Author Topic: Death Panels revived: Obama tries to circumvent law with 'regulations'  (Read 15501 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,802
    • GlobalGulag.com
Monday, December 27, 2010
Obama enacts end-of-life plan that drew 'death panel' claims

By ROBERT PEAR at msnbc.msn.com

Starting Jan. 1, government will pay docs to advise about late-life options

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.

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

Congressional supporters of the new policy, though pleased, have kept quiet. They fear provoking another furor like the one in 2009 when Republicans seized on the idea of end-of-life counseling to argue that the Democrats’ bill would allow the government to cut off care for the critically ill.

The final version of the health care legislation, signed into law by President Obama in March, authorized Medicare coverage of yearly physical examinations, or wellness visits. The new rule says Medicare will cover “voluntary advance care planning,” to discuss end-of-life treatment, as part of the annual visit.

More: http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2010/12/obama-enacts-end-of-life-plan-that-drew.html
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

>>> Global Gulag Media & Forum <<<

Offline Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,802
    • GlobalGulag.com
Re: Soetoro Death Panels to Begin Genocidal Murder of Useless Eaters on 1/1/11
« Reply #1 on: December 27, 2010, 10:26:24 am »
End-of-life planning makes it – one way or another (Morning Read)
http://www.medcitynews.com/2010/12/death-panels-return-morning-read/

DEATH PANELS ARE BACK. The U.S. healthcare reform bill approved earlier this year said Medicare could cover annual physical exams or wellness visits. The New York Times says the new rule allows Medicare to reimburse discussions of end-of-life treatment as part of the annual visit. It will begin Jan. 1.

But for fear a death panel backlash, leaders e-mailed other supporters: ’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.

’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.’
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

>>> Global Gulag Media & Forum <<<

Offline Monkeypox

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,844
  • He Loved Big Brother
    • Monkeypox
Re: Soetoro Death Panels to Begin Genocidal Murder of Useless Eaters on 1/1/11
« Reply #2 on: December 27, 2010, 10:54:44 am »
End-of-life planning makes it – one way or another (Morning Read)
http://www.medcitynews.com/2010/12/death-panels-return-morning-read/

DEATH PANELS ARE BACK. The U.S. healthcare reform bill approved earlier this year said Medicare could cover annual physical exams or wellness visits. The New York Times says the new rule allows Medicare to reimburse discussions of end-of-life treatment as part of the annual visit. It will begin Jan. 1.

But for fear a death panel backlash, leaders e-mailed other supporters: ’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.

’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.’

Bastards.
War Is Peace - Freedom Is Slavery - Ignorance Is Strength


"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."

—Thomas Jefferson

Offline lee51

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,732
Re: Soetoro Death Panels to Begin Genocidal Murder of Useless Eaters on 1/1/11
« Reply #3 on: December 27, 2010, 11:44:40 am »
They go one tiny fractional step at a time hoping no one will notice.

I just sent this to people I know and asked them to forward it to their friends.  We need the elderly.  They have wisdom and insights we all need.

Those who make these laws...um...do they think they won't get old? Or maybe they are above the law?

Offline Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,802
    • GlobalGulag.com
Re: Soetoro Death Panels to Begin Genocidal Murder of Useless Eaters on 1/1/11
« Reply #4 on: December 27, 2010, 04:50:07 pm »
Medicare Gives CPR to ‘Death Panels’
http://www.infowars.com/medicare-gives-cpr-to-death-panels/

Jason Douglass
Infowars.com
December 27, 2010

Reviving an extremely unpopular bit of legislation, Medicare is moving forward with what they deem ‘end-of-life planning’ even though it was struck from the final version of the ObamaCare bill that was pushed through congress earlier this year. Serious doubts arose after the public caught wind of the ‘death panels’ and raised suspicions about the real reasoning behind such an agenda.

The new provision calls for Medicare to pay for voluntary counseling to help beneficiaries make some of the complex decisions that arise when their loved one approaches death.

The unpopular portion of the bill has been rebranded and made to sound like a benefit instead of the invasive and immoral bureaucratic loophole, meant to cut corners by cutting service to patients, that it is. Despite the resounding cries against such ‘death panels’, the concept is still being reworked and shoved down our throats.

In an attempt to give the bill some resistance, many states have filed suit against the Federal government over what they feel is an unconstitutional Bill.

The wording of the new counseling strategy is nebulous but it would seem that doctors are paid to advise on patients on ‘end-of-life’ care.

“This regulation could be modified or reversed” warned Earl Blumenauer author of the original end-of-life proposal and major supporter of such legislation, “We are not out of the woods yet”.

‘End-of-life planning’ goes into effect January 1.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

>>> Global Gulag Media & Forum <<<

Offline DireWolf

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,122
  • Freedom, Liberty & death to the NWO
Re: Soetoro Death Panels to Begin Genocidal Murder of Useless Eaters on 1/1/11
« Reply #5 on: December 27, 2010, 08:05:43 pm »
This very tragic indeed on many fronts to be sure but it may have consequences both intended and untended that will be used to further their agenda.

Denied the care needed to extend ones life and thereby being sentenced to an early death is it impossible that some will choose to make their remaining time left really count with an act of defiance?

An act of defiance is victory in and of itself but once the Internet is controlled, all who defy will be counted as terrorist ( PD 51 ) further frightening those sheep into further submission.

As it has been so shall it be, it will be the few who secure freedom for the many.   SEMPER FI
Those who sit in their marbled palaces and plot to kill billions are but playing into the hands of evil itself, and you know what they say about making a deal with the Devil...

Freedom and Liberty, or slavery and death, your choice, choose wisely.

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Re: Soetoro Death Panels to Begin Genocidal Murder of Useless Eaters on 1/1/11
« Reply #6 on: December 30, 2010, 08:27:40 am »



  Barrycare truly is BURYcare.

  Soetoro's Healthcare Bill has very little to do with healthcare.  IT IS ABOUT CONTROL!!!
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Sneaking end-of-life consultations into health bill
« Reply #7 on: December 31, 2010, 09:12:46 am »
http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2010/12/sneaking-end-life-consultations-health-bill#ixzz19YCihdNB

Your doctor will be paid for an annual consultation and you will discuss end of life if he thinks you are a candidate.  Man, I'm glad i got out of the racket.  THIS TRULY IS BURYCARE.


During the debate about Obamacare last year, controversy erupted over a Medicare provision related to end-of-life consultations with doctors. Following well-publicized criticism from former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin concerning government “death panels,” the provision was promptly dropped.

But now The New York Times reports that it has been resurrected in new Medicare regulations. There is both a right and a wrong reason to be outraged about this.

Some have responded with the charged term coined by Palin, but this criticism is misplaced in the present instance. “Death panel” is entirely justified when used in reference to another provision of Obamacare — the Independent Payment Advisory Board, whose members will attempt to save money by making one-size-fits-all recommendations for skimping on care protocols and treatment regimes, particularly for older patients.

This new regulation merely provides that Medicare will pay for annual consultations in which, among other things, patients can discuss with doctors what should be done in the event they find themselves in extremis (larsonstdoc note--definition--- at the point of death)  and cannot communicate.
[/color]
In itself, this should not be morally objectionable. No church of which we are aware (certainly no mainline Protestant denomination or the Catholic Church) places a moral obligation on doctors or patients to prolong life through heroic or extraordinary means, irrespective of the patient’s wishes. All recognize a distinction between intentionally causing the death of someone (for example, by poisonous injection or dehydration) and merely allowing a dying person to pass away.

What is objectionable about the end-of-life regulation is that President Barack Obama and his minions refused to defend it when it first became public and dropped it like a hot potato last year, only to sneak it back in under the cover of regulatory darkness this year.
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Re: Sneaking end-of-life consultations into health bill
« Reply #8 on: December 31, 2010, 09:25:27 am »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

  The modern Hippocratic Oath---a far cry from Burycare and medicine today.


I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline Satyagraha

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,941
Death Panels revived: Obama tries to circumvent law with 'regulations'
« Reply #9 on: January 04, 2011, 01:59:11 pm »
Here's what I've come up with regarding the health care legislation "death panels":

The fear that the health care legislation would include provisions for 'death panels' seems to have started (or at least publicly acknowledged in the mainstream media) by a statement made by Sarah Palin, expressing concern that Obama would have a death care panel, and using her own son as an example of a child that may not pass the criteria for getting health care, due to his Downs Syndrome.

The 'death panel' references were removed from the health care legislation before it passed.
There is no reference to it in the current bill, now law.


However, the debate continues, and as we have seen before, instead of getting this through with legislation, the Obama administration will try to get the same results by using regulations.

Here's a review of the state of death panels as it stands now. Watch for 'regulations' in the coming weeks...

===============================
http://www.ask.com/wiki/Health_care_reform_in_the_United_States

The Republican death panel meme was first raised by Sarah Palin.[33] Palin had claimed that the Democratic plan would ration care and wrote that "my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care."

Politifact.com said that "Palin's statement sounds more like a science fiction movie .. than part of an actual bill before Congress." They rated her statement as "Pants on Fire!" on their "truthometer" and said that similar claims by other conservatives that the health care bill encourages euthanasia were false and that there was no "death board" to determine the worthiness of individuals to receive care.[34]

Later Palin said her original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (See below for Emanuel's article), a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President’s chief of staff. [35] but the adviser concerned was "outraged" by Palin's accusations.

============================

Palin's comments were sparked by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel's article...

============================

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, who was the health-policy adviser at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget at the time said “there’s no basis for that claim either in any of my writings or the legislation. It has no grounds in reality. It’s surreal and Orwellian, the idea that this legislation or my writings suggest that her son Trig shouldn’t get health care.” He noted that his sister has Cerebral Palsy and he is not without personal sympathy for those with disabilities. He is an opponent of euthanasia, and abhors people cavalierly distorting his writings and the work that he had done over 25 years helping to improve medical care in America for vulnerable people who often have no voice.[36]

The disputed legislative proposal was based on a clause in a House bill that did not pass into law concerning reimbursement for counseling about living wills.[37][38]

============================

So the concern was with a version of the healthcare legislation that included this clause for reimbursement for counseling about living wills; documents the patient signs which enable others to make life and death decisions in the event the patient is unable to do so himself.
The issue of death panels was 'closed' by having the living will reimbursement clause removed from the bill before it passed.

However, the issue is still alive: the administration/insurance companies seek to implement this by regulation instead of by law.

This is happening now, JANUARY of 2011:


============================



Payment to doctors for voluntary end-of-life consultation on advance directives is to be revived by regulation as of January 1, 2011 but could be modified or reversed if Republican leaders try to use this small provision to perpetuate the ‘death panel’ myth.[39]

The regulation is similar to end-of-life counseling that became law when George W. Bush was president, expanding the benefit from a welcome visit to part of an annual wellness visit.[40] Betsy McCaughey, who inspired Palin's "death panel" statement, said, “If they make advance-care planning a protocol … it’s not voluntary, despite the use of the word.“[41]

(Note the 'similar' law put in place when Bush was in office; supported by Republicans - is now rejected by Republicans when Democrats sought to add it to the healthcare bill. There is no difference between left and right: the insurance companies are calling the shots, and congress, the puppets on the stage, are playing their roles.)

On the January 2011 incarnation of this 'living will' clause...

============================

From an interview that McCaughey did on the O'Reilly Report on Fox: (with a guy named Eric Bolling filling in for O'Reilly.)
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007214&docId=l:1330147647&start=4

SHOW: THE O'REILLY FACTOR 8:00 PM EST
December 27, 2010 Monday

BOLLING: But now there are reports that President Obama is bringing back end-of-life planning with the Medicare regulation set to go into effect next week. The White House says, no, that's not true -- issuing a statement blaming a law signed by President Bush.  So, what's really going on?

With us now: Dr. Betsy McCaughey, author of "Obama Health Law: What It Says and How to Overturn It"; and joining us from New Orleans, Dr. Caroline Heldman, professor of politics at Occidental College.

Dr. McCaughey, let's start with you. I thought we were done with this. I thought we went through this, spent a lot of time talking about death panels. They weren't included in the health care bill that became law that you have right here, but they are back. Are they back?

BETSY MCCAUGHEY, PH.D., AUTHOR, "OBAMA HEALTH LAW": That's right. It appears that the administration is trying to achieve by regulation what they could not achieve by legislation. And, of course, it's a good idea to pay doctors to spend time helping patients through the tough decisions, wrenching decisions they may face toward the end of their life.
But governments should not be scripting what doctors tell patients.


BOLLING: Doctor, take our viewers through exactly what this regulation says it allows or asks doctors, incentivizes them to discuss end-of-life issues, right?

MCCAUGHEY: Well, there's a new benefit called the once yearly "well visit" with your doctor or nurse practitioner or physician's assistant, not necessarily a doctor. And among the things that will be included, assessment of your weight and body weight, your mental capacities, whether you are at risk at depression, et cetera, et cetera, and advanced planning or end-of-life counseling.

BOLLING: Professor Heldman, do we really need to incentivize doctors to ask grandma whether she wants to pull the plug year after year after year? Isn't once enough?

CAROLINE HELDMAN, PH.D., OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE PROFESSOR: Well, as you - - as you bring up, Eric, it's part of the regulation passed during the Bush administration to do it when folks join Medicare. So, this is simply offering it more consistently. And, yes, I do think end-of-life counseling is incredibly important.

BOLLING: Professor, why do you need to offer it more consistently? Don't you make a decision whether, you know, you're on life support, whether you want the doctor to pull the plug once? Or -- you know, what's really troubling is that they are going to incentivize doctors, pay doctors to do this counseling.

HELDMAN: Right. To do the counseling, not the outcome, and it's voluntary on the part of the patient. It something benefits families. It benefits individuals. You get to choose how you want to die. It's a wonderful benefit. And I don't know how it's possible that we're having a debate about this.

(Note: Heldman, in support of incentivizing Doctors to ask patients if they want to 'check out', considers it a benefit to families. This could create a scenario where families, burdened with health care costs of the patient, are put into a position of advocating for the patient to make the 'right' choice. Perhaps 'nudge' them into a decision. Brings up all kinds of opportunities for intra-family fighting - guaranteed to pull families apart at a time when they should be united. Perfect NWO plan; reduce population, destroy a family, blame the victims all rolled up into one.)

(CROSSTALK)

MCCAUGHEY: The reason we're having a debate it is that it's not simply being offered. First of all, it's being scripted. If you look in the Obama health law section 936, the government is actually going to be creating brochures and videos.

HELDMAN: Education. They are going to be educating individuals about options?

MCCAUGHEY: Making brochures and videos about these decisions. Those decisions belongs --

HELDMAN: They shouldn't offer education?

MCCAUGHEY: -- to others.
And -- and, voluntary -- it's only voluntary if your doctor is not going to be paid less or penalized in some way if you choose not to go through that counseling or choose not to engage in advanced planning.
And the fact is that Medicare has protocols and it grades doctors and pays them based on compliance with those protocols. So, what we need to know right now is: is the Obama administration going to pay doctors less if they don't offer this counseling and if they don't get their --

BOLLING: Professor, if at some point if you keep asking a patient, are you sure you don't want to pull the plug? Are you sure you don't want to pull the plug? Eventually, you're going to say, all right, already enough, pull the plug.

HELDMAN: That's not what this is. That's not what this is. It's simply offering it more often so that if people change their mind and want to plan for their end-of-life, they have that option. It's giving choice to customers.

MCCAUGHEY: It's a drum beat -- it's a drum beat of spend less on your care, let's let you die sooner.

HELDMAN: No. It's death with signature any at this. It's allowing consumers a choice.

MCCAUGHEY: That's your opinion, but not everybody who is enrolled in Medicare should interest to go through about hearing about that every year.

HELDMAN: They don't have to. It's voluntary. That's what voluntary means.

MCCAUGHEY: I want to know whether doctors will have to comply with this protocol in order to receive full Medicare payments, first of all. And secondly, why is the government making these videos and brochures? This should be done by churches and private groups and not the government. The government is not the expert on when or how we die.

HELDMAN: No. Doctors are.

BOLLING: Go ahead, Professor. But let me turn the subject a little bit, just a touch here. Representative Blumenauer from Oregon, Democrat, also, he put an email on. This is very, very troubling. I want you to weigh in on this.
The email says and he wrote this to constituents and to friends. "We would ask that you not broadcast this accomplishment." Meaning that this became a regulation, and he also says he goes on to say, "The longer this goes unnoticed -- the longer this goes unnoticed, the better our chances are of keeping it."
Is this the way we want to govern in this country?

HELDMAN: Well, unfortunately, Eric, that's what people like Dr. McCaughey and others who call these death panels and mislead the American public have left us with. It's rhetoric. It's not reality.
The fact of the matter is, this is what is good for patients. It's good for taxpayers. I want to die with dignity. Others should have that choice as well.

(CROSSTALK)

MCCAUGHEY: This is the most deplorable case of Washington knows best. This isn't supposed to be the job of our federal government to dictate what decisions we make toward the end our life.

HELDMAN: They are not dictating anything.

(CROSSTALK)

MCCAUGHEY: Yes, they were making brochures right here in the law. Oh, but then leave it to the doctor and patient to decide what's discussed. Don't provide federally sponsored brochures and videos.

BOLLING: Professor --

(CROSSTALK)

HELDMAN: -- educational materials.

BOLLING: Hold on. Professor, whether or not this was originally brought up during the Bush administration, who cares? We spent a lot of time, a lot of effort discussing the health care law when we voted on it. We went through all the hashings, we slugged it out. You got to pass. It went through.
But death panels and that end-of-life advisory board was removed from it,
the discussion was off the table. All of a sudden, it's creeping back in.


HELDMAN: Well, Eric, isn't it sad it was already law and yet rhetoric caused Democrats to be so fearful that they had to take it out of the health care bill, even though it was available to seniors. That should tell you something about how Republicans and others have been using fear tactics to scare the American public.

(CROSSTALK)

MCCAUGHEY: -- agenda. This law drastically expands Medicaid 85 million people to pay for it. It's eviscerating Medicare. It's robbing Peter to pay Paul, or in this cases, robbing grandma and grandpa. And that's why --

BOLLING: We're going to have to leave it there. Doctors, we appreciate your time, both of you.

===================================

Here's the article by Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel:

===================================

WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS
FROM LEGALIZING PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE?

Volume 339, Number 3·167
Special Article
EZEKIEL J. EMANUEL , M.D., PH .D.,AND MARGARET P. BATTIN , PH .D.
From the Center for Outcomes and Policy Research, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Control,
Dana–Farber Cancer Institute, and the Division of Medical Ethics, Harvard Medical School, Boston (E.J.E.);
and the Department of Philosophy, University of Utah, and the Division of Medical Ethics, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City (M.P.B.).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18428440/What-Are-the-Potential-Cost-Savings-From-Legalizing-Physician-Assisted-Suicide

Address reprint requests to Dr. Emanuel at the Center for Outcomes and Policy Research, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Control, Dana–Farber Cancer Institute, 44 Binney St., Boston, MA 02115.
©1998, Massachusetts Medical Society.

In the Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill decision rejecting a constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide, the Supreme Court allowed each state to decide whether to legalize the intervention.1 In state legislatures rather than courtrooms, factual claims about the probable extent and implications of permitting physician-assisted suicide assume a preeminent role in the debate about legalization.2

Particularly sensitive in these discussions will be the issue of the potential cost savings from legalizing physician-assisted suicide, and how the savings might influence decision making by health care institutions, physicians, families, and terminally ill patients.3-6

Although we do not agree with each other about the ethics or optimal social policy regarding physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia, we do agree that the claims of cost savings distort the debate. Within the limits of available data, we offer an assessment of the potential cost savings from legalizing physician-assisted suicide, demonstrating that the savings can be predicted to be very small — less than 0.1 percent of both total health care spending in the United States and an individual managed-care plan’s budget.

SPECULATING ABOUT COST SAVINGS FROM PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE

There is a widespread perception that the United States spends an excessive amount on high-technology health care for dying patients. 7-20 Many commentators note that 27 to 30 percent of the Medicare budget is spent on the 5 percent of Medicare patients who die each year.21 They also note that the expenditures increase exponentially as death approaches, so that the last month of life accounts for 30 to 40 percent of the medical care expenditures in the last year of life.

To many, savings from reduced use of expensive technological interventions at the end of life are both necessary and desirable.11,12,18,19 Many have linked the effort to reduce the high cost of death with the legalization of physician-assisted suicide. One commentator observed: “Managed care and managed death [through physician-assisted suicide] are less expensive than fee-for-service care and extended survival. Less expensive is better.”22

Some of the amicus curiae briefs submitted to the Supreme Court expressed the same logic: “Decreasing availability and increasing expense in health care and the uncertain impact of managed care may intensify pressure to choose physician-assisted suicide”23 and “the cost effectiveness of hastened death is as undeniable as gravity. The earlier a patient dies, the less costly is his or her care.”24

Indeed, the Supreme Court noted the potential for cost-saving motives to influence the legalization and use of physician-assisted suicide, speculating that “if physician-assisted suicide were permitted, many might resort to it to spare their families the substantial financial burden of end- of-life health care costs.”1

FACTORS DETERMINING SAVINGS FROM PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE

Computing the likely cost savings from legalizing physician-assisted suicide is based on three factors: (1) the number of patients who might commit suicide with the assistance of a physician if it is legalized; (2) the proportion of medical costs that might be saved by the use of physician-assisted suicide, which is related to the amount of time that a patient’s life might be shortened; and (3) the total cost of medical care for patients who die.

Each of these factors is uncertain. Although available data indicate that physicians in the United States currently provide euthanasia and assistance with suicide to some patients,25,26 it is impossible to determine how many additional Americans would die as a result of physician-assisted suicide if it were legalized. The savings from legalization would depend on the additional number of physician-assisted suicides beyond the current number. Since predictions about any patient’s precise date of death are inherently uncertain, it is impossible to determine how much life would be forgone. Finally, only limited data are available on the costs of care near the end of life in the United States.15,16,21

However, by combining data on physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia in the Netherlands, where these interventions are openly performed27,28 and have been studied,2 9 -31 and available U.S. data on costs at the end of life, we can estimate the cost savings that would be realized in the United States if physician-assisted suicide were legalized. Although such an estimate is very crude, sensitivity analysis can minimize the effect of the uncertainty by providing the range of savings under reasonable conditions.

THE NUMBER OF PATIENTS WHO MIGHT CHOOSE PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE

In the Netherlands, approximately 3100 cases of euthanasia and 550 cases of physician-assisted suicide occur annually, representing 2.3 percent and 0.4 percent, respectively, of all deaths.31 (There are an additional 1000 cases [0.7 percent] in which euthanasia is performed without the patients’ explicit, current consent.31 Such cases are neither sanctioned in the Netherlands nor permitted by the current proposals for legalization of physician-assisted suicide in the United States.)

About 80 percent of deaths by physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia in the Netherlands involve patients with cancer, representing 6 percent of all deaths from cancer.30,31 Extrapolating the Dutch rates to the United States suggests that approximately 62,000 Americans (2.7 percent of the 2.3 million who die in the United States each year) might choose physician-assisted suicide if it were legalized and carried out with the explicit, current consent of the patients.

Patients with cancer are also likely to be the primary users of physician-assisted suicide in the United States.25,26

PROPORTION OF LIFE SHORTENED BY PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE

Although predicting the exact date on which an individual patient will die is impossible, physicians are fairly accurate in predicting the time of death on a population basis, especially for patients who die of cancer.16,32 Dutch physicians estimate that 17 percent of patients receiving euthanasia or a physician’s assistance with suicide at the patients’ explicit request had their lives shortened by less than one day, 42 percent by one day to one week, 32 percent by more than one week to four weeks, and 9 percent by more than one month.30,31

Thus, more than 90 percent of Dutch patients who died as a result of physician- assisted suicide or euthanasia at their own explicit request had their lives shortened by 4 weeks or less, with an average life reduction of less than 3.3 weeks.

THE COSTS OF MEDICAL CARE FOR DYING PATIENTS

Determining the costs of medical care at the end of life and how much would be saved by legalizing physician-assisted suicide is made difficult by several problems with the available data. It is speculative to assume that patients who might commit physician-assisted suicide would consume resources at a rate similar to that of patients who do not; such patients may be considerably different from average decedents in terms of health status, psychology, and sociodemographic characteristics, using more (or fewer) health care resources at the end of life.25 Also, the best data available in the United States on the cost of medical care at the end of life come from Medicare, which provides mainly acute care for the elderly and disabled. 33, 34

Studies have come to various conclusions about whether these Medicare data can be extrapolated to decedents under 65 years old.35 -38 According to recent Medicare data, for a beneficiary who dies of cancer after receiving conventional care, $30,397 (in 1995 dollars) is spent on medical care in the last year of life.39,40  Fully 33 percent of the last year’s costs ($10,118 in 1995 dollars) are spent in the last month of life, and 48 percent ($14,507 in 1995 dollars) in the last two months of life. (The available data do not define costs in any smaller increments of time.)

Article continues here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/18428440/What-Are-the-Potential-Cost-Savings-From-Legalizing-Physician-Assisted-Suicide
And  the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, 
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren,  ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 25:40

Offline Monkeypox

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,844
  • He Loved Big Brother
    • Monkeypox
Re: Death Panels revived: Obama tries to circumvent law with 'regulations'
« Reply #10 on: January 04, 2011, 02:04:27 pm »
Emperor Obama I.







War Is Peace - Freedom Is Slavery - Ignorance Is Strength


"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."

—Thomas Jefferson

Offline Satyagraha

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,941
Re: Death Panels revived: Obama tries to circumvent law with 'regulations'
« Reply #11 on: January 05, 2011, 04:19:52 am »
Obama To Implement Hitler Program by Fiat
http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2010/101228obama_t4.html

Dec. 28, 2010 (EIRNS)—President Obama's recently revealed decision to have Donald Berwick, director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, resurrect, by issuing a regulation, the infamous Section 1233 of Obama's health bill, demonstrates once again, how right LaRouche was to "put the moustache" on Obama. Blocked by the Congress in his desire to put this Nazi euthanasia provision in the health care law, Obama is now trying to implement it by fiat.

Section 1233, written by euthanasia enthusiast Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), calls for Medicare to pay for what is euphemistically called annual "end-of-life counseling." In fact, doctors are not only being encouraged to promote discussions of stopping medical care, but they are going to be rewarded according to the number of patients who agree to forego treatment by signing "living wills" or other such directives. In Hitler fashion, Obama will give doctors a bonus if they convince you to die early; and they will penalize them if you don't agree.

Here is Hitler's 1939 T-4 program, of weeding out those considered to have "lives unworthy of life," all over again, just as LaRouche said. Either Obama is kicked out, or fascism is coming in Jan. 1, and it is you and your family who may not survive.
And  the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, 
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren,  ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 25:40

Offline Satyagraha

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,941
Re: Death Panels revived: Obama tries to circumvent law with 'regulations'
« Reply #12 on: January 05, 2011, 04:24:52 am »

Nazi Euthanasia
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/euthanasia.htm

In October of 1939 amid the turmoil of the outbreak of war Hitler ordered widespread "mercy killing" of the sick and disabled.

Code named "Aktion T 4," the Nazi euthanasia program to eliminate "life unworthy of life" at first focused on newborns and very young children. Midwives and doctors were required to register children up to age three who showed symptoms of mental retardation, physical deformity, or other symptoms included on a questionnaire from the Reich Health Ministry.

A decision on whether to allow the child to live was then made by three medical experts solely on the basis of the questionnaire, without any examination and without reading any medical records.

Each expert placed a + mark in red pencil or - mark in blue pencil under the term "treatment" on a special form. A red plus mark meant a decision to kill the child. A blue minus sign meant meant a decision against killing. Three plus symbols resulted in a euthanasia warrant being issued and the transfer of the child to a 'Children's Specialty Department' for death by injection or gradual starvation.

The decision had to be unanimous. In cases where the decision was not unanimous the child was kept under observation and another attempt would be made to get a unanimous decision.

The Nazi euthanasia program quickly expanded to include older disabled children and adults. Hitler's decree of October, 1939, typed on his personal stationery and back dated to Sept. 1, enlarged "the authority of certain physicians to be designated by name in such manner that persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death."

Questionnaires were then distributed to mental institutions, hospitals and other institutions caring for the chronically ill.

Patients had to be reported if they suffered from schizophrenia, epilepsy, senile disorders, therapy resistant paralysis and syphilitic diseases, retardation, encephalitis, Huntington's chorea and other neurological conditions, also those who had been continuously in institutions for at least 5 years, or were criminally insane, or did not posses German citizenship or were not of German or related blood, including Jews, Negroes, and Gypsies.

A total of six killing centers were established including the well known psychiatric clinic at Hadamar. The euthanasia program was eventually headed by an SS man named Christian Wirth, a notorious brute with the nickname 'the savage Christian.'

At Brandenburg, a former prison was converted into a killing center where the first Nazi experimental gassings took place. The gas chambers were disguised as shower rooms, but were actually hermetically sealed chambers connected by pipes to cylinders of carbon monoxide. Patients were generally drugged before being led naked into the gas chamber. Each killing center included a crematorium where the bodies were taken for disposal. Families were then falsely told the cause of death was medical such as heart failure or pneumonia.

But the huge increase in the death rate for the disabled combined with the very obvious plumes of odorous smoke over the killing centers aroused suspicion and fear. At Hadamar, for example, local children even taunted arriving busloads of patients by saying "here comes some more to be gassed."

On August 3, 1941, a Catholic Bishop, Clemens von Galen, delivered a sermon in Münster Cathedral attacking the Nazi euthanasia program calling it "plain murder." The sermon sent a shockwave through the Nazi leadership by publicly condemning the program and urged German Catholics to "withdraw ourselves and our faithful from their (Nazi) influence so that we may not be contaminated by their thinking and their ungodly behavior."

As a result, on August 23, Hitler suspended Aktion T4, which had accounted for nearly a hundred thousand deaths by this time.

The Nazis retaliated against the Bishop by beheading three parish priests who had distributed his sermon, but left the Bishop unharmed to avoid making him into a martyr.

However, the Nazi euthanasia program quietly continued, but without the widespread gassings. Drugs and starvation were used instead and doctors were encouraged to decide in favor of death whenever euthanasia was being considered.

The use of gas chambers at the euthanasia killing centers ultimately served as training centers for the SS. They used the technical knowledge and experience gained during the euthanasia program to construct huge killing centers at Auschwitz, Treblinka and other concentration camps in an attempt to exterminate the entire Jewish population of Europe. SS personnel from the euthanasia killing centers, notably Wirth, Franz Reichleitner and Franz Stangl later commanded extermination camps.

Copyright © 1996 The History Place™ All Rights Reserved
And  the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, 
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren,  ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 25:40

Offline Satyagraha

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,941
Re: Death Panels revived: Obama tries to circumvent law with 'regulations'
« Reply #13 on: January 05, 2011, 04:43:11 am »
The question is, what kind of 'training brochures and videos' is the government preparing for doctors to view prior to doing end-of-life counseling? Is there an incentive for doctors to provide this counseling? Is there an incentive for doctors who administer the end-of-life 'treatment'?

If a family member is terminally ill, and the cost of treatment is putting a financial burden on the family (and insurance company), will the end-of-life 'decision' be influenced by economic factors?

How could it NOT be?

Slippery slope.

Bill Gates describes it succinctly in this video: and we are left with no doubt about how Bill would make that decision for the rest of us. I wonder how Bill would make that decision for himself, or his wife or children?:

Although not a book, you can start by listening to Bill Gates discussing the need for death panels...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03MZG9vK0W8&feature=player_embedded#!

"Is spending a million dollars on that last three months of life for that patient -- would it be better not to lay off those ten teachers - and to make that trade-off in medical costs? But that's what's called the 'death panel', ah, and you're not supposed to have that discussion."
- Bill Gates
Aspen Conference 2010


While they were discussing the health care legislation, they said that wacky conspiracy theorists were making up lies about 'death panels'. Then, in August, we find Bill Gates talking about death panels. They exist, we knew they existed, it's part of depopulation, and one of Bill's missions.




And  the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, 
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren,  ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 25:40

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Re: Death Panels revived: Obama tries to circumvent law with 'regulations'
« Reply #14 on: January 05, 2011, 07:36:12 am »

  THAT'S IT--End of life Counseling

   The Panel--your doctor  vs you (the patient).

   He/she gets paid to talk about DEATH.
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline Satyagraha

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,941
Re: Death Panels revived: Obama tries to circumvent law with 'regulations'
« Reply #15 on: January 05, 2011, 03:04:34 pm »
 THAT'S IT--End of life Counseling

   The Panel--your doctor  vs you (the patient).

   He/she gets paid to talk about DEATH.

Doc - it would be good to know exactly how the incentives work:

1. Do doctors get some kind of payment for having the discussion (counseling) about end-of-life care?
   - Do they have to have the 'talk' every year (instead of the current 5 years between the talks)

2. Do doctors get payment if they administer end-of-life 'suicide' medications? Is that somehow incentivized?

3. Do they get penalized if they DON'T have the annual conversations about "ready to die yet?"

How the 'regulations' are stated: and how the insurance companies deal with doctors billing their time, medications, etc, will be the real test of this.

But this piece of the healthcare bill - removed before the bill was passed - is now up for 'regulatory' implementation, and we need to pay attention.There is NO representation for the people on this issue.



And  the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, 
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren,  ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 25:40