The Obama admin has made no secret that they think the elderly need to come to terms with thier mortality and accept it, rather than having costly procedures to prolong their lives, because that money could be spent on younger people who aren't a drain on the system.
Citations please? Real citations, not rightwing spin please. Fact check orgs would be nice.
(I think you misunderstand the intent of the living will addition, and mind you, it was added by a republican)
Lets all be clear: Gen was right. The bill very very clearly
encourages euthanasia of elderly. You will all no doubt have read the numerous reports that the right is spinning this to read that the bill
mandates euthanasia. Yes, there are misunderstandings. Yes, the bill does not mandate talks on euthanasia (not always anyway just sometimes). But while everyone debates whether or not the bill mandates euthanasia there is no doubt at all that it encourages euthanasia in a pressure filled way and that it simultaneously discourages people choosing procedures that are expensive or less likely to work.
"Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt. "
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs
"Charles Lane, an member of the editorial board of the liberal Washington Post newspaper, admits in a Saturday column that at least some of the concerns are well-founded.
"As I read it, Section 1233 is not totally innocuous," Lane writes, adding that it "addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones."
"Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren't quite 'purely voluntary,'" as backers of the bill assert, Lane adds. "To me, 'purely voluntary' means 'not unless the patient requests one.' Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive -- money -- to do so. Indeed, that's an incentive to insist.
"Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they're in the meeting, the bill does permit 'formulation' of a plug-pulling order right then and there," Lane explains.
"What's more, Section 1233 dictates, at some length, the content of the consultation," Lane continues.
Ultimately, the Post editorial writer says "Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party -- the government -- recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations."
"You don't have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach," he concludes.
Bioethicist Frank Beckwith notes Lane's analysis in comments of his own that appeared on the blog of the publication First Things.
"Supporters of H.R. 3200 claim that its end of life counseling provision, section 1233, is merely voluntary for the patient," Beckwith explains.
"But a closer look shows that section 1233 includes conditions and financial incentives for physicians and other health care providers that create a setting in which an elderly patient’s decision to appropriate this option is likely to be less than voluntary," he writes.
Beckwith says anyone with elderly parents should be "deeply concerned" about the section.
"If, let’s say, H.R. 3200 or something close to it were to become law and the public option pushes private insurance into near non-existence (as would surely happen with all the incentives in place), then there will no neighboring state to which to run," he says. "You won't be able to take your business elsewhere, since there will be no elsewhere."
"And to whom will you issue your grievance, a special 'health court,'" Beckwith asks.
Such a court, he says, would be "one likely informed by a youth-worshipping culture and a utilitarian bioethics philosophy that sees the elderly (not to mention, handicapped infants) as burdens that are siphoning away valuable resources that could be put to better use in support of society’s “real persons” and more productive contributors."
http://www.lifenews.com/bio2913.html
The House health-care reform bill proposes to decrease hospital visits by establishing a “medical home pilot program” for elderly and disabled Americans.
Such a medical home would not require a physician to be on the staff, and therefore could be run solely by nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Medical homes also would practice “evidence-based” medicine, which advocates only the use of medical treatments that are supported by effectiveness research.
The pilot program targets Medicare beneficiaries who have a high medical “risk score” or who require regular monitoring, advising or treatment."
http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51759
And we have all seen the quotes from President Obama about only doing what works and not doing procedures with a less than 5% chance of success.
"Concerns about Obama’s health-care reform adversely affecting older Americans are not new. Earlier this year, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the “Stimulus Bill”) appropriated $1.1 billion for research into “comparative effectiveness,” which compares clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of medical treatments, procedures and strategies. One aspect of this comparison is a concept called “Quality Adjusted Life Years,” where the value assigned to life varies with the health state of the person. This method is controversial because it means that some people will not receive treatment if the calculated cost is not warranted by the benefit to their quality of life."
May agrees and says that health-care rationing takes place in Oregon, one of two states where physician-assisted suicide is legal. People fighting life-threatening illnesses there regularly receive letters saying that the state insurance plan would not cover their medication but would pay for a lethal prescription to end their lives,[]"
http://www.ncregister.com/daily/health_care_duty_to_die
