Fine for refusing health care?!?!?! - The Health care thread....

[smockers83]

Which brings us back to the point of why do we HAVE to implement UH? It doesn't improve quality, innovation, costs, or much of anything. It's a spin on the status quo.

Improve the value of healthcare on a dollar basis and you'll change the entire system completely by improving access to it. But the double edged sword comes out here where we have an industry that is constantly changing with new technologies and procedures that improve the quality of healthcare that introduce new and higher costs at implementation. Remove the incentive to improve and you result in a much more stagnant system with depreciating quality. Then the question becomes, do improvements keep pace with the depreciation to keep the quality level the same? Or do they outpace depreciation and by how much? Or, perhaps, have we eliminated the incentive so much that depreciation of quality out paces improvement?

If we implement UH, it doesn't change anything about the status quo, in that costs are high. People still can't afford the healthcare based on their income, putting a financial burden on the country. Improve quality and efficiency and you'll reduce costs. If you can reduce costs so that people can finally access the market, you no longer have all of the financial burden.

One example to improve quality and efficiency of the entire system: get rid of the law that says the ER must accept anyone that comes in. The government can create a minimum of standards that hospitals must accept (i.e. life threatening injuries/complications, US citizen only), but allow hospitals to refuse ER entrants and send them off to more economical, efficient places that are more appropriate for the situation.

[WDRacing]

One example to improve quality and efficiency of the entire system: get rid of the law that says the ER must accept anyone that comes in. The government can create a minimum of standards that hospitals must accept (i.e. life threatening injuries/complications, US citizen only), but allow hospitals to refuse ER entrants and send them off to more economical, efficient places that are more appropriate for the situation.

I've made similar points while talking with a few friends of mine about almost everything in this Nation. My basic though process is that we don't need "new" anything. We don't need new laws because we don't enforce the ones currently in place. We don't need to dump millions of $$$ into wind energy because the grid it's pumped into is failing and leaks about half of the juice that's actually sent out. We don't NEED UH because there are perfectly acceptable ways to trim the current budget and rework the system that's already in place.

There are only a few facts we can go by IMO. One being that we're in a recession. Two being that we're now overly burdened with more debt then we've ever had, all of which rests solely on the tax payers shoulder no matter what class they're currently in. The third and most glaring fact is that almost every program that's been run by the Gov has either failed partially or totally. This will be no different and it scares me...it's scaring lots of people. Our current administration is putting it's hands into everything...am I the only one awake here?

[audtatious]

The informed brown shirts are coming to a meeting near you.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...edded

[C-Kwik]

Which brings us back to the point of why do we HAVE to implement UH? It doesn't improve quality, innovation, costs, or much of anything. It's a spin on the status quo.

As I stated before, MY reason for backing UH is so that EVERYONE has access to reasonable healthcare. However, UH, being a somewhat comprehensive program presents an opportunity to fix our current problems.

Improve the value of healthcare on a dollar basis and you'll change the entire system completely by improving access to it. But the double edged sword comes out here where we have an industry that is constantly changing with new technologies and procedures that improve the quality of healthcare that introduce new and higher costs at implementation. Remove the incentive to improve and you result in a much more stagnant system with depreciating quality. Then the question becomes, do improvements keep pace with the depreciation to keep the quality level the same? Or do they outpace depreciation and by how much? Or, perhaps, have we eliminated the incentive so much that depreciation of quality out paces improvement?

Most of our research dollars in the medical field already come from the government. And to some extent, government involvement in healthcare on both these fronts presents a desire to create more effective treatments that cost less. On the private end, this also promotes development of medicine that meets this same criteria if they are going to have a chance of remaining in the game.

If we implement UH, it doesn't change anything about the status quo, in that costs are high. People still can't afford the healthcare based on their income, putting a financial burden on the country. Improve quality and efficiency and you'll reduce costs. If you can reduce costs so that people can finally access the market, you no longer have all of the financial burden.

Yes, but reducing costs alone does not make it 100% accessible. It will still need to be done in order to make a UH plan effective and perhaps even viable. Anectdotally, it appears UH systems have been pretty effective at reducing costs overall. If as a nation, we collectively pay 17% of our income towards healthcare, then if we can reduce that to even 11% (Switzerland, the next highest, is at 10.8% IIRC) of our GDP, then we collectively spend 35% less. Hell, according to some estimates, if we could be on par with administrative costs for other countries with UH, then we'd quickly drop down our expenses by about 21%.

One example to improve quality and efficiency of the entire system: get rid of the law that says the ER must accept anyone that comes in. The government can create a minimum of standards that hospitals must accept (i.e. life threatening injuries/complications, US citizen only), but allow hospitals to refuse ER entrants and send them off to more economical, efficient places that are more appropriate for the situation.

Then WHO will take them? From a technical standpoint, it could be a solution, but should the US take on a policy of eliminating human decency from all our decisions? Might as well stop treating terminally ill patients entirely as well. Why spend the money and hog up the resources? They're going to die anyways right?

[themadscientist]

A challenger appears! From the grave, Reagan raises his fist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

Back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, 6 times candidate for president on the socialist party ticket said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program. There are many ways in which our government has invaded the precincts of private citizens, . . . but at the moment I'd like to talk about a another way because this threat is with us and at the moment is more imminent. One of the traditional methods of imposing state-ism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can't afford it. Now the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this under the Truman administration. It was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the U.S., and of course the American people unhesitatingly rejected this. So with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, congressman Foran introduced the Foran bill. This was the idea that all people of social security age should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance. Now this would not only be senior citizens this would be the dependents and those who are disabled; this would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for social security. Now congressman Foran brought the program out on that idea on just for that particular group of people. But congressman Foran was subscribing to this foot in the door philosophy, because he said if we can only break through and get our foot in the door, than we can expand the program after that. . . . Let's see what the socialist themselves had to say about it. They say, "once the Foran bill is passed, this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine, capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population." Well, we can't say we haven't been warned. . . It is presented in the idea of a great emergency that millions of our senior citizens are unable to provide needed medical care. This ignores the fact that in the last decade 127 million of our citizens, in just 10 years, have come under the protection of some form of privately owned medical or hospital insurance. Now the advocates of this bill when you try to oppose it challenge you on an emotional basis. They say, "what would you do, throw these poor old people out to die with no medical attention?" That's ridiculous and of course no one has advocated it. As a matter of fact, in the last session of congress a bill was adopted known as the kerr-mills bill. . . This bill is a frank recognition of the medical need or problem of the senior citizen . . . and it is provided from the federal government to the states and the local communities to be used at the discretion of the state to help those people who need it. Now what reason could the other people have for backing a bill that says we insist on compulsory health insurance for senior citizens on a basis of age alone, regardless of whether they're worth millions of dollars, whether they have an income, whether they're protected by their own insurance, whether they have savings? . . . . This was simply an excuse to bring about what they wanted all the time, socialized medicine. James Madison in 1788 speaking to the Virginia convention said, "since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, then by violent and sudden usurpations." . . . Very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of saving that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end social security was adopted. But it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries. . . In our country under our free enterprise system, . . . we have the private care from a doctor given to one person, the right to choose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other. But let's also go to the other side at the freedom the doctor loses. . . . The doctor begins to lose freedoms, it's like telling a lie, and one leads to another. First you decide the Doctor can have so many patients, they're equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors are equally divided geographically. So a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town, but the government has to say to him you can't live in that town, they already have enough doctors, you have to go someplace else. And from here it's only a short step to dictating where he will have to go . . . . . Take it into your own occupation or that of your spouse's. All of us can see what happens, once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man's working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it's a short step to all the rest of socialism to determining his pay. And soon your son won't decide when he's in school, where he will go or what he will do for a living. The government will tell him where he will go to work and what he will do. In this country of ours took place . . . the only true revolution. Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another. But here for the first time in all the thousands of years of man's relation to man, a little group of men, the founding fathers, for the first time established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the God given right and ability to determine our own destiny. This freedom was built into our government with safeguards. Write to your congressman and senators. We can say right now we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties & freedoms. At the moment, the key issue is we do not want socialized medicine. Tell them that you believe in . . . fiscal responsibility . . . governments don't tax to get the money they need, governments will find a need for the money they get. Tell them that you demand the continuation of our traditional free enterprise system . . . The only way we can do it is to write to our representative. Give him/her the ability to stand before his/her colleagues in congress to say that I've heard from my constituents and this is what they want. Write those letters now, call your friends and tell them to write. If you don't, this program I promise you will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow. And behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country, until one day . . we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if we don't do this, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children, and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free.~ Ronald Reagan

[WDRacing]

Then WHO will take them? From a technical standpoint, it could be a solution, but should the US take on a policy of eliminating human decency from all our decisions? Might as well stop treating terminally ill patients entirely as well. Why spend the money and hog up the resources? They're going to die anyways right?

Establish seperate "free clinics" funded by ALL the f***ing people that think UH is a good idea.

I'm sure there are more then enough doctors willing to either work for min wage or just for free right? We can borrow another trillion or two from China...better yet, we'll sell them CA. Then we'll allow all the homeless/jobless/illegals/whatever to move there and declare the entire area "The Welfare State". I mean...you guys can barely keep the damn lights on out there as is right?

[szh]

better yet, we'll sell them CA.

Only after I leave, please!

Z

[smockers83]

Then WHO will take them? From a technical standpoint, it could be a solution, but should the US take on a policy of eliminating human decency from all our decisions?

There are urgent care centers and doctors offices that are available. A doctor's office can refuse a patient and refer him up in the system to an ER, specialist, or whatever, but it's not allowed to work in the opposite direction where an ER can't refer an entrant to a doctor's office. That's all I'm saying, if there are places that are well enough equipped to take care of someone and it doesn't have to be the ER, let the ER refuse them and refer them to someone else. You wouldn't be eliminating human decency at all, you'd just be allowing the system to work better for itself. The problem with the ER is that people come in believing that they are an emergency because they're in panic mode when really, the fact of the matter is, there is no emergency at all.

Might as well stop treating terminally ill patients entirely as well. Why spend the money and hog up the resources? They're going to die anyways right?

In terms of eliminating costs and creating efficiency, sure, why not. I can tell you people who work with these patients in hospitals wonder why families continue the suffering of another member. This doesn't mean if someone is diagnosed with cancer that we no longer treat them, but someone who is clearly going to die soon. They don't want to have to do the extra work for no reason. A lot of times, it's these patients that demand a lot of work in the system, draining resources that could be focused elsewhere or opening new beds to people who are next. This would eliminate a lot of unnecessary costs and eliminate some excess demand.

We all die at some point. That's life as we know it. If death is inevitable in the near future, why prolong the suffering of that person so the family can become more emotionally drained and cry and stand by the bedside? And all for what? You may say that is inhumane to that patient and the family, allowing him/her to die. But to keep him/her living could also be inhumane to someone who's waiting for that bed who needs treatment and can survive.

There are other patients called frequent fliers who come in seeking treatment for something they claim, but they're really just seeking meds. Eliminate these people as well.
Modified by smockers83 at 10:00 AM 8/15/2009

[WDRacing]

We could pay for UH by taxing the sale of Marijuana if it was finally legalized. Imagine that, the taxing of something everyone does already could provide free health care for every citizen in the US.

OR

Lets just take more of peoples hard earned cash and start the end of the world as we know it. Taxation without representation...does that ring any FRIGGIN BELLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WD

[audtatious]

MJ taxation would have to pay for the growth of even more lazy kids who won't work. No way could it pay for both.

[WDRacing]

Thats naive ignorant thinking...

[audtatious]

Such big words from such a cloudy mind....

[C-Kwik]

Establish seperate "free clinics" funded by ALL the f***ing people that think UH is a good idea.

I'm sure there are more then enough doctors willing to either work for min wage or just for free right? We can borrow another trillion or two from China...better yet, we'll sell them CA. Then we'll allow all the homeless/jobless/illegals/whatever to move there and declare the entire area "The Welfare State". I mean...you guys can barely keep the damn lights on out there as is right?

Do you understand that UH is supposed to be self sustained (ultimately). That is, we would be paying premiums like we do to insurance companies now. Only everyone is covered and those that can't afford it are provided help. So in theory, there would be no need to borrow money to implement this. Surely, there is some initial cost to set something up on this scale, but we have to look at the long term benefits.

There are urgent care centers and doctors offices that are available. A doctor's office can refuse a patient and refer him up in the system to an ER, specialist, or whatever, but it's not allowed to work in the opposite direction where an ER can't refer an entrant to a doctor's office. That's all I'm saying, if there are places that are well enough equipped to take care of someone and it doesn't have to be the ER, let the ER refuse them and refer them to someone else. You wouldn't be eliminating human decency at all, you'd just be allowing the system to work better for itself. The problem with the ER is that people come in believing that they are an emergency because they're in panic mode when really, the fact of the matter is, there is no emergency at all.

I don't disagree on this entirely, but there is a reason for this. If an ER were to refer a patient to another type of doctor or facility and the patient develops complications or dies, there could be some serius liability concerns. Opening this kind of door tends to invite hospitals to reject patients on the basis of no insurance and can end up with unintended results. There is a reason such laws were enacted.

In terms of eliminating costs and creating efficiency, sure, why not. I can tell you people who work with these patients in hospitals wonder why families continue the suffering of another member. This doesn't mean if someone is diagnosed with cancer that we no longer treat them, but someone who is clearly going to die soon. They don't want to have to do the extra work for no reason. A lot of times, it's these patients that demand a lot of work in the system, draining resources that could be focused elsewhere or opening new beds to people who are next. This would eliminate a lot of unnecessary costs and eliminate some excess demand.

Surely. But try explaining that to the people who are directly involved. While I'm certainly not against euthanasia for those who prefer it, I also don't think its right to tell someone they have to die because they are a burden on the system.

We all die at some point. That's life as we know it. If death is inevitable in the near future, why prolong the suffering of that person so the family can become more emotionally drained and cry and stand by the bedside? And all for what? You may say that is inhumane to that patient and the family, allowing him/her to die. But to keep him/her living could also be inhumane to someone who's waiting for that bed who needs treatment and can survive.

These are personal choices. In some cases, a person's religion would prevent one from exploring such an option. Ultimately though, based on your viewpoint, why have medicine at all? Why not let nature takes its course regardless of the illness...

There are other patients called frequent fliers who come in seeking treatment for something they claim, but they're really just seeking meds. Eliminate these people as well.

I agree. Whether its substance abuse related or a psychological issue (hypochondria?) both are a problem. But to solve the problem, they must get treated for the root cause. Being denied treatment (even the false one) doesn't solve the underlying problem.

[bigbadberry3]

I just read the majority of the previous threads and wanted to pose a few questions.

Are we more concerned about the money in our pockets or the health of everyone around us?

Would you personally be of a different opinion if you could not afford a crippling medical bill?


Modified by bigbadberry3 at 6:31 PM 8/17/2009

[szh]

I just read the majority of the previous threads and wanted to pose a few questions.

Are we more concerned about the money in our pockets or the health of everyone around us?

Would you personally be of a different opinion if you could not afford a crippling medical bill?

I am worried about the fact that my son (who is 11 years old now) will grow up in a country where the national debt and inflation will be a crippling economic force making his life harder than he needs it to be. I am old enough that I will be dead then.

The government damn well needs to curb its bad spending habits right now.

Z

[szh]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...edded

Unbelievable.

College students can't think anymore?

Z

[audtatious]

I just read the majority of the previous threads and wanted to pose a few questions.

Are we more concerned about the money in our pockets or the health of everyone around us?

You think everyone around you is concerned with their health or are you concerned enough about others health that you want to make changes where by law they will have to follow healthy mandates? You think the overly obese person riding around in their elec carts at WalMart is concerned about your health when they are not concerned about their own? Do you feel the Gov, who has been a failure in managing Medicare, Medicaid, VA, food stamp programs, Post Office, etc. has the capability to put in place a working health care solution that won't make things "worse" or more expensive? You think a health care plan, which is not run nor managed by the Gov, that the politicians themselves refuse to consider using is actually good?

Would you personally be of a different opinion if you could not afford a crippling medical bill?

I've thought about that precise question and I'm not quite sure how to answer it as I'm not currently in that situation. I know when I had issues with kidney stones and had to go to the hospital when I was your age I didn't have insurance, I still received treatment (including 2 days in the hospital) and I paid the bills off a little at a time. You act as if someone without insurance can't get treatment.....

[audtatious]

Unbelievable.

College students can't think anymore?

Z

It's the "feel good" mentality. Does not matter if you know what's going on or not you simply show up and protest as you have full faith in those you are following due to their feel-good speaches about making things better for all man kind. That's why they are referred to as Obots...

[bigbadberry3]

I am worried about the fact that my son (who is 11 years old now) will grow up in a country where the national debt and inflation will be a crippling economic force making his life harder than he needs it to be. I am old enough that I will be dead then.

The government damn well needs to curb its bad spending habits right now.

Z

Agreed that government spending is out of control in multiple areas. However, I believe the US may have already passed the point of no return regarding the national debt and adding more debt will change very little. We own the bank because of our debt.

[bigbadberry3]

Unbelievable.

College students can't think anymore?

Z

I'm in college, and yes, it's amazing how know one seems to be able to think anything through. But then again it seems like even those who are left with the responsibility of important decision making aren't much more competent or also lack the foresight of their actions.

[bigbadberry3]

You think everyone around you is concerned with their health or are you concerned enough about others health that you want to make changes where by law they will have to follow healthy mandates? You think the overly obese person riding around in their elec carts at WalMart is concerned about your health when they are not concerned about their own? Do you feel the Gov, who has been a failure in managing Medicare, Medicaid, VA, food stamp programs, Post Office, etc. has the capability to put in place a working health care solution that won't make things "worse" or more expensive? You think a health care plan, which is not run nor managed by the Gov, that the politicians themselves refuse to consider using is actually good?

I like to believe not all of mankind is looking out for themselves as naive as that makes me. If we have come to the point of no compassion, and everything we say or do is for us only, what makes us better than animals?Mandate is a harsh word, I would prefer options for those who may not need this. I would not call all of the government programs you listed failures as they have helped millions. Do they have some problems yes but they have helped more than hurt.

I've thought about that precise question and I'm not quite sure how to answer it as I'm not currently in that situation. I know when I had issues with kidney stones and had to go to the hospital when I was your age I didn't have insurance, I still received treatment (including 2 days in the hospital) and I paid the bills off a little at a time. You act as if someone without insurance can't get treatment.....

I believe individuals are entitled (yes I know) to be treated for medical issues regardless of their insurance status. The ability to pay is often the crippling issue. Even after treatment, many require other means to remain healthy such as medications frequently not covered by insurance. I believe that a form of UH would alleviate much of the burden on individuals who are unable to afford healtcare but still require a treatment.

[audtatious]

I like to believe not all of mankind is looking out for themselves as naive as that makes me. If we have come to the point of no compassion, and everything we say or do is for us only, what makes us better than animals?Mandate is a harsh word, I would prefer options for those who may not need this. I would not call all of the government programs you listed failures as they have helped millions. Do they have some problems yes but they have helped more than hurt.

There's plenty of compassion but there is also realism. I have no problem helping others as long as I am not penalizing my own family and extended family in the process. The Gov programs have been helpful to some but have lead others down the path of dependence, which seems to grow each year. Don't make the mistake of assuming those who oppose increasing these social programs are heartless monsters because you'd be surprised.

I believe individuals are entitled (yes I know) to be treated for medical issues regardless of their insurance status. The ability to pay is often the crippling issue. Even after treatment, many require other means to remain healthy such as medications frequently not covered by insurance. I believe that a form of UH would alleviate much of the burden on individuals who are unable to afford healtcare but still require a treatment.

People have the capability today of receiving treatment so that is a non-issue. Medicaid does not pay for everything either so assuming the current Gov programs provide better than insurance companies is incorrect. The current house bill won't cover everything either and it pretty much penalizes 85% of the people in order to help 15% (which is WAY to large of a number). When someone comes up with a solution that won't screw the majority then let's talk. Supporting this current initiative is crap.

[szh]

I'm in college, and yes, it's amazing how know one seems to be able to think anything through. But then again it seems like even those who are left with the responsibility of important decision making aren't much more competent or also lack the foresight of their actions.

You are correct about that!

Z

[smockers83]

Surely. But try explaining that to the people who are directly involved. While I'm certainly not against euthanasia for those who prefer it, I also don't think its right to tell someone they have to die because they are a burden on the system.

But here's the thing. Remove those people from their situation where their emotions aren't involved and find out what they really believe. We don't have to tell them they have to die because they're a burden, these would be people where ultimately there's nothing doctors can do. Sometimes, when they have nothing else they can do, they say there's nothing we can do, so they just keep vitals going for as long as they can. But again, all for what?

Ultimately though, based on your viewpoint, why have medicine at all? Why not let nature takes its course regardless of the illness...

No, that's not my view point at all. You're extrapolating what I've said to places I haven't even spoken about. We should have medicine, medicine is part of nature. The beginnings of medicine were solely based on what was naturally available in the local area. I have no problems with medicine and healthcare, I embrace it. I even entertained the idea of going into medicine for a couple of years. But there comes a point where someone is beyond our abilities.

[srellim234]

Maybe Sarah Palin is an expert on killing old people after all:

http://current.com/items/90636...g.htm

[srellim234]

... When someone comes up with a solution that won't screw the majority then let's talk....

What a lot of people don't realize is that the current system is screwing the vast majority for the benefit of a minority (the guys in the boardroom). We have already abandoned a free market in favor of monopolies around the country.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...ition

[driverdriver]

Can someone explain what the hell is a "death panel"?

I live in a universal healthcare country and if a "death panel" is what I think it is, I wouldn't have made it to my teens and neither my wife or dad would be alive.

[srellim234]

The proposal on healthcare reform here allows for the federal insurance proposal to include counseling services and/or reimbursement for counseling services for people to establish directives should they become unable to communicate their wishes near the end of life. Basically, it helps people establish "living wills." The counseling can include everyone involved from the doctors to the insurance people, spelling out all the options available.

Some right wing people who are committed to opposing absolutely anything proposed by a Democrat (most notably Sarah Palin, Sen. Chuck Grassley and Rush Limbaugh) seized on the counseling sessions and the people who would be involved in the counseling as creating "death panels" who will be killing the elderly left and right, making decisions to pull the plug on people in order to save a buck.

Sensationalism to promote their incomes through viewership, readership or continued campaign contributions from those healthcare companies involved in fighting reform.

[audtatious]

The proposal on healthcare reform here allows for the federal insurance proposal to include counseling services and/or reimbursement for counseling services for people to establish directives should they become unable to communicate their wishes near the end of life. Basically, it helps people establish "living wills." The counseling can include everyone involved from the doctors to the insurance people, spelling out all the options available.

Some right wing people who are committed to opposing absolutely anything proposed by a Democrat (most notably Sarah Palin, Sen. Chuck Grassley and Rush Limbaugh) seized on the counseling sessions and the people who would be involved in the counseling as creating "death panels" who will be killing the elderly left and right, making decisions to pull the plug on people in order to save a buck.

Sensationalism to promote their incomes through viewership, readership or continued campaign contributions from those healthcare companies involved in fighting reform.

Dude, come on...It's not just right wingers that have had issue with the wording. You have plenty of others that feel the gov does not have a right either. Hell, I saw a psychiatrist on the news the other day saying how easy it is to get these people to feel they are a burden on their families and on society as a whole in order to steer them to a conclusion. THAT is the issue. The Gov will half-a** it like they always do and outsource the whole "consultation service" to some company with uneducated counselors to deal with these situations. The same can be said of the VA "Death Book", which Bush got rid of but has been reinstated via the Obama Admin:

Per WSJ:"Last year, bureaucrats at the VA's National Center for Ethics in Health Care advocated a 52-page end-of-life planning document, "Your Life, Your Choices." It was first published in 1997 and later promoted as the VA's preferred living will throughout its vast network of hospitals and nursing homes. After the Bush White House took a look at how this document was treating complex health and moral issues, the VA suspended its use."

http://www.rihlp.org/pubs/Your...s.pdf

The worksheet on page 21 is absolutely retarded and leads me to believe the doctor I heard had a very good point.

Death Panel? No....That's sensationalized. Moral or ethical? Probably, or potentially not.

Realize, I'm all for a living will but these have the potential to steer people who are not mentally clear towards a path they would usually not go.

[audtatious]

Gov is doing a great job as usual.....

http://www.latimes.com/news/na...story

"Veterans Affairs mistakenly tells 1,200 they have Lou Gehrig's, a fatal neurological disease"