You should just die

[Turtle]

That is what I was thinking. How closely tied medical lobbyists are to that panel will answer some of that. The other thing unconfirmed is this 15 member panel will have no medical background. Not sure if that is true or not?

I would imagine that some of then will have a medical background, same as the military base closings panel had some military pepper on it. But I wouldn't think it would be a panel made up of mostly doctors. That would have conflict of interest written all over it.

 

[wvcourier]

Preventive medicine(a course not taught in Med school) is the best medicine..even then its getting harder to stay healthy... with the mandatory vaccinations in 2014, and the unlabled gmo foods(since 1994)that Monsanto is fighting tooth and nail to keep unlabled.

Sent from my Teddy Ruxspin

 

[LDB]

"We have to pass it first before you can know what's in it." That tells all that needs to be told about whether there will be death panels and anything else negative and not in the best interest of regular people.

 

[xiggi]

"...from routinely performing expensive procedures that are of little or no benefit to the patient but only benefit the bottom line of a financial statement"

This happens all of the time, doctors operate on people in nursing homes because they have insurance, on non-life changing issues that have no positive quality of life results other than to enrich the doctor. My wife is a surgical nurse and we discuss this weekly.

Scott

Liability plays an equal role in that. Doctor doesn't operate mom dies family sues.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC123 via EO Forums

 

[cheri1122]

Emotion is a huge factor, when technology can permit a life to be sustained even in direct opposition to the patient's wishes - I've seen too many people whose DNR [do not resuscitate] orders were overriden by a distraught family member who refuses to let their loved one go. A lot of resources and money will keep the person 'alive' for a few more days, weeks, maybe even months - but when they're comatose, unresponsive, on a respirator, fed by tubes, in great pain [or drugged to relieve it], why?
Because the family [or one particular spokesperson] demands it. It's no way to make critical decisions, and I've personally seen it happen too many times.
Our attitudes about life and death need to be examined and discussed, and our decisions should acknowledge the tremendous effects of emotion without allowing it to overrule reason.
Just because we can, doesn't always mean we should.

 

[Humble2drive]

"We have to pass it first before you can know what's in it."

It was passed a couple of years ago.

Here, why don't you just take a look and learn for yourself:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf

I don't see anything resembling your "death panel" but the 15 person independent advisory board is in section 3403.

OR . . . You can just wait and see if Romney is elected. He may or may not repeal all or part of the Act. Who knows??

 

[Turtle]

"We have to pass it first before you can know what's in it." That tells all that needs to be told about whether there will be death panels and anything else negative and not in the best interest of regular people.

The quote doesn't tell us anything at all about whether there will be death panels, or anything negative all. It doesn't tell us anything negative or positive about the bill. It gives no information whatsoever about the bill. None. It gives people who are scared of everything the ability to make assumptions based on their worst fears, though, like death panels, which ironically aren't in the final bill that became law.

 

[Humble2drive]

That is what I was thinking. How closely tied medical lobbyists are to that panel will answer some of that. The other thing unconfirmed is this 15 member panel will have no medical background. Not sure if that is true or not?

MEMBERSHIP.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Board shall be composed of—
‘‘(i) 15 members appointed by the President, by
and with the advice and consent of the Senate; and
‘‘(ii) the Secretary, the Administrator of the Center
for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and the Administrator
of the Health Resources and Services Administration,
all of whom shall serve ex officio as nonvoting
members of the Board.
‘‘(B) QUALIFICATIONS.—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The appointed membership of
the Board shall include individuals with national recognition
for their expertise in health finance and
economics, actuarial science, health facility management,
health plans and integrated delivery systems,
reimbursement of health facilities, allopathic and osteopathic
physicians, and other providers of health services,
and other related fields, who provide a mix of
different professionals, broad geographic representation,
and a balance between urban and rural representatives.
‘‘(ii) INCLUSION.—The appointed membership of the
Board shall include (but not be limited to) physicians
and other health professionals, experts in the area
of pharmaco-economics or prescription drug benefit programs,
employers, third-party payers, individuals
skilled in the conduct and interpretation of biomedical,
health services, and health economics research and
expertise in outcomes and effectiveness research and
technology assessment. Such membership shall also
include representatives of consumers and the elderly

 

[Turtle]

Actuarial science is a term that cracks me up. It's an oxymoron, same as creation science. Actuaries use mathematics, statistics, and financial theory to study uncertain future events.

 

[jaminjim]

MEMBERSHIP.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Board shall be composed of—
‘‘(i) 15 members appointed by the President, by
and with the advice and consent of the Senate; and
‘‘(ii) the Secretary, the Administrator of the Center
for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and the Administrator
of the Health Resources and Services Administration,
all of whom shall serve ex officio as nonvoting
members of the Board.
‘‘(B) QUALIFICATIONS.—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The appointed membership of
the Board shall include individuals with national recognition
for their expertise in health finance and
economics, actuarial science, health facility management,
health plans and integrated delivery systems,
reimbursement of health facilities, allopathic and osteopathic
physicians, and other providers of health services,
and other related fields, who provide a mix of
different professionals, broad geographic representation,
and a balance between urban and rural representatives.
‘‘(ii) INCLUSION.—The appointed membership of the
Board shall include (but not be limited to) physicians
and other health professionals, experts in the area
of pharmaco-economics or prescription drug benefit programs,
employers, third-party payers, individuals
skilled in the conduct and interpretation of biomedical,
health services, and health economics research and
expertise in outcomes and effectiveness research and
technology assessment. Such membership shall also
include representatives of consumers and the elderly

When the IRS wrote 18 pages to define what a full time worker was/is, how many pages do you think it will take them to define the paragraph that you posted?

I doubt that anyone on this website has read and understood the act as written, let alone the 13,000 plus pages that have been written to explain the regulation.

 

[jaminjim]

The quote doesn't tell us anything at all about whether there will be death panels, or anything negative all. It doesn't tell us anything negative or positive about the bill. It gives no information whatsoever about the bill. None. It gives people who are scared of everything the ability to make assumptions based on their worst fears, though, like death panels, which ironically aren't in the final bill that became law.

You are correct, it just tells us how stupid the public is for allowing a politician to stay in office after saying it.

 

[Turtle]

You are correct, it just tells us how stupid the public is for allowing a politician to stay in office after saying it.

It's certainly an astounding demonstration of political condescension, I'll give her credit for that.

 

[xiggi]

The quote doesn't tell us anything at all about whether there will be death panels, or anything negative all. It doesn't tell us anything negative or positive about the bill. It gives no information whatsoever about the bill. None. It gives people who are scared of everything the ability to make assumptions based on their worst fears, though, like death panels, which ironically aren't in the final bill that became law.

I would not necessarily agree. I believe it says very clearly we do not want you the peoples representatives time to thoroughly review this bill before voting on it. The reason being because it will never pass if we allow you to do so.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC123 via EO Forums

 

[cheri1122]

Xiggi may be right, but it might also say 'we want to pass it because we made a deal [for our own reasons] and we can't take the time to thoroughly review it first [for our own reasons] so consider it a done deal & move on already! We have campaigns to raise funds for, people!
That sounds like truth to me.

 

[jaminjim]

Xiggi may be right, but it might also say 'we want to pass it because we made a deal [for our own reasons] and we can't take the time to thoroughly review it first [for our own reasons] so consider it a done deal & move on already! We have campaigns to raise funds for, people!
That sounds like truth to me.

If that truly sounds like the truth to you and you aren't absolutely livid that it might be the case, that is the problem with the American people. (I'm thinking you don't like how it was done any more than me.)

 

[Humble2drive]

I would not necessarily agree. I believe it says very clearly we do not want you the peoples representatives time to thoroughly review this bill before voting on it. The reason being because it will never pass if we allow you to do so.
Sent from my Fisher Price ABC123 via EO Forums

You are assuming that Congress thoroughly reviews bills before voting? I think that has been disproven.
I do agree with the never passing point though.

“Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

 

[Tennesseahawk]

You are assuming that Congress thoroughly reviews bills before voting? I think that has been disproven.
I do agree with the never passing point though.

“Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

You would think that with a bill that would control 12-16% of our GDP, there would've been some ability of congress people AND concerned citizens (with the chance to contact said congress people by said concerned citizens) to actually browse the legislation. But no... it was a "trust us and pass it, then you can read it" deal. Total and utter BS, IMO. It only proves that the American people are not supposed to be privy to the inner workings of the people we elect. That is why I've lost faith in, not only the system, but the American citizenry, for not kicking these stooges out.