OBAMA: Look, the first thing for all of us to understand is that, we actually have some choices to make about how we want to deal with our own end-of-life care. And that's one of the things I think we can all promote, and this is not a big government program, this is something that each of us individually can do, is to draft and sign a living will, so that we're very clear with our doctors about how we want to approach the end of life. I don't think we can make judgements based on people's spirit. That'd be a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that say that, we are gonna provide good, quality care for all people...
GOODSON: But the money may not have been there for her pacemaker or your grandmother's hip replacement.
OBAMA: Well, and that's absolutely true and end-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we're gonna have to make. I don't want bureaucracies making those decisions, but understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they're not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they're being made by private insurers. We don't always make those decisions explicitly, we often make those decisions by just letting people run out of money of making the deductible so high, or the out of pocket expenses so onerous that they just can't afford the care.
And all we're suggesting... And we're not gonna solve every difficult problem in terms of end of life care. A lot of that is gonna have to be, we as a culture and a as society starting to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves. But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know, and your mom know, that you know what? Maybe this isn't gonna help. Maybe you're better off not having this surgery but taking the painkiller. And those kinds of decisions, between doctors and patients, and making sure that our incentives are not preventing those good decisions, and that the doctors and hospitals all are aligned for patient care, that's something we can acheieve. We're not going to solve every single one of these very difficult decisions at end-of-life, and ultimately that's gonna be between physicians and patients. But we can make real progress on this front if we work a little but harder.
As usual, you people misrepresent what she was talking about. There have indeed been morons displaying Nazi symbols at these events, but it's the protesters who are accusing Democrats of being Nazis.fossten said:
The symbol is called a "caduceus", and it traces its origins to the ancient Greeks. How about trying Google instead of Limbaugh (and leeching from his site)?How about President Cokehead's healthcare symbol compared to Hitler's symbol?
+1I don't know what else to say right now, other than to implore you to do your own research and quit taking the crap Limbaugh and his ilk say as gospel. They don't give a damn about you. Try to keep that in mind. Then again, I don't know if it's even possible to get any accurate information any more. I guarantee you this is also by design.
The way Obama's quote reads in context, Obamacare will refuse to pay for the elderly past a certain age. And Obama care will also not allow you to pay for it yourself. It won't be an issue of the doctor not refusing - the elderly simply will have to get in line.
Is the Government Going to Euthanize your Grandmother? An Interview With Sen. Johnny Isakson.
Sarah Palin's belief that the House health-care reform bill would create "death panels" might be particularly extreme, but she's hardly the only person to wildly misunderstand the section of the bill ordering Medicare to cover voluntary end-of-life counseling sessions between doctors and their patients.
One of the foremost advocates of expanding Medicare end-of-life planning coverage is Johnny Isakson, a Republican Senator from Georgia. He co-sponsored 2007's Medicare End-of-Life Planning Act and proposed an amendment similar to the House bill's Section 1233 during the Senate HELP Committee's mark-up of its health care bill. I reached Sen. Isakson at his office this afternoon. He was befuddled that this had become a question of euthanasia, termed Palin's interpretation "nuts," and emphasized that all 50 states currently have some legislation allowing end-of-life directives. A transcript of our conversation follows.
Is this bill going to euthanize my grandmother? What are we talking about here?
In the health-care debate mark-up, one of the things I talked about was that the most money spent on anyone is spent usually in the last 60 days of life and that's because an individual is not in a capacity to make decisions for themselves. So rather than getting into a situation where the government makes those decisions, if everyone had an end-of-life directive or what we call in Georgia "durable power of attorney," you could instruct at a time of sound mind and body what you want to happen in an event where you were in difficult circumstances where you're unable to make those decisions.
This has been an issue for 35 years. All 50 states now have either durable powers of attorney or end-of-life directives and it's to protect children or a spouse from being put into a situation where they have to make a terrible decision as well as physicians from being put into a position where they have to practice defensive medicine because of the trial lawyers. It's just better for an individual to be able to clearly delineate what they want done in various sets of circumstances at the end of their life.
How did this become a question of euthanasia?
I have no idea. I understand -- and you have to check this out -- I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin's web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You're putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don't know how that got so mixed up.
You're saying that this is not a question of government. It's for individuals.
It empowers you to be able to make decisions at a difficult time rather than having the government making them for you.
The policy here as I understand it is that Medicare would cover a counseling session with your doctor on end-of-life options.
Correct. And it's a voluntary deal.
It seems to me we're having trouble conducting an adult conversation about death. We pay a lot of money not to face these questions. We prefer to experience the health-care system as something that just saves you, and if it doesn't, something has gone wrong.
Over the last three-and-a-half decades, this legislation has been passed state-by-state, in part because of the tort issue and in part because of many other things. It's important for an individual to make those determinations while they're of sound mind and body rather than no one making those decisions at all. But this discussion has been going on for three decades.
And the only change we'd see is that individuals would have a counseling session with their doctor?
Uh-huh. When they become eligible for Medicare.
Are there other costs? Parts of it I'm missing?
No. The problem you got is that there's so much swirling around about health care and people are taking bits and pieces out of this. This was thoroughly debated in the Senate committee. It's voluntary. Every state in America has an end of life directive or durable power of attorney provision. For the peace of mind of your children and your spouse as well as the comfort of knowing the government won't make these decisions, it's a very popular thing. Just not everybody's aware of it.
What got you interested in this subject?
I've seen the pain and suffering in families with a loved one with a traumatic brain injury or a crippling degenerative disease become incapacitated and be kept alive under very difficult circumstances when if they'd have had the chance to make the decision themself they'd have given another directive and I've seen the damage financially that's been done to families and if there's a way to prevent that by you giving advance directives it's both for the sanity of the family and what savings the family has it's the right decision, certainly more than turning it to the government or a trial lawyer.
I have no idea. I understand -- and you have to check this out -- I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin's web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You're putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don't know how that got so mixed up.
By the way, I'm well aware of all the of Nazi references at anti-Bush rallies, so save yourself the trouble of posting eight years worth of photos. It's a given that both sides have idiots, but it doesn't take away from the fact that Pelosi was correct in saying that these things have been appearing, and that she never claimed that the people participating in these rallies are Nazis.
Obama makes clear in his answer that any decisions about end-of-life care are to be made by the doctor, the patient, and the patient's family. But the creator of your video left out all of the context of his statement to make it appear that Obama is basically saying, "hey tough luck, take a pill".
What original question was that? The clip doesn't even include the question.In the context of what she was saying, Pelosi was implying that the protestors are, in some way, Nazi. She made no indication of the fact that all the signs in question are actually calling the Dem's Nazi. There is nothing "correct" in that. It is a blatant attempt to smear.
It was also an attempt to avoid the original question she was being asked.
Not to surprising that you would defend it...
Anything to trash conservatives, eh?
INCORRECT. She said the protesters were displaying swastikas. That's a deliberate statement. That infers that the protesters are nazis. She never corrected the record. If she wanted to be specific, she could have said that the protesters were displaying anti-swastikas. Of course, the fact that the media was dutifully silent on the issue helped her.What original question was that? The clip doesn't even include the question.
In light of the incontrovertible fact that at least a few protesters were indeed displaying Nazi symbols (associating them with Democrats), it is crystal clear that that's what she was referring to. I don't know of a single source, no matter how far left, that has accused any protesters of displaying PRO Nazi symbols. You're just blowing smoke.
Not too surprising that you would parrot it...
Anything to trash liberals, eh?
Since you're up on your self-righteous, arrogant soapbox at the moment, it's appropriate to point out your troll-like behavior.People have completely gone off the deep end over this. I read this forum every day with the hope that maybe someone will start a topic that can be reasonably discussed, but all I see day after day are endless right-wing BS that have no redeeming value other than to stir up anger and and to piss on "liberals". And while it's always been nearly impossible to have a decent discussion here, lately the rhetoric has gone clear off the charts.
Prime example; his claim that you will be able to keep your current health insurance if you like it, which is contradicted by page 16 of the bill. He was asked about that provision by the press and claimed he wasn't familiar with it yet the very next day he goes on asserting that you will be able to keep your health insurance if you like it.
Private health insurance not banned on page 16 of the House bill
We got several e-mails from readers asking if new health care legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives bans private health insurance for individuals. We tracked the statement back to its source, an editorial from Investor's Business Daily.
"It didn't take long to run into an 'uh-oh' moment when reading the House's 'health care for all Americans' bill," the editorial says. "Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal."
The editorial continues, "Under the Orwellian header of 'Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage,' the 'Limitation On New Enrollment' section of the bill clearly states: 'Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day' of the year the legislation becomes law."
The editorial, published July 15, 2009, adds, "So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers."
Since then, the allegation about Page 16 has been repeated in many blogs and by at least one member of Congress.
We read the section of the bill to which Investor's Business Daily referred, as well as a summary of the legislation provided by the House Ways and Means committee. While the quotation is correct, it's taken out of context.
Individual private health insurance means coverage that someone buys on his or her own from a private company. In other words, it's for people who can't get coverage through work or some other group, and the rates tend to be much higher.
Under the House bill, companies that offer insurance to individuals will do it through an exchange, where the government sets minimum standards for coverage. The new regulations require insurance companies to accept people even if they have previously existing conditions and to provide a minimum level of benefits, among other things.
To be sure we were reading the bill correctly, we turned to an independent health care analyst at the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. The foundation has analyzed the major health care proposals, including those of the Republicans, providing point-by-point analysis .
Jennifer Tolbert, the foundation's principal policy analyst, told us that Page 16 doesn't outlaw private insurance. "There will be individual policies available, but people will buy those policies through the national health insurance exchange," she said.
The House bill allows for existing policies to be grandfathered in, so that people who currently have individual health insurance policies will not lose coverage. The line the editorial refers to is a clause that says the health insurance companies cannot enroll new people into the old plans.
The IDB editorial has caught the attention of some of the bill's most direct supporters. Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat who is guiding the legislation through Congress, wrote a letter to the publication saying the editorial was "factually incorrect and highly misleading."
The conservative Heritage Foundation also said the editorial misread the legislation, writing on its Foundry blog, "So IDB is wrong: individual health insurance will not be outlawed." Heritage believes that the new regulations will be so onerous as to drive private insurance out of business "which is effectively the same thing." But that is a substantially different argument than what the editorial said.
President Barack Obama had the chance to personally quash the IDB editorial himself when asked about it in a conference call with left-leaning bloggers. He said he wasn't familiar with the provision, before reiterating his general commitment to not forcing people out of health insurance that they like. (Impress your friends at parties by referring to the proper section on page 16 of the bill: It's Section 102.)
In response to Waxman's letter, Investor's Business Daily says it's sticking to its guns. In a follow-up editorial, it said that private insurance offered on the exchange will be too regulated to be considered true private insurance, hence its original editorial is correct that the bill bans private insurance. This seems like a creative way of covering up a factual error, though. Many private companies are highly regulated but are still considered to be private.
The original editorial said, "Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal." That's not what the legislation says. When the error was pointed out, a subsequent editorial said it was still true. For perpetuating misinformation and then standing by it in the face of facts, we rate the Investor's Business Daily editorial Pants on Fire!
SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT
COVERAGE.(a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV-
ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of
this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov-
erage under this division, the term "grandfathered health
insurance coverage" means individual health insurance
coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the
first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
this paragraph, the individual health insurance
issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
any individual in such coverage if the first ef-
fective date of coverage is on or after the first
day of Y1.(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PER-
MITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect
the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an
individual who is covered as of such first day.(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR
CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except
as required by law, the issuer does not change any
of its terms or conditions, including benefits and
cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be-
fore the first day of Y1.(3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES.—
The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in
the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific
grandfathered health insurance coverage without
changing the premium for all enrollees in the same
risk group at the same rate, as specified by the
Commissioner.
I find it sad that most people aren't educated enough to know what the original meaning of the swastika (NAZI symbol as it's now called), is...
What original question was that? The clip doesn't even include the question.
In light of the incontrovertible fact that at least a few protesters were indeed displaying Nazi symbols (associating them with Democrats), it is crystal clear that that's what she was referring to. I don't know of a single source, no matter how far left, that has accused any protesters of displaying PRO Nazi symbols. You're just blowing smoke.
Not too surprising that you would parrot it...
Anything to trash liberals, eh?
The section in question merely DEFINES of the term "grandfathered health insurance coverage" to be used later. It is not a statement saying individual insurance is to be outlawed.
Appeal to authority. How original.And Foss, I guarantee I've read more of the bill than you have.
Prime example; his claim that you will be able to keep your current health insurance if you like it, which is contradicted by page 16 of the bill. He was asked about that provision by the press and claimed he wasn't familiar with it yet the very next day he goes on asserting that you will be able to keep your health insurance if you like it.
The section in question merely DEFINES of the term "grandfathered health insurance coverage" to be used later. It is not a statement saying individual insurance is to be outlawed.