227 died while waiting for an assessment, it doesn't necessarily follow that 227 died because they were waiting. In fact, one of the complaints that the Feds have with the state of Alaska is that the Feds see what appears to be a higher than expected death rate and the state is not bothering to investigate why they died. I said "few" because according to the info I have seen only a few (8) have filed law suits claiming that the wait contributed to someones death.

While 227 died while waiting for an assessment, it doesn't necessarily follow that 227 died because they were waiting. In .

 

Is it safe to say that had they not had to wait for an assessment that there's a chance not all 227 die? In other words, can we expect that an assessment could have found a serious problem that would have led to prevention? Sure. Not all would have lived but when your folks don't do their jobs, you and your folks contributed to the deaths in many cases.

Is it safe to say that had they not had to wait for an assessment that there's a chance not all 227 die? In other words, can we expect that an assessment could have found a serious problem that would have led to prevention? Sure. Not all would have lived but when your folks don't do their jobs, you and your folks contributed to the deaths in many cases.

 

I am willing to concede that there is a high probability that some deaths could have been avoided if the timely assistance would have been rendered. How many? Nobody knows exactly.

 

I am also curious who you are referencing when you say "your folks" and "you and your folks" in your post. Are you including Palin in that group?

I am willing to concede that there is a high probability that some deaths could have been avoided if the timely assistance would have been rendered. How many? Nobody knows exactly.

 

I am also curious who you are referencing when you say "your folks" and "you and your folks" in your post. Are you including Palin in that group?

 

The reference was to anyone who is responsible for its citizens. In this case it referenced the leadership of AK.

 

It was not a reference to Shooter or anyone on BGP.

Followup post on Palin's Facebook page...

 

Concerning the "Death Panels"Share

Yesterday at 11:55pm

Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly, and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these “unproductive” members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care.

 

The President made light of these concerns. He said:

 

“Let me just be specific about some things that I’ve been hearing lately that we just need to dispose of here. The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for death panels that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we’ve decided that we don’t, it’s too expensive to let her live anymore....It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, etc. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything.” [1]

 

The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” [2] With all due respect, it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.

 

Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual ... or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility... or a hospice program." [3] During those consultations, practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services. [4]

 

Now put this in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” [5] Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As Charles Lane notes in the Washington Post, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones.... If it’s all about alleviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to “bend the curve” on health-care costs?” [6]

 

As Lane also points out:

 

Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren’t quite “purely voluntary,” as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, “purely 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. Indeed, 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 does permit “formulation” of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would “place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign,” I don’t think he’s being realistic. [7]

 

Even columnist Eugene Robinson, a self-described “true believer” who “will almost certainly support” “whatever reform package finally emerges”, agrees that “If the government says it has to control health-care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending.” [8]

 

So are these usually friendly pundits wrong? Is this all just a “rumor” to be “disposed of”, as President Obama says? Not according to Democratic New York State Senator Ruben Diaz, Chairman of the New York State Senate Aging Committee, who writes:

 

Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200 puts our senior citizens on a slippery slope and may diminish respect for the inherent dignity of each of their lives.... It is egregious to consider that any senior citizen ... should be placed in a situation where he or she would feel pressured to save the government money by dying a little sooner than he or she otherwise would, be required to be counseled about the supposed benefits of killing oneself, or be encouraged to sign any end of life directives that they would not otherwise sign. [9]

 

Of course, it’s not just this one provision that presents a problem. My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President’s chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens....An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” [10] Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.” [11]

 

President Obama can try to gloss over the effects of government authorized end-of-life consultations, but the views of one of his top health care advisors are clear enough. It’s all just more evidence that the Democratic legislative proposals will lead to health care rationing, and more evidence that the top-down plans of government bureaucrats will never result in real health care reform.

 

[1] See http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/president-obama-addresses-sarah-palin-death-panels-wild-representations.html.

[2] See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

[3] See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1); Sec. 1233 (hhh)(3)(B)(1), above.

[4] See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1)(E), above.

[5] See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

[6] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html].

[7] Id.

[8] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/10/AR2009081002455.html].

[9] See http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/letter-congressman-henry-waxman-re-section-1233-hr-3200.

[10] See http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf

[11] See http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions.

Of course, it’s not just this one provision that presents a problem. My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President’s chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens....An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” [10] Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.” [11][10] See http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf

LBBC- I know you were just reposting, but from reading that source number 10, that is a very, very inaccurate representation of what Dr. Emanuel believes. As far as I can tell, he wasn't giving his own point of view there- he was describing a certain type of political philosophy dealing with healthcare.

 

As for Dr. Emanuel's own views, see this article:

 

The proper policy, in my view, should be to affirm the status of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia as illegal.

 

And further on...

 

By establishing a social policy that keeps physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia illegal but recognizes exceptions, we would adopt the correct moral view: the onus of proving that everything had been tried and that the motivation and rationale were convincing would rest on those who wanted to end a life. Such a policy would recognize that ending a life by physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia is an extraordinary and grave event. To recognize a legal right to physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia transforms the practices into routine interventions that can be administered without the need for a publicly acceptable justification. Doctors who end patients' lives would no longer bear the burden of having to prove the appropriateness of their action, if called upon to do so, but could simply justify their action as a legally sanctioned procedure.

 

Advocates for legalization might find a policy that permits exceptions to embody a double standard. But crafting a social policy in this way would also embody what we know: not all cases are the same, and among the millions of Americans who die each year there are morally relevant differences that cannot be captured in an inflexible rule. We must ensure that moral judgments are made in individual cases, and that those who make them will be accountable before the law.

LBBC- I know you were just reposting, but from reading that source number 10, that is a very, very inaccurate representation of what Dr. Emanuel believes. As far as I can tell, he wasn't giving his own point of view there- he was describing a certain type of political philosophy dealing with healthcare.

 

As for Dr. Emanuel's own views, see this article:

 

The proper policy, in my view, should be to affirm the status of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia as illegal.

 

And further on...

 

By establishing a social policy that keeps physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia illegal but recognizes exceptions, we would adopt the correct moral view: the onus of proving that everything had been tried and that the motivation and rationale were convincing would rest on those who wanted to end a life. Such a policy would recognize that ending a life by physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia is an extraordinary and grave event. To recognize a legal right to physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia transforms the practices into routine interventions that can be administered without the need for a publicly acceptable justification. Doctors who end patients' lives would no longer bear the burden of having to prove the appropriateness of their action, if called upon to do so, but could simply justify their action as a legally sanctioned procedure.

 

Advocates for legalization might find a policy that permits exceptions to embody a double standard. But crafting a social policy in this way would also embody what we know: not all cases are the same, and among the millions of Americans who die each year there are morally relevant differences that cannot be captured in an inflexible rule. We must ensure that moral judgments are made in individual cases, and that those who make them will be accountable before the law.

 

On the bolded, would that mean that a group, o I don't know, let's call it a death panel , would be the one that would have to approve that everything was done before ending the life?

On the bolded, would that mean that a group, o I don't know, let's call it a death panel , would be the one that would have to approve that everything was done before ending the life?

 

I think what that statement is saying is that state-sponsored euthanasia would not be the norm; rather, whomever wanted to end the life would have the burden of proving that everything other effort had been exhausted, and so it would the exception, not the norm. This is contrary to the argument that "state-sponsored euthanasia would be routine."

 

FWIW, I'm not really commenting on the whole death panel issue, just the misrepresentation of Dr. Emanuel's views.

 

Furthermore, I'm opposed to every single form of euthanasia (state-sponsored and individually).