1990 pages, and Government intrusion into end of life decisions.

Then why did Republicants get involved with the Teri Shivo case? Isn’t that intrusion of end of life decisions to be made by the family?

Hypocrites.

It’s not quite as simple as you try to make light of –

From Wikipedia….

The Terri Schiavo case was a seven-year long legal effort by Michael Schiavo to have his wife, Terri Schiavo — diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) for several years — disconnected from life support.

As early as 1993, Michael, as Terri’s guardian, had entered a do not resuscitate order for her but was convinced by the nursing home staff to have it rescinded; in 1998 he petitioned the Sixth Circuit Court of Florida (Pinellas County) to remove her feeding tube under Florida Statutes Section 765.401(3).[2]

He was opposed by Terri’s parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, who argued that Terri was conscious. Michael later transferred his authority over the matter to the court, which determined that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures.

That was not an end of life decision, but rather a feeding decision. She breathed and responded to stimulus on her own. She wasn’t brain dead, but cognitively impaired. There was nothing to pull the plug on, except nutrition.

The case brought up a lot of questions about how we as a society treat the disabled and brain injured.

Learn2Discern – Terri Schiavo Remembered – The best bloopers are here

It’s still hypocritical that you think it’s okay for government to be involved in that situation while you’re fighting against this health care reform.

Also, Sen. Grassley is not only lying to his constituents in that quote, but he’s fearmongering. “Pull the plug on grandma”? How did that guy get to be a Senator?

How can “government intrusion in end of life decisions” be drawn from the passage you quoted? The counseling is certainly voluntary. I agree it is not the best policy, but “government intrusion in end of life decisions”? Hardly.

PP, when you include quotes like these you are unequivocally diminishing the quality of the healthcare debate. There are literally dozens of legitimate arguments against the current D health care proposals. I do not personally foresee an outcome that is sustainable in the long-run or that really does something to improve quality of care/coverage. Use those arguments. Get a little wonky on us from time to time. But do not use false scare tactics. Assume your readership is above them, even if they aren’t always.

You can do better. This post is pathetic.

Jon, My dad just died 3 weeks ago – the Home Hospice Doc coded his care as terminal…this stopped his Medicare benefits and all of his meds and treatments had to go thru Hopsice afterwards. They gave him a “care” package full of meds that depressed breathing (he had COPD) and produced hallucinations – when we refused them, Dad got better – but the Hopice crew was indignant that I would question their understanding of meds. I asked the Dr why he was giving my dad anti phsychotics instead of anti biotics for his thick dark yellow productive cough (which the hospice nurse recorded as thin and clear)…he said, “because that would not hasten his passing.” To futher his passing they had his IV at 125 gtts an hour and took him off his long-standing Lasix (water pill)so the fluid would go to his lungs…this was before Obama care goes into effect…..and Grayson says Republicans want patients to die? As an RN, I would have given Dad and another 5 years had his pneumonia been treated, because he was not debilitated to terminal state. Both he and mom were confused and terrified when the Dr told them he had 2 weeks (he lasted 15 weeks under their “care”)and every time the RN came in she told him straight up he was going to dies in a few days. BTY this was not Avera Hospice.

Obama is about quality of life

12:47: Who gets to decide what quality of life is? I don’t want Obama or his policies making that determination for me.

And to you libs talking about hypocrisy, you are just avoiding a discussion of the issue at hand.

I don’t know why anybody is surprised by this, PP. Just read Tom Daschle’s book. It’s all there. And they wanted him to be HHS Secretary.

Clever selective writing, PP. What did Senator Grassley mean by that comment?

“Grassley says he opposes that counseling as written in the House version of the bill, but a spokesman said the senator does not think the House provision would in fact give the government such authority in deciding when and how people die. The House bill allows patients to decide for themselves if they would like such counseling.” (read more here)

Senator Grassley has completely repudiated the claim you attempt to perpetuate. I’m sure as a responsible writer and citizen, you’ll do the same.

So what part of voluntary do you not understand? If you want the counseling, Medicare would pay for it. If you don’t end of issue.

Government intrusion and death panels? Only in Sarah Palin’s feeble mind.

Cory, then I guess you should go whine about it to the associated press, instead of mewling about it here. It’s their article.

The provision provides for payment should a patient want voluntary counseling.

It does not “intrude” government into any decisions; it does require payment to the doctor should a patient request counseling. In the case of Lora, it would have paid for the Dr. to explain and discuss with the family the treatment he was prescribing.

(Vicki/Jackson/Lisa/etc…. pick a name, and stick with it. -pp)

John 10:24:
“It’s still hypocritical that you think it’s okay for government to be involved in that situation while you’re fighting against this health care reform.”

The Shiavo case and the health reform proposal are not the same so PP is not being hypocritical. The Shiavo case was a civil action wherein the Court determined through competent, admissible evidence and testamony as to what Terry Shiavo’s likely decision would have been. That’s the judiciary dude. The proposed legislation came from congress which proports to increase the government’s involvement into life and death issues. If you don’t think that this issue: “The provision allows Medicare to pay for voluntary counseling to help beneficiaries deal with the complex and painful decisions families face when a loved one is approaching death.” will increase the government’s power over our decison-making, you’re loco.

I can see the scenario now, the “voluntary” counseling” is by a government agent who informs the family that Grandma is terminal (similar to Lora Hubbel 11:26) and that they’re options are now limited, so what do they want to do? Based upon the scenario laid out by the governmental agent and the professed knowledge and authority that she has, the family decides to terminate Grandma’s life.

The simple fact that this health care proposal is 1990 pages means that it’s doomed to fail. That is attune to lawyers needing 10 pages to recite the facts of a two page case.

Detroit: You’re whacked as usual. The republican’s got involved in this not to directly get involved in Shiavo’s life decisions, it got involved to shape policy and laws so that the end of life decisions are left with the family, your family, my family, everyone’s family. Your broad brushes over everything indicates how disturbed and mislead you continually are. Now where’s your plug…..

I think detroit’s plug is in his keester.

And just where does the article characterize the provision as “intrusion into end of life decisions’ PP. This is blatant political fear mongering and you are smart enough to know it.

John is right, this post is pathetic–and, I would add, shameful. End-of-life planning can greatly curtail the kind of heart-wrenching and and sometimes divisive decisions family members end up making in their absence. But never mind the good a measure would do if it can somehow be manipulated to portray Democrats as sinister bean counters out to kill granny in an effort to save a buck.

Lora, my condolances to you and your family on the death of your father.

Medicare is “managed care,” all by the book, check the box and move on. There is no healing arts involved by then. And so needless suffering often is inflicted. The very real fear is that stories like Lora’s will become ever more commonplace for young and old alike, and everyone in between, should government seize control of all health decisions from conception on.

8:59a
WOW, there’s room for both his head AND his plug in there?

Cliff:

This can all be mostly avoided by proper estate planning. Putting in writing what you would like to happen to you and your assets. If you don’t, the Government would be happy to do this for you.

if the provision about end-of-life counseling is voluntary — and it probably is — then why does it need to be in the bill, at all? it’s already available and voluntary. how does it change anything? just askin’.

lexrex: The difference would be who would pay for the counseling when it is utilized. My understanding is the government would pay. Of course that means all of us pay through taxation, but kind of like roads, it would be a “free” benefit at the time of use.

i didn’t realize that such counseling was a stand-alone thing. i thought it was just a part of the care continuum; just part of what the doctor already does. why cull it out?

Rob Reiger (Lexrex)-

You know what is the truth, and what is not, your parents work in the medical field. So why don’t you just spill the beans and admit, a living will is not mandatory, just that the government will pay for it if you want it.

back off, dungeon master. i never said it was mandatory. and spell my name, correctly.

According to the latest Rasmussen polls more than 50 percent of Americans are opposed to recent health care proposals with 40 precent of those individuals strongly opposed. I agree we need to fix healthcare, but a Pelosi bill with no Republican involvement? There is no way to come up with an effective bill without both parties sitting down at the table.

51 percent of voters also feel congress is too liberal according to Rasmussen compared to only 22 percent feel it’s too conservative. Liberals can complain that Republicans won’t work with Democrats but the fact is American’s are seeing it the other way according to recent polling. It’s clear American’s aren’t happy with the direction congress is taking us, the numbers back this up.

With that said both parites are to blame, they need to spend more time listening to the American people, after all we are the ones who will have to deal with whatever legislation is thrown our way.

Thanx, Duh (9;28)… I’ve been advised that living wills can be a waste, because when crunch time comes, we could very well change our minds. And families often do just the opposite of what’s in writing. Living’s hard. Dying’s harder.

While Pat keeps riding his mule, I have a question for you “death panel” experts. Numerous other countries have health care systems in which we see much greater government “intrusions” than anything being proposed by Congress, right? If so, why haven’t I heard about the “death panels” in those countries?

Please send links. Now I have to write to AP. Meow.

Cliff 3:54. Living Wills do potentially have that risk. However Durable Powers of Attorney appoint someone else to legally act on your behalf. In a Durable Power of Attorney you should state how you want to be treated, that way there is no confusion or need for discussion.

CAheidlebergerbergerfry: Just recently, Switzerland has put a moretorium on vistors coming to their country because of its liberal governmental run death clinics.

see http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,570561,00.html?test=latestnews.

Check with any socialized country where the wait on your procedure, if it happens at all is dependant upon your “net worth” to that country, i.e. too old, too sick, you’re out of luck. The most disturbing point of this health program is that Congress is exempt. If they were included, you can bet your butt that this issue would have been resolved in the negative or tabled long ago.

Cory:

Why are you writing about riding PP’s mule? No wonder you complain about pictures showing hot women.

Here’s one for you Cory
In England, for example, bureaucrats determine a patient’s eligibility for health care using the QALY system (quality-adjusted life years). They divide the cost of treatment by the number of “quality” years the patient is expected to live. Older, sicker patients are expected to live fewer “quality” years, so why bother treating them at all? On this basis, British elders are routinely denied treatment for cancer, heart disease and other deadly illnesses.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=107403

Duh at 5:18… Thanx again. As it so happens, my mother made me the “durable” for her final medical decisions. Which means I’ll still inform and survey my four siblings before proceeding, and assumes that we’ll all be clear-headed. Thank Jesus there’s zero inheritance. Money only clouds judgment.

A note for you Cliff, when mom does pass, your durable also does and the PR needs to file appropriate actions. As to the siblings, they usually all have different ideas as to how mom should be taken care of, usually based upon their distance from her, furthest being the most vocal.

Les, oh so true.