Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[Happy Monkey]

Will the American people say "Enough!"?

We did. That's why we're reforming the system.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

We did. That's why we're reforming the system.

yea, you keep believing that...

Reform like having secret meetings with the wolf guarding the hen house?

[TheMercenary]

It didn't help the White House when the Congressional Budget Office last week said the bills moving through Congress would add to the nation's long-term costs, not reduce them. Obama has been emphatic that he will not sign a bill that adds to the government's deficit.

Meanwhile, unemployment is at 9.5 percent and rising.

Talk of Obama inheriting an economic mess from George W. Bush is fading, and the American public is now grading the new president. His approval rating on handling the economy has been slipping as impatience grows.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Reform like having secret meetings with the wolf guarding the hen house?

Secret meetings

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Secret meetings

I never saw anything like that for Cheney's meetings with the energy industry.

[Shawnee123]

We didn't believe in reform back then.

[Griff]

Obama is going to end up with a "meet the new boss" problem. He needs to be better than the previous criminals.

Democracy Now!

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, didn’t the President actually make a big issue of this during his campaign, actually saying—I think it was on his website even, his campaign website—that the White House is the people’s house and the people have a right to know who visits?


MELANIE SLOAN: Yes, he did. And, in fact, transparency has been sort of a totem of this administration, at least that’s what they claimed. But then we’re finding the actual transparency is a little disappointing.


And, of course, they’re release these names last night, because they want to avoid the distraction at the President’s press conference on healthcare.


But we have another Freedom of Information Act request and a lawsuit outstanding for the information regarding coal executives’ visits to the White House. And the White House has not responded to that.


Also, there is another case—two cases that we have before the Court of Appeals regarding Secret Service visitor records. These cases were started under the Bush administration for visits by Christian conservative leaders to the White House and also by a lobbyist named Stephen Payne. Courts previously held that the Secret Service had to provide that information. That case is going up on appeal, and so far the Obama administration is taking the exact same position that the Bush administration took, claming these records are presidential records, not federal records, and therefore not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Secret meetings

Fail. In a big way...

CREW said in a statement that Craig's letter "in no way" fulfills the group's request, which was for the visitor logs themselves.

"Releasing some records because it is politically expedient to do so is not transparency," the group said.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

And so, the Democrats continue to demonstrate why sensible guys like me don't vote for Democrats. To be continued... no end in sight...

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

And so, the Democrats continue to demonstrate why sensible guys like me don't vote for Democrats. To be continued... no end in sight...

On the issue of transparency:

On the release of the names of participants in WH meetngs, Obama released the names w/o stalling until a court order...a reversal of Bush policy. While I would have hoped for full compliance with the FOIA request, there are issues of executive privilege regarding WH documents that deserve further court review...releasing names is not one of those issues.

On the issue of FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests in general, the Obama directive is a reversal of the Bush directive....with a presumption of releasing information (unless there are serious and not contrived national security issues), rather than withholding information.

On the issue of signing statements, the Obama directives identifies the limited circumstances when such statements will be used...another reversal of the Bush policy. Bush used signing statements to circumvent enacted legislative intent more than twice all previous presidents combined.

On Congressional transparency, the Democratic ethics/lobbyng/earmark reform enacted when they assumed the majority goes farther than anything enacted by the previous Republican majority. I would like to have seen stronger reform, but in comparison to pre-2007, it is a vast improvement.

Most recently, Pelosi's directive for all House members to post all staff and office -related expenses on-line was an action the previous Speaker refused to implement.

While all the above may not go far enough for some (including me), in every case, there is greater transparency in both the executive branch and the legislature than the previous Republican president and Congress...an indisputable fact.

UG....I'm curious why you think that is bad or why sensible people should not support such greater transparency in government?

added:

UG...I forgot the DOJ issues and your laughable attempt to rebut. Official findings in four or five cases of illegal, improper or unethical acts by the Bush DOJ....and the best you could come up with in your last best response was books by Rush Limbaugh's brother and Brent Bozell, with unattributed allegations and the standard partisan gibberish?

[TheMercenary]

A trial lawyer power grab that may unleash a flood of Medicare lawsuits.

Just before the House leadership's 794-page health care reform bill went to a Ways & Means markup last Thursday, a remarkable provision was slipped in that amounts to one of the more audacious and far-reaching trial lawyer power grabs seen on Capitol Hill in a while. Republicans managed to fend it off for the moment--but don't be surprised if it shows up again down the road in some form.

The provision would have drastically widened the scope of lawsuits against what are known as Medicare third-party defendants. In the simplest scenario, Medicare has paid the bills of someone injured in, say, a car accident, and then learns that the beneficiary has successfully sued and obtained damages from the other driver. Sometimes at this point Medicare (i.e., the government) demands that the beneficiary hand over some or all of the settlement toward the cost of the health care. Under some conditions, however, it is also free to file its own lawsuit to recover the medical outlays directly from the negligent driver (who in some circumstances might even wind up covering the same medical bills twice). It might file suit directly if, for example, it does not expect to get a collectible judgment from the beneficiary.

For some time now, the federal government has been stepping up its pursuit of money from these defendants. The language slipped into the health bill would greatly expand the scope of these suits against third parties, while doing something entirely new, namely allow freelance lawyers to file them on behalf of the government--without asking permission--and collect rich bounties if they manage thereby to extract money from the defendants. Lawyers will recognize this as a "qui tam" procedure, of the sort that has led to a growing body of litigation filed by freelance bounty hunters against universities, defense contractors and others alleged to have overcharged the government.

It gets worse. Language in the bill would permit the lawyers to file at least some sorts of Medicare recovery actions based on "any relevant evidence, including but not limited to relevant statistical or epidemiological evidence, or by other similarly reliable means." This reads very much as if an attempt is being made to lay the groundwork for claims against new classes of defendants who might not be proved liable in an individual case but are responsible in a "statistical" sense. The best known such controversies are over whether suppliers of products such as alcohol, calorie-laden foods or guns should be compelled to pay compensation for society-wide patterns of illness or injury.

A few other highlights of the provision:

--It would knock out a significant current barrier to litigation by doing away with a rule that restricts the filing of a Medicare suit until after a previous "judgment," that is to say, after the success of an earlier lawsuit establishing responsibility for the injury.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/22/med...ter-olson.html

[TheMercenary]

More evidence of a non-transparent Obama Administration:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090725/D99LCTJO0.html

[TheMercenary]

WWTKD? (What Would Ted Kennedy Do?).......

While Americans worry over government insurance plans, longer waits for treatment, and "healthcare rationing," a more sinister agenda lurks in the shadows of the healthcare bill now before the House of Representatives. Today's Medicare recipients could be the first to experience our government's new solution to America's "useless eaters."


Section 1233 of HR 3200, the healthcare reform measure under consideration, mandates "Advance Care Planning Consultation." Under the proposal, all senior citizens receiving government medical care would be required to undergo these counseling sessions every five years. Further reading of the law reveals that these sessions are nothing more than a not-so-veiled attempt to convince the elderly to forego treatment. HR 3200 calls outright for these compulsory consultations to recommend "palliative care and hospice." These are typically administered in the place of treatment intended to prolong life, and instead focus on pain relief until death. These are, of course, reasonable and beneficial options for terminally ill patients and their families.


But this legislation doesn't stop there. Section 1233 requires "an explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title." But, under the terms of the section, the federal government can compel more frequent end-of-life sessions if it declares a "significant change" in the health of the Medicare recipient, a change that the bill does not confine to fatal illness, but which encompasses broad and abstract conditions described as "chronic," "progressive," or "life-limiting." The bill even empowers physicians to make an "actionable medical order" to "limit some or all specified interventions..." In effect, the government can determine that a "life-limiting" condition demands the withholding of treatment.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...ss_eaters.html

[TheMercenary]

Another Blow to the money dump for health care:

For the second time this month, congressional budget analysts have dealt a blow to the Democrat's health reform efforts, this time by saying a plan touted by the White House as crucial to paying for the bill would actually save almost no money over 10 years.


A key House chairman and moderate House Democrats on Tuesday agreed to a White House-backed proposal that would give an outside panel the power to make cuts to government-financed health care programs. White House budget director Peter Orszag declared the plan "probably the most important piece that can be added" to the House's health care reform legislation.


But on Saturday, the Congressional Budget Office said the proposal to give an independent panel the power to keep Medicare spending in check would only save about $2 billion over 10 years- a drop in the bucket compared to the bill's $1 trillion price tag.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

WWTKD? (What Would Ted Kennedy Do?).......


http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...ss_eaters.html

Why not just call it what the other wing nuts are calling it...Obama's Suicide Bill.

Here is the provision:

''Advance Care Planning Consultation
''(hhh) (1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term 'advance care planning consultation' means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:

''(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.

''(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable 19 powers of attorney, and their uses.

''(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.

''(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965).

''(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.

''(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include--

''(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual's family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;

''(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and

''(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decisionmaker (also known as a health care proxy).

''(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement for explanations under clause (i) to consultations furnished in a State--

''(I) in which all legal barriers have been addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining treatment to constitute a set of medical orders respected across all care settings; and

''(II) that has in effect a program for orders for life sustaining treatment described in clause (iii).

''(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a States described in this clause is a program that--

''(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;

''(II) distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the professional's authority under State law) may sign orders for life sustaining treatment;

''(III) provides training for health care professionals across the continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining treatment; and

''(IV) is guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association.

''(2) A practitioner described in this paragraph is--

''(A) a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)); and
''(B) a nurse practitioner or physician's assistant who has the authority under State law to sign orders for life sustaining treatments.

''(3)(A) An initial preventive physical examination 21 under subsection (WW), including any related discussion during such examination, shall not be considered an advance care planning consultation for purposes of applying the 5-year limitation under paragraph (1).

''(B) An advance care planning consultation with respect to an individual may be conducted more frequently than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or a hospice program.

''(4) A consultation under this subsection may include the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order.

''(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term 'order regarding life sustaining treatment' means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that--

''(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as de18 fined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professional's authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the individual and be followed by health care professionals and providers across the continuum of care;

''(ii) effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;

''(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized within a given locality, region, or State (as identified by the Secretary); and

'(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as defined in section 1866(f)(3)) if executed by the individual.

''(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items--

''(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems; ''(ii) the individual's desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting;

''(iii) the use of antibiotics; and

''(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.''.

Please point out where it says (or any section in the bill)..as you highlighted.... The bill even empowers physicians to make an "actionable medical order" to "limit some or all specified interventions..." In effect, the government can determine that a "life-limiting" condition demands the withholding of treatment..

Simply ignoring the subsection that states: ...effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;

The individual's preferences seems quite clear to me. I dont know how that translates into "government can determine that a "life-limiting" condition demands the withholding of treatment."

What is wrong with providing consultation for advance care planning for the terminally ill?

Damn dude, do you really believe everything you read w/o even bothering to confirm its validity?

Get a grip, Merc. You're obsession with snipping and pasting everything you read (most of which are partisan editorials that have no regard for the facts, but whose intent is to scare) that might support you position only makes you look more ignorant of the facts and gives you less credibility than you already have, at least IMO.