Showing posts with label Advance Care Planning Consultation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Advance Care Planning Consultation. Show all posts

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Useless Eaters

While Americans worry over government insurance plans, longer waits for treatment, and "healthcare rationing," a more sinister agenda lurks in the shadows of the healthcare bill now before the House of Representatives.  Today's Medicare recipients could be the first to experience our government's new solution to America's "useless eaters."

Section 1233 of HR 3200, the healthcare reform measure under consideration, mandates"Advance Care Planning Consultation."  Under the proposal, all senior citizens receiving government medical care would be required to undergo these counseling sessions every five years.  Further reading of the law reveals that these sessions are nothing more than a not-so-veiled attempt to convince the elderly to forego treatment.  HR 3200 calls outright for these compulsory consultations to recommend "palliative care and hospice."  These are typically administered in the place of treatment intended to prolong life, and instead focus on pain relief until death.  These are, of course, reasonable and beneficial options for terminally ill patients and their families.

But this legislation doesn't stop there.  Section 1233 requires "an explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title." But, under the terms of the section, the federal government can compel more frequent end-of-life sessions if it declares a "significant change" in the health of the Medicare recipient, a change that the bill does not confine to fatal illness, but which encompasses broad and abstract conditions described as "chronic," "progressive," or "life-limiting."  The bill even empowers physicians to make an "actionable medical order" to "limit some or all specified interventions..."  In effect, the government can determine that a "life-limiting" condition demands the withholding of treatment.

The bill puts the Secretary of Health in charge of life and death decisions coming out of these sessions.  Under the heading,  "QUALITY REPORTING INITIATIVE," the bill says, "For purposes of reporting data on quality measures for covered professional services furnished during 2011 and any subsequent year, to the extent that measures are available, the Secretary shall include quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that have been adopted or endorsed by a consensus-based organization, if appropriate. Such measures shall measure both the creation of and adherence to orders for life-sustaining treatment."

These measures are merely an extension of the healthcare provisions hidden in the stimulus bill, which contained alarming new guidelines that required medical practitioners to judge whether or not treating certain patients was "comparatively effective."  These decisions were to be based on the findings of a presidential advisory council on the costs of varying treatments. As a result of these changes, treatment is now a question of "cost" and humans are viewed as potential "liabilities" instead of patients. 

Doctors up in arms over these radical changes have been attacked with the worst kind of demagoguery imaginable. Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) lacks any shame, saying that doctors who oppose this legislation have "lost sight of the common good and the pledge they took in the Hippocratic oath."  Last time I checked, the Hippocratic oath didn't say anything about refusing to treat patients on the basis of cost.  And somehow, whenever the words "common good" are thrown around, individuals are about to be hurt.  McDermott even went on to accuse anti-reform doctors of "practicing fear without a license," saying that "they should be subject to a malpractice suit."

President Obama has even been so disingenuous as to accuse Republicans of denying medical treatment to people that need it, saying, "The opponents of health insurance reform would have us do nothing. But think about what doing nothing, in the face of ever increasing costs, will do to you and your family."  This is a classic false choice scenario.  Either we pass Obama's legislation, or people will die.   In fact, doing nothing is infinitely preferable to doing the wrong thing, especially when we're being pushed to move too quickly.

It was the same with the stimulus package.  And we all know how that turned out: 9.4 percent unemployment and a budget deficit four times larger than when President Bush was in office. Obama has become a master at using false urgency to achieve hidden goals completely unrelated to the issue at hand.

The real concern is not the imaginary people who might die without this legislation, but rather those real people who might die because of it.  Never before have we been this close to making federal law that formalizes procedures for limiting the care we will provide to certain categories of citizens.

Never before have we been this close to adopting a system that will tell certain citizens to forego treatment for the good of their country.

Totalitarian regimes approach matters of human worth in this way.  But this is America, and our Constitution says that, "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process."

But if HR 3200 becomes law, "due process" regarding someone's life will become a question for bureaucrats.  When all is said and done, the ultimate result of the proposed bill is to transfer to government the unprecedented power of determining who lives and who dies.

Once a government adopts this utilitarian stance toward human life, anything becomes possible.  Suspend for a moment your jaded response to Hitler references, and note that in Germany, Order T4 required physicians to kill 70,273 people[i] "judged incurably sick, by critical medical examination"[ii] or those "unworthy of life."[iii]  5,000 of these victims were children.  The elderly, the mentally infirmed, the deformed, and the racially impure, were put to death by teams of "medical experts."  Thousands were sterilized.  By 1939, 360,000 people had been sterilized to prevent the reproduction of the socially "unfit."

Although the methods have grown more subtle and the language more libertarian, our attitudes are not so very different in America today.  We casually discuss whether people with certain afflictions merit the costs necessary to keep them alive.  Quality of life trumps sanctity of life in most quarters.  Dr. Jack Kevorkian's assisted suicide methodology, once unthinkable, is now an acceptable topic for polite conversation.

In America, a rising number of parents abort children on the basis of tests indicating imperfections or disorders, the effective slaughter of the mentally ill.  In fact, over 80 percent of fetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted.

Once a nation that cherished the right to life, America is now a nation that cherishes the right to death.  50 million dead unborn children testify to this fact.   Prior to the ban in 2003, partial birth abortion-effective infanticide-claimed the lives of 5,000 children every year.

The language of Obama's healthcare reform bill should be a warning to us.  This is only the first step in a process that spells death to our way of life.  This bill is a test to see what the American people will allow.  If you treasure the elderly and the wisdom of previous generations, if you value human worth and care about equality for all Americans.

By:  John Griffing – July 26, 2009


[i] Robert N. Proctor, Racial Hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis, (Harvard 1988), 191.

[ii] Ibid., 177.

[iii] Dr. Robert Jay Lifton, The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide by (holocaust-history.org)

Source:  American Thinker

Posted:  True Health Is True Wealth

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Obamacare for Illegal Aliens – While Granny Gets Duty to Die Lecture…

Big Nanny Democrats want to ration health care for everyone in America – except those who break our immigration laws. Last week, the House Ways and Means Committee defeated an amendment that would have prevented illegal aliens from using the so-called “public health insurance option.” Every Democrat on the panel voted against the measure.

Nevada GOP Rep. Dean Heller’s measure would have enforced income, eligibility, and immigration verification screening on all Obamacare patients. Unlike most everything else stuffed into the House Democrats’ plan, the citizenship vetting process would not have required building a new bureaucracy. Rep. Heller proposed using existing state and federal databases created years ago to root out entitlement fraud.

If the congressional majority were truly committed to President Obama’s quest to wring cost savings from the system, why won’t they adopt the same anti-fraud checks imposed on other government health and welfare beneficiaries? Maybe an intrepid reporter can ask the president at his next Obamacare show to explain.

The Democratic leadership denies that an estimated 12-20 million illegal immigrants will receive taxpayer-subsidized health insurance coverage. Senate Finance Committee Chair Sen. Max Baucus (D-Montana) calls the proposition “too politically explosive.”

But President Obama lit the fuse in February when he signed the massive expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). That law loosened eligibility requirements for legal immigrants and their children by watering down document and evidentiary standards – making it easy for individuals to use fake Social Security cards to apply for benefits with little to no chance of getting caught. In addition, Obama’s S-CHIP expansion revoked Medicaid application time limits that were part of the 1996 welfare reform law. Immigration activists see the provisions as first steps toward universal coverage for illegals.

“Explosive?” The applause certainly was. President Obama’s praise of the weakened immigrant eligibility rules drew the strongest claps and cheers from members of Congress at the SCHIP signing event.

Immigration analyst James R. Edwards, Jr. reported last week in National Review that “no health legislation on the table requires federal, state, or local agencies — or private institutions receiving federal funds — to check the immigration status of health-program applicants, so some of the money distributed via Medicaid and tax credits inevitably would go to illegal aliens.” Moreover, the Senate Finance Committee plan creates a new preference for illegal aliens by exempting them from the mandate to buy insurance.

That’s right. Law-abiding, uninsured Americans would be fined if they didn’t submit to the Obamacare prescription. Law-breaking border-crossers, visa-overstayers, and deportation fugitives would be spared.

The solution is not to give them health insurance, but to turn off the magnets that draw them to enter illegally in the first place.

For years, advocates of uncontrolled immigration have argued that illegal aliens are not getting free health care and that even if they were, they are not draining government budgets. The fiscal crisis in California gives lie to those talking points. In March, the Associated Press reported that Sacramento and Contra Costa counties were slashing staff and closing clinics due to the prohibitive costs of providing non-emergency health services for illegal immigrants.

“The general situation there is being faced by nearly every health department across the country, and if not right now, shortly,” Robert M. Pestronk, executive director of the National Association of County and City Health Officials, told the AP. Indeed. The Texas state comptroller put the price tag for illegal alien hospital care at $1.3 billion in 2006. USA Today reported that from 2001 to 2004, spending for emergency Medicaid for illegal immigrants rose by 28% in North Carolina alone. Clinics across the Midwest have also been shuttered under the weight of illegal immigrant care costs.

At a time when Democrat leaders are pushing rationed care in a world of limited resources, Americans might wonder where the call for shared sacrifice is from illegal immigrant patients like those in Los Angeles getting free liver and kidney transplants at UCLA Medical Center. “I’m just mad,” illegal alien Jose Lopez told the Los Angeles Times last year after receiving two taxpayer-subsidized liver transplants while impatiently awaiting approval for state health insurance.

Now, multiply that sense of entitlement by 12-20 million illegal immigrants. Welcome to the open-borders Obamacare nightmare and the start of euthanogenics for America’s Seniors!!

Is this really the hope and change you expected or the medical care reform we need?  Full healthcare for illegals while Grandma can’t get a hip replacement and grandpa can’t get heart surgery…?  If this isn’t what you want, it is time to stand-up before it is too late!

by Michelle Malkin - Creators Syndicate

Posted:  True Health Is True Wealth

Related Resources:

Call, email and write your congressperson, your Senator and Nancy Pelosi daily and say “no” to this program

1-202-224-3121- Congress Switchboard

1-202-225-3121- Congress Switchboard

(202) 225-0100 - Speaker of the House Pelosi

Speaker Nancy Pelosi
http://speaker.house.gov/contact orhttp://www.speaker.gov/contact

Senators from your State.

No rationing of care

No single payer program or public option of any kind, especially with at an  immediate or as a later byproduct of a future single payer type system - (Government should regulate, but not run or pay for care beyond Medicare, Medicaid or Veteran Care that are all seriously lacking)

No forced mandate for doctors to perform abortions

No euthanogenic or ‘duty to die’ programs or reduction in elder care and services

No  central electronic medical database -– the possible negative uses are too dangerous

Yes to alternative and holistic options and natural supplements as part of healthcare coverage

No to anymore votes on any bills that have not been read

What we need is

  • tort reform (reduction of frivolous medical lawsuits)

  • focus on prevention

  • regulation of insurance fraud and insurance fees

  • no more exclusion of coverage for pre-existing conditions

  • Overhaul of waste and fraud in Medicare, Medicaid and Veteran Coverage – programs the government already runs inefficiently

  • Perhaps the truly indigent could be covered by a Medicare subsidiary?