I wonder if she has ever talked with anyone who has a child with down syndrome who tried to get insurance? It is darn near impossible...

Re Euthanasia an interview:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/200...

From another blog:
Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA), the actual author of Section 1233, says that the interpretation of that section as encouraging euthanasia is "nuts." Question to be asked to every Republican officeholder and talking head: "Sen. Isakson says that Gov. Palin is nuts. Do you agree?"

The thought here is that God blessed us with an enquiring mind. It is only when we let others do the enquiring for us that we begin to listen to the "false prophets" of any subject. There are those who believe you have to go the way of the church, at any cost, and there are those who believe God imbued them with minds able to come to rational decisions independent of churches, politicians, bloggers, or the next-door neighbor they admire. God gave us good sense. It may be a sin not to use that gift.

I wonder if Mr Wallis has read HR 3200.

• Sec. 1177, Pg. 354 - Government will RESTRICT enrollment of special needs people! “Extension of Authority of Special Needs Plans to Restrict Enrollment.”
• Sec. 1233, Pg. 425, Lines 4-12 - Government mandates Advance (Death) Care Planning consultation.
• Sec. 1233, Pg. 425, Lines 17-19 - Government WILL instruct and consult regarding living wills and durable powers of attorney.
• Sec. 1233, Pg. 425-426, Lines 22-25, 1-3 - Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.
• Sec. 1233, Pg. 427, Lines 15-24 - Government mandates program for orders for life-sustaining treatment (i.e. end of life).
• Sec. 1233, Pg. 429, Lines 1-9 - An “advanced care planning consult” will be used as patient’s health deteriorates.
• Sec. 1233, Pg. 429, Lines 10-12 - “Advanced Care Consultation” may include an ORDER for end-of-life plans - from the government.
• Sec. 1233, Pg. 429, Lines 13-25 - The government will specify which Doctors (professional authority under state law includes Nurse Practitioners or Physician’s Assistants) can write an end-of-life order.
• Sec. 1233, Pg. 430, Lines 11-15 - The government will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life, according to preset methods (not individually decided).

These are in the bill as it currently is written. You can download the whole bill, in PDF format, here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc....

You may not like Palin's comments, but the basis for those comments are in the bill.

Paul C. Quillman

I agree with Paul and in a respectful way, yes, we need to let people know that there are "dirty little secrets" in this health care bill and it is very dangerous for this country and generations to come. The pattern seems to be that when the truth is pointed out, it is demonized, along with the people who pointed it out.

As a minister who has been on staff with a hospice organization, it seems to me that both these responses misunderstand (or mis-characterize) the language in the bill. Advance care planning, and physicians orders growing out of such conversations, are a GOOD thing, which need to be understood as a necessary part of treatment planning conversations between patients and their health care providers. Unfortunately, due to the human propensity for denial and avoidance (on both sides of the conversation), such planning still mostly doesn't take place.
As I understand the language in the bill, this is what is being provided for - without mandating any particular approach or choice (which I would certainly be against), but just insuring that the conversation take place. In my opinion, Rev. Wallis is right - to characterize this as any sort of "death panel," as Mrs. Palin does, is nothing short of demagoguery of the worst sort.

While I agree that we should communicate our end of life wishes, I do not believe that the government should mandate it. And the following section does lend credence to Palin's comments:

• Sec. 1233, Pg. 430, Lines 11-15 - The government will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life, according to preset methods (not individually decided).


And this section deals with her concerns about special needs children:

• Sec. 1177, Pg. 354 - Government will RESTRICT enrollment of special needs people! “Extension of Authority of Special Needs Plans to Restrict Enrollment.”

Mr. Quillman, why are you making comments/commentary that DO NOT fit the citations you are making above? Read them again! I don't respect this sort of misquoting.

Have you read this in the actual 3200 Bill or just from some forward published by Jerry Falwell's liberty institution.

This is NOT MANDATORY. If it was, every single person minus a few freakjobs would protest this. It is simply there if you need it. I wish my grandmother would have had end of life counseling to establish a living will, and power of attorney. This would simply allow participation in the advanced planning program. It's there if you want it. That's all. YOU decide if you need it.

Also, When has anyone in the Administration discussed "rationing" care for the elderly? And where does it say that in this bill? It doesn't.

"This is NOT MANDATORY. "

Then why is it in the bill? At best, this is evidence of bloat; legislation as prose.

"Also, When has anyone in the Administration discussed "rationing" care for the elderly?"

The cost for this bill has to come from somewhere. Higher taxes (likely), rationing (less likely, but not unlikely), abortion consulting (somewhat likely), salary caps (have fun with that one, Dems). Pick your poison.

The administration has not discussed ANY of these costs. This does not mean we are obligated to pretend there are no costs.

Read the interview with Johnny Izakson (GOP) who initiated the "end-of-life-counseling" amendment.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/200...

granted, like a good republican lackey, his office now rejects his involvement, but he had co-sponsored an almost identical "end-of-life counseling" bill back in 2007.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bi...

cut the abortion crap. it's not in the bill. and again, I don't like the bill, but I'd rather discuss those things that are there or should be there, than chasing boogeymen.

It isn't in the bill--at least your strange interpretation of it isn't in the bill.

As for costs, I spent two years in grad school in a cohort with 9 docs, a lawyer, a pharmacist, nurses, hospital administrators and a couple of ordained ministers discussing nothing but healthcare financing, and staff allocation and investment in equipment and how to maximize its utilization, and supplier induced demand etc etc etc. and what the future held for the Medicare system [which incidentally does ration care by deciding what it will and won't cover] and what was wrong and right with an employer-financed system. Law, ethics -- how other kinds of healthcare systems worked [I personally lived in a country with socialized medicine and thought it made very good sense]. Grad school was in the late 90s, but we knew then our system was not sustainable. Rationing--we've had it for years. Advance directives--they've been around since the 80s. Everybody I know has one. Of course there are costs. It costs money to replace the roof on your house, but if it's raining into the living room, you either do it or watch the place decay until it's no longer habitable.

I'm glad you lived in a cohort with intelligent people. Sounds like a
wonderful experience.
Agreed. Our system is not sustainable.
We haven't, and don't, have rationing. That's a misuse of the term.
I have no problem with advanced directives. I have a problem with
government going anywhere near the issue of advanced directives.
To extend your roofing analogy, Obama's plan strikes me as an investment in
very expensive glue.
I do think we should do something now, but I can virtually assure you Obama
will use his prime time address to punt.

A cohort is a group of people who have all of their graduate school classes together for the whole 2 years. The fact that they were intelligent was just a bonus. As masters candidates in healthcare administration we spent a lot of time discussing the Clinton plan and why it had failed. The point of mentioning my classmates was their diversity, coming as they did from all parts of the health care professional community and contributing very different perspectives to the ongoing discussion, but still able to reach consensus on many issues.
 
I assure you there IS rationing in the health care industry--both involuntary and voluntary. There is also a lot of waste. I have spent over half my life [I am now 63] working in various healthcare environments, and this is something of which we are always aware and working to improve. There is also ongoing outcomes research in almost every area of clinical practice, and that is just economic good sense.
 
I find the whole current dialog about advance directives [not advanced directives] absurd and tragically ignorant. Having been the caregiver for my both my parents during their long but ultimately terminal illnesses, I know a lot more than I want to about how things work at that end of life. The problem is not that people in hospitals try to talk patients out of life-saving care--it's that they don't know when to stop--and quality of life is lost as a result. My mom spent a lot of her last six months in and out of the emergency room and ICU, where she had several different doctors, who did not seem to communicate very well with each other, and who paid little attention to the advance directive that was on her chart. She was a nurse and knew exactly what she wanted, but she was also a person who never gave up, which made it difficult for the people who knew her [including her doctors] to even discuss the possibility that she was running out
of options. I so wish that hospice had gotten involved early on, so that I could have taken her home and had someone advise me on how to make her last days sweet and peaceful, instead of horrible and painful and anxious.
 
Also, please remember that until last night, there WAS no Obama plan. There were three or four broad goals outlined by the President to guide Congress in developing its legislation, a division of labor appropriate to the respective duties of the executive and legislative branches, I believe.

I know what a cohort is, but there are other people who get together and
discuss issues intelligenty. It struck me as a funny appeal to authority.
That's all. No offense.

Can you please cite an example of the rationing to which you are referring?
I just don't see it. I do agree that there is a lot of waste, and don't see
any plan to address that in this bill.

I have no problem with medical providers discussing advanced directives with
patients, and neither do most people. If Obama hadn't sold health care
reform as a cost saving measure, and if Congress hadn't included language
about advanced directives in the health care bill, this discussion wouldn't
be taking place. But you can absolutely expect that people in this country
will want government FAR away from any advice, counseling, recommendations
etc... regarding advanced directives.

I am sorry to hear about your mother's final months. That her wishes were
not fulfilled is problematic indeed. Any healthcare reform bill should
introduce transparency into the health field, so that consumers can make
decisions based on past results. But there are a host of reasons why we do
not have transparency, as you are surely aware.

My goodness, Mr. Quillman, you are so naive! Why do you assume that a person forming advance directives (establishing a Health Care Power of Attorney and/or a Living Will) is a bad thing? It's basic common sense.

As a professional hospital chaplain I have been involved in hundreds of conversations with patients and people out in the community in consultations of this nature - helping people complete these sorts of directives and having discussions about how people want to be cared for in the end stages of life. These consultations are always voluntary and under this legislation they would remain so.

Death is something we all have to go through, you know. But there are good deaths and there are bad, painful traumatic ways to die - even in hospitals! Lack of good personal planning often results in the later. It always amazes me how many people resist the notion of palliative care.

I have a lot of first hand experience in ICU and ER situations, observing the negative effects on patients and families from a person NOT documenting their wishes ahead of time, and thus not having their true wishes respected as a result. Avoiding making advance medical directives makes about as much sense as not having a regular will. HR3200 simply provides for voluntary free consultations of this nature, at government expense. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with euthanasia! (A person can also file an advance directive stating that they want "everything done at all costs." Did you know that?)

You would do well to read that bill carefully for yourself (I have) and I also refer you to neutral arbiters who have rightly demolished such misinformation. FactCheck.org labels the claim "nonsense" and says calling this forced euthanasia is like saying "a bill making retirement planning easier would force Americans to quit their jobs." Terrifying seniors over this provision is shameless.

And take a look at this other bi-partisan site for a good summary of FACTS about health insurance reform legislation being proposed: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/subject...

I don't think that there are real "neutral arbiters" in any political debates, espicially heated ones like this. I also am very distrustful of most things"bi-partisan", as they usually never really are. I am pretty sure that I can read this bill as well as anyone else.

That being said, I did say that "While I agree that we should communicate our end of life wishes, I do not believe that the government should mandate it." This bill mandates end of life conversations with doctors every 5 years starting at age 65, I believe. I think it is a good and necessary thing to think through end of life decisions well before the end of life, but the government should not mandate this.

Sadly, none of this discussion really matters. It is a done deal, the fix is in, and Obama and the democrats will get what they want. Not enough conservatives to stop it.

Where does it say mandate every five years?

I have put the text of the bill below.

Again, read the bill. It does not mandate this at all. Your buying into a lie.

Factcheck.org is put on by a conservative group the Annenberg Foundation. They've done an excellent job at being bi-partisan, as has politifact.

But then again, you could just trust the forwards you receive. I have a pyramid scheme for you to join as well.

"Why do you assume that a person forming advance directives (establishing a Health Care Power of Attorney and/or a Living Will) is a bad thing?"

For starters, because this bill was, until very recently, promoted as a cost cutting measure. If:

1) A bill is proposed to cut health costs.

2) Advice on end of life directives is delineated in said bill.

Isn't it reasonable to worry that:

3) Altering end of life decisions is a means to the end of cutting health care costs.

By all means, continue the cut/paste/link exchange with Paul, but I would be interested to hear a response to the above, which, I assure you, did not come from Glenn Beck.