Edna Said:

Is There Going To Be a Death Panel For My Grandma. (Under Obama's HC Plan)?

We Answered:

There absolutely is.

Start with this quote from Obama:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQ…


The liberals are liars that are trying to fool people into voting for a bill that will force them to take a "pain pill" instead of getting treatment later.

That is how sick they are.

It has nothing to do with the end of life counceling. That is what the Liberals are painting it out to be but that is a lie as they typically do.

The bigger danger as far as a death panel comes from the powers of the Health Choices Commissioner (Sec. 203(a)) and the Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Sec. 123(a)&(b)):

Sec. 203(a):

"The Commissioner shall specify the benefits to be made available under Exchange-participating health benefits plans during each plan year..."

Sec. 123(a)):

"There is established a private-public advisory committee which shall be a panel of medical and other experts to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans."

Sec 123(b) (1)

"The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall recommend to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as the ‘‘Secretary’’) benefit standards (as defined in paragraph (4)), and periodic updates to such standards. In developing such recommendations, the Committee shall take into account innovation in health care and consider how such standards could reduce health disparities."

Covered benefits (Sec 123(b)(4), "including categories of covered treatments, items and services within benefit classes, and cost-sharing"), meaning things like knee replacements and cancer treatments, will be determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Health Choices Commissioner (to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate), and the Health Benefits Advisory Committee (to be appointed by the President [up to 17 people] and the Comptroller General [9 people], without confirmation). There is obvious opportunity here for the Secretary, Commissioner, and Committee to recommend that some condition not be covered, such as dementia or other category-likely conditions. No one is going to pull the plug on grandma, but they could decide they just aren't going to pay for having her plugged in, at all. But let's assume that the conditions are officially covered. We aren't out of the woods yet.

Title IV, Section 2404, covers the implementation of best practices. It involves changing the Public Health Care Act, by inserting some new sections, including Part D, Section 931(h), which says that in general, "The Director shall enter into voluntary arrangements with health care providers (including hospitals and other health facilities and health practitioners) in a State or region to implement best practices identified or developed under this section." (by the Secretary). The Director is defined in the Public Health Care Act, which I haven't looked up, but I believe the intent is that doctors will be informed of best practices but not required to use them, not even by having payment depend on having used them.

Voluntary guidelines can be ignored. If the doctors don’t agree with the treatments recommended, they will generally be inclined to ignore them. Thus, no cost savings. Perhaps the government plans to incentivize the doctors by paying them more if they use the recommended treatments? That doesn’t sound like it would promote cost savings, even if doctors are all as greedy as the President has implied, so that they use whatever treatment enriches them the most.

So if you have invested money in figuring out how to save money and then the recommendations are ignored, you have lost money. When this happens, what stops the government from taking steps to make the guidelines into requirements? To control costs, of course. To keep the health care financial burden from destroying the economy.

Once the guidelines are requirements, the door is open to the government making recommended treatment guidelines based on political considerations to reduce the number of people in a category that is, shall we say, inconvenient to have around. That would fit the definition of a death panel, I think. It’s more impersonal and more efficient than what the phrase conjures up as a vision, but people would die as a result of the council’s decisions. People would die to save money. Think about that.

The point is that the worst thing about the bill is that it gives government the power and authority to do terrible things. The bill contains fragile protections that could be overruled later with much less fanfare than the current bill has, when people have relaxed, thinking the fight is over. The only real safety is in keeping government out of the insurance business altogether. No Commissioner, Committee, Exchange, best practices recommendations...just you, your doctor, and your insurance company. This doesn't mean there is no useful reform to be had

Benjamin Said:

Are these the kind of People the Clinton's roll with???? and will more mainstream media cover this?????

We Answered:

Very good post! Quite frankly I can't figure out why there is so much finger pointing, it isn't as if any Political Party is without its own version of liar, swindler, pants around the ankles, cheater, promise breaker, you name it.

So why spend the time doing so? Each when caught breaking the law, needs to pay the price, and each party needs to be a stand up about it, and put down what these people did.

So much corruption, so little time to enjoy life - what has this world come to?

Thomas Said:

Isn't this bizarre, British voters support the BNP yet...?

We Answered:

Your question is very interesting and I think it highlights that although we are supposed to be in the EU because of the language barriers and cultural differences we have actually very little understanding of each other's countries because there are not a lot of independent pan-European news sources. I didn't know for instance about legislation against and monitoring of Fascist parties in Germany. I do find it strange though that Le Pen's Front National in France publishes the addresses and phone numbers of all their regional organisers on their website whereas in the UK the BNP are shrouded in secrecy. Either they are more accepted in France, there is no opposition like the UAF, or French people are a bit more mature about not harassing each other, or they have a lower and more responsible internet usage.
I know we are supposed to attempt 'answers' on here but when you look at some of the major issues only more questions present themselves.