Obama bringing back Death Panels - BY executive fiat.

[Danny]

and how is that different

is the government FORCING patients to make these choices......NO they are not

they are just saying if the doctors provide this service that they will be paid for it

end of story.....unless you're a hysterical right wing lunatic and then it's just the beginning

Straw you're on a roll....utter destruction of 338 also known as Palin's clone and blind follower to death ...and beyond.

[Soul Crusher]

  

Right Danny - this language was specifically struck from the bill by Congress and now you applaud Obama doing by fiat what congress specifically exempted out? 

Apparently you still cling to some of the vestiges of that communist country you claim to have fled.

 

[Straw Man]

Straw you're on a roll....utter destruction of 338 also known as Palin's clone and blind follower to death ...and beyond.

it's not hard but at least 333 is usually a good sport about it and comes back to play again tomorrow (unlike a few other crybabies on this board)

[Danny]

 

Right Danny - this language was specifically struck from the bill by Congress and now you applaud Obama doing by fiat what congress specifically exempted out? 

Apparently you still cling to some of the vestiges of that communist country you claim to have fled.

 

Riiiiiighhhtttt......

[Soul Crusher]

Riiiiiighhhtttt......

You don't a problem with this at all do you? 

[blacken700]

its not obama its bush 

The White House backfired on Sunday, saying the new Medicare directive does not revive the controversial "death panels" language but rather draws upon guidelines for end-of-life consultations set in place under George W. Bush. A law passed and signed by Bush in 2008 specified that medical visits for seniors can include conversations about "end-of-life planning," reports The Wall Street Journal.

like i said when you use shitty sources you get bullshit stories

[Soul Crusher]

its not obama its bush 

The White House backfired on Sunday, saying the new Medicare directive does not revive the controversial "death panels" language but rather draws upon guidelines for end-of-life consultations set in place under George W. Bush. A law passed and signed by Bush in 2008 specified that medical visits for seniors can include conversations about "end-of-life planning," reports The Wall Street Journal.

like i said when you use shitty sources you get bullshit stories

  

The WH is again spinning and lyig its ass off about this. 

The Bush prescription bill did have a provision for a discussion of this type only on the entrance to the medicare process. One time, when you first enroll and doctors weren't compensated.  it was not a part ofthe death panels that even Krugman said are in there.   and why should doctors get compensated for this and not elder law attorneyswho do the same thing? 

ObamaCare is completely different in that it is to be done annually as the person ages and may then be facing these serious decisions and as a consequence be more emotional and psychologically vulnerable to suggests and secondly, the doctors are incentivized (read - paid) to have these discussions.



FINALLY - WHY WAS THIS LANGUAGE REMOVED FROM THE BILL IN CONGRESS IN THE FIRST PLACE IF IT WS NOT SIGNIFICANT?   AND WHERE DOES BAMA GET THE POWER TO DO BY FIAT WHAT CONGRESS SPECIFICALLY TOLD HIM NOT TO DO?   

[blacken700]

The inclusion of more extensive end-of-life consultations in early drafts of the Democrats' health-care legislation last year sparked controversy—former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin characterized them as "death panels—and the Democrats withdrew them.

The draft legislative language on what is known as advance-care planning would have given specific directions to doctors on what they should tell patients, including discussion of palliative care, hospice and other services that could cost less than an all-out effort to prolong life.

The new Medicare rule, issued Dec. 3, is less specific. It says advance-care planning includes a discussion of setting up an advance directive that would tell doctors what to do if the patient is too ill to make medical decisions.

Doctors and patients can also discuss "whether or not the physician is willing to follow the individual's wishes as expressed in an advance directive," it says.

The White House on Sunday said the new Medicare directive, reported Sunday by the New York Times, doesn't constitute a resurrection of the original health-care-bill language. It said the George W. Bush administration had already put in place guidelines allowing for Medicare to pay for end-of-life consultations.

A Medicare revamp in 2003 created a "welcome to Medicare" visit for seniors newly entering the program to get a checkup. Another law passed in 2008 and signed by Mr. Bush specifies that the welcome visit can include a discussion of "end-of-life planning."

The health-care overhaul in 2010 turned the welcome visit into an annual "wellness visit," saying seniors could get covered for a checkup every year. The new directive makes clear that the annual wellness visit can include the same end-of-life planning already permitted in the welcome visit.

Reid Cherlin, a White House spokesman, said it was incorrect to suggest the policy of reimbursing end-of-life discussions was new.

"The only thing new here is a regulation allowing the discussions … to happen in the context of the new annual wellness visit created by the Affordable Care Act," said Mr. Cherlin, referring to the health overhaul passed in March.

One leading critic of the initial end-of-life language said Sunday she wasn't bothered by the new Medicare rule.

"Medicare should reimburse physicians for counseling patients on the medical decisions they may face," said Betsy McCaughey, a former New York lieutenant governor, in an interview. "But government should never prescribe what is discussed between doctor and patient, or pressure doctors financially to push their patients into living wills and advanced directives."

Ms. McCaughey said the previous guidelines from the George W. Bush administration and other administrations had left it up to patients and doctors to decide how they would discuss end-of-life matters.

She had objected to the more prescriptive language that was passed by a House committee last year but not included in the final Affordable Care Act.

Opponents of that proposal said seniors might feel pressured to establish living wills that would cut off care if they were incapacitated.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal

[Soul Crusher]

End-of-Life Decisions and the Bureaucracy
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE ^ | December 27, 2010 | Wesley J. Smith

________________________ ______________________



When I learned today that the federal bureaucracy had promulgated a rule compensating physicians for the time they spend counseling patients on end-of-life health-care decisions, I wasn’t surprised. A similar provision was dropped from the Obamacare bill, but anyone who understands the profoundly bureaucratic nature of contemporary government knew that that was not necessarily the end of it. The 2,700-page law is destined — if it is not rolled way back or repealed — to generate over 100,000 pages of enabling regulations. In such a milieu, that which can’t be obtained legislatively, can often be gotten through the bureaucratic back door. In fact, as I’ve noted elsewhere, one commission created by the law, the Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board, can even enact laws over the president’s veto.

The new regulation is not alarming in and of itself. In fact, we should all have these discussions with our doctors and loved ones, and we should all prepare advance medical directives. (I recommend a durable power of attorney for health care that appoints a trusted person to be your surrogate decisionmaker.) So long as the discussions are purely voluntary and not coercive, all is well.

The original policy became controversial out of the reasonable fear that in the drive to cut costs, the “counseling” could become “pressure” to refuse care. The assisted-suicide advocacy group Compassion and Choices, for example, bragged that it helped author the legislative provision — which would also have permitted outside experts to be delegated the counseling task. I am convinced that Compassion and Choices hopes to become the Planned Parenthood of death, and being paid by the government to counsel on end-of-life decisions would be a big step in that direction.

Then there was a political struggle to ensure that the funded counseling was “voluntary,” which was not clear in the original legislation but is explicit in the new regulation. This may sound like a far-fetched concern, but medical coercion and persuasion regarding death decisions is not unknown in health care. For example, responding to studies showing that genetic counselors often push the abortion option for women whose unborn children test positive for genetic anomalies such as Down syndrome or dwarfism, the late senator Ted Kennedy and former senator Sam Brownback passed a bill, signed into law by Pres. George W. Bush, requiring neutrality in counseling.

The end-of-life-counseling provisions in the original bill first became controversial because they were mistakenly thought to be mandatory, sparking Sarah Palin’s political thunder-stroke accusation of “death panels,” a charge Obamacare has still not shaken. The counseling requirement would not have established death panels per se, although, as Palin later noted, the many cost/benefit boards in Obamacare could be used as vehicles for health-care rationing — which if authorized to deny life-sustaining or -extending treatment to save money, could indeed qualify as death panels. But that is a subject for another day.

— Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism and a legal consultant for the Patients Rights Council.

[Soul Crusher]

FDA's Avastin decision is a breast cancer patient's worst nightmare
Comments (2) Share Print By: Sally C. Pipes 12/26/10 8:05 PM
OpEd Contributor



.On Dec. 16, the Food and Drug Administration made a decision that could cause thousands of breast cancer patients to lose their last hope. That day, FDA officials voted to revoke approval for Avastin for the treatment of late-stage breast cancer.
This move is a disgrace.

Avastin reduces blood flow to tumors, allowing it to halt the spread of breast cancer in some patients. In one clinical trial, 52 percent of Avastin users saw their tumors stop growing or spreading to other parts of their bodies.

In most other breast cancer patients, Avastin acts as a pause button, temporarily sparing women from deteriorating further. On average, Avastin extends life by a few months. However, some "super responders" react especially well and enjoy additional years.

FDA bureaucrats know this but ignored the evidence. The FDA stated this month that Avastin does not offer "a sufficient benefit in slowing disease progression to outweigh the significant risk to patients."

How could the FDA come to such a conclusion? The agency was likely influenced by Avastin's cost. Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers typically pick up a substantial slice of the tab for Avastin, and an annual regimen costs upwards of $90,000.

But for many of the 17,500 American women prescribed Avastin every year, those dollars translate into a substantial amount of extra life -- days and months they wouldn't have had to spend with their friends and families.

Even among patients that don't experience a substantial increase in lifespan, Avastin can still significantly improve their quality of life, enabling them to better enjoy the time they have left and meet death with grace and dignity.

Ironically, the exact same day the FDA revoked Avastin's approval, its counterpart across the Atlantic did the opposite. The European Union's Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use had conducted a similar investigation into Avastin in breast cancer treatment.

Officials found that the drug, when used in combination with another treatment called paclitaxel, substantially prolonged progression-free survival, and they ruled to retain its approval.

There was a time when U.S. regulators appreciated these miracles. Back in 2008, the FDA granted the drug temporary approval for breast cancer treatment after considering research showing that women on a pharmaceutical cocktail including Avastin lived a median of two to three months longer than patients on a regimen without it.

This summer, however, the FDA's Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee revisited that decision and recommend it be reversed. On Dec. 16, the general body made that recommendation official.

Public insurance programs could use the decision as justification to stop covering Avastin for breast cancer. Private insurers are likely to follow suit. In fact, several national insurers -- including Regence and HSCS -- have already started restricting reimbursements for Avastin for breast cancer.

So most women are going to be stuck trying to pay for Avastin out of pocket. Effectively, the FDA has decided that many late-stage breast cancer patients can get extra time with their loved ones only if they have enough zeros on their bank statement.

Worse still, this decision could smother future pharmaceutical development. Genentech, Avastin's developer, spent some $2.3 billion creating this treatment. In reaction to this decision, other drug firms will be less likely to make the investments required for research into advanced drugs.

Every year, 40,000 American women die of breast cancer. It's true that Avastin can't save most of them. But for a select group, the drug improves life dramatically. It shouldn't be put on the chopping block.

Sally C. Pipes is president and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute. Her latest book, "The Truth About Obamacare" was just released by Regnery Publishing.



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2010/12/fdas-avastin-decision-breast-cancer-patients-worst-nightmare#ixzz19M9Hk2kL

[blacken700]

An independent advisory committee voted 12-1 in July to revoke Avastin for breast cancer treatment. The drug will still be available on the market, however, and can still be used to treat colon, kidney, brain and lung cancers.

 Dr. Cynara Coomer, Chief of Breast Surgery and Director of the Comprehensive Breast Center at Staten Island University Hospital, told FoxNews.com that doctors should ultimately base their decisions on statistics.

“Avastin has been given to patients to decrease the chance of metastases, but they are not really finding that there is that much of a significant difference,” Coomer said.

The FDA still holds approval for Avastin for other types of cancer, because breast cancer was the only disease that showed lack of evidence for improved survival rates, according to Coomer.

Coomer said she thinks the reaction to the drug being pulled will be mixed.

“What is going to happen now is patients who feel like they have had a positive effect from Avastin are going to be upset. On the other end, groups of patients with negative side effects will support it coming off market, just like with any drug,” she said.

Coomer emphasized the rejection of Avastin is a safety issue that she thinks most doctors will support.

“With any form of treatment — surgery, medications radiation—doctors practice evidence-based medicine. If the risks are outweighing benefits, then that treatment is not going to be the best treatment for a patient,” she said. “For some oncologists who feel like they have seen benefits from Avastin in their patients, they may continue to recommend it. But I think most will support the data out there from the FDA.”

For patients currently taking Avastin, Coomer’s advice is to continue taking their medication as directed, until they talk to their doctor.

[Soul Crusher]

Has Regulation Put An End To Rule Of Law?
IBD Editorials ^ | December 27, 2010 | The Great THOMAS SOWELL



The Constitution of the United States begins with the words "We the people."

But neither the Constitution nor "we the people" will mean anything if politicians and judges can continue to do end runs around both.

Bills passed too fast for anyone to read them are blatant examples of these end runs. But last week, another of these end runs appeared in a different institution when the medical "end of life consultations" rejected by Congress were quietly enacted through bureaucratic fiat by administrators of Medicare.

Although Congressman Earl Blumenauer and Sen. Jay Rockefeller had led an effort by a group of fellow Democrats in Congress to pass Section 1233 of pending Medicare legislation, which would have paid doctors to include "end of life" counseling in their patients' physical checkups, the Congress as a whole voted to delete that provision.

Republican Congressman John Boehner, soon to become speaker of the House, objected to this section in 2009, saying: "This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia."

Whatever the merits or demerits of the proposed provision in Medicare legislation, the Constitution of the U.S. makes the elected representatives of "we the people" the ones authorized to make such decisions.

When proposals explicitly rejected by a vote in Congress are resurrected and stealthily made the law of the land by bureaucratic fiat, there has been an end run around both the people and the Constitution.

(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...

[blacken700]

you keep on posting shit from partisan hacks,what do you expect,you should try to be like fox news fair and balance   

[Soul Crusher]

 

[Straw Man]

a fake hearse for your fake argument

[MCWAY]

PolitiFact's Lie of the Year: 'Death panels'
By Angie Drobnic Holan
Published on Friday, December 18th, 2009 at 5:15 p.m.



 
A winner in our "Lie of the Year" contest!
Of all the falsehoods and distortions in the political discourse this year, one stood out from the rest.

"Death panels."

The claim set political debate afire when it was made in August, raising issues from the role of government in health care to the bounds of acceptable political discussion. In a nod to the way technology has transformed politics, the statement wasn't made in an interview or a television ad. Sarah Palin posted it on her Facebook page.

Her assertion — that the government would set up boards to determine whether seniors and the disabled were worthy of care — spread through newscasts, talk shows, blogs and town hall meetings. Opponents of health care legislation said it revealed the real goals of the Democratic proposals. Advocates for health reform said it showed the depths to which their opponents would sink. Still others scratched their heads and said, "Death panels? Really ?"

If Palin lied about it, WHY DID THE DEMOCRATS DROP IT FROM OBAMACARE?

[Soul Crusher]

(Obama) Administration Reverses on End-of-Life Counseling
The Associated Press ^ | Wednesday, January 5, 2010



Reversing a potentially controversial decision, the Obama administration will drop references to end-of-life counseling from the ground rules for Medicare's new annual checkup, a White House official said Wednesday.

SNIP

Medicare coverage for voluntary end-of-life planning was part of the original House version of the overhaul legislation in 2009, but it was dropped after Sarah Palin and other Republicans raised the specter of "death panels" deciding the fate of vulnerable seniors. Those charges were later debunked by several non-partisan fact-checking groups.

End-of-life counseling unexpectedly surfaced again late last year in a Medicare regulation that spelled out what would be covered in a new annual checkup, or wellness visit, authorized by the health care law. The regulation said such voluntary doctor-patient discussions could be part of the annual visit.

The White House official said the administration is now pulling back the language because there wasn't enough chance for all sides to comment on the change. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss what has turned into an embarrassing episode for the administration.


(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...

[MCWAY]

(Obama) Administration Reverses on End-of-Life Counseling
The Associated Press ^ | Wednesday, January 5, 2010



Reversing a potentially controversial decision, the Obama administration will drop references to end-of-life counseling from the ground rules for Medicare's new annual checkup, a White House official said Wednesday.

SNIP

Medicare coverage for voluntary end-of-life planning was part of the original House version of the overhaul legislation in 2009, but it was dropped after Sarah Palin and other Republicans raised the specter of "death panels" deciding the fate of vulnerable seniors. Those charges were later debunked by several non-partisan fact-checking groups.

End-of-life counseling unexpectedly surfaced again late last year in a Medicare regulation that spelled out what would be covered in a new annual checkup, or wellness visit, authorized by the health care law. The regulation said such voluntary doctor-patient discussions could be part of the annual visit.

The White House official said the administration is now pulling back the language because there wasn't enough chance for all sides to comment on the change. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss what has turned into an embarrassing episode for the administration.


(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...

So once again, contrary to the musings of the members of TK, people point out the "death panels" and they get yanked from ObamaCare!!!

[a_joker10]

I think the issue is really being muddled.

Do you want an Insurance companies to use death panels to restrict treatment or do you want the government to use death panels to restrict treatment.

Either way someone is restricting treatment.

To think they aren't, even to the most financially well off is naive.

[Dos Equis]

I think the issue is really being muddled.

Do you want an Insurance companies to use death panels to restrict treatment or do you want the government to use death panels to restrict treatment.

Either way someone is restricting treatment.

To think they aren't, even to the most financially well off is naive.

Good point, although I think the distinction is everyone is forced to buy Obamacare.

[Soul Crusher]

I prefer insurance companies over the govt.   

Here is why - insurance companies cant jail you for non-compliance.   

Even of the insurance carrier fucks you over, which is bad, you at least still have other options to get what you want, albeight difficult.   

When the govt is in charge, that's it, you have no other options whatsoever and non-compliance is backed up by threats oftaxation, jail, levies, etc.   

[MCWAY]

I prefer insurance companies over the govt.   

Here is why - insurance companies cant jail you for non-compliance.   

Even of the insurance carrier fucks you over, which is bad, you at least still have other options to get what you want, albeight difficult.   

When the govt is in charge, that's it, you have no other options whatsoever and non-compliance is backed up by threats oftaxation, jail, levies, etc.   

That pretty much sums it up. It's almost like fast food. If you don't like McDonald's, you can go to Burger King or Wendy's (I prefer Wendy's myself).

Somebody will insure you, if you cough up the money.

[a_joker10]

That pretty much sums it up. It's almost like fast food. If you don't like McDonald's, you can go to Burger King or Wendy's (I prefer Wendy's myself).

Somebody will insure you, if you cough up the money.

That's not true for everyone.

Try having an organ or tissue donation.

You will have a hell of a time trying to switch providers or getting equal coverage.

This is true to any long term illness.

While in a government system you will be mandated to be covered.

-There is a reason why people with long term health problems work less and apply for Medicad.

Obama's plan covers some of this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-existing_Condition_Insurance_Plan
This would go away with repealing of the health plan.

Personally, I like a 2 tier approach where you are covered by the state or can buy supplemental coverage.