EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Talk Radio Campaign Frightening Seniors
Provision for End-of-Life Counseling Is Described by Right as 'Death Care'
A campaign on conservative talk radio, fueled by President Obama's calls to control exorbitant medical bills, has sparked fear among senior citizens that the health-care bill moving through Congress will lead to end-of-life "rationing" and even "euthanasia."
The controversy stems from a proposal to pay physicians who counsel elderly or terminally ill patients about what medical interventions they would prefer near the end of life and how to prepare instructions such as living wills. Under the plan, Medicare would reimburse doctors for one session every five years to confer with a patient about his or her wishes and how to ensure those preferences are followed. The counseling sessions would be voluntary.
But on right-leaning radio programs, religious e-mail lists and Internet blogs, the proposal has been described as "guiding you in how to die," "an ORDER from the Government to end your life," promoting "death care" and, in the words of antiabortion leader Randall Terry, an attempt to "kill Granny."
Though the counseling provision is a tiny part of a behemoth bill, the skirmish over end-of-life care, like arguments about abortion coverage, has become a distraction and provided an opening for opponents of the president's broader health-care agenda. At a forum sponsored by the seniors group AARP that was intended to pitch comprehensive reform, Obama was asked about the "rumors." He used the question to promote living wills, noting that he and the first lady have them.
Democratic strategists privately acknowledged that they were hesitant to give extra attention to the issue by refuting the inaccuracies, but they worry that it will further agitate already-skeptical seniors.
The side battle also undercuts what many say is the more fundamental challenge of discussing sensitive, costly societal questions about how to align patient wishes at the end of life with financial realities, for both the family and taxpayers.
"I don't think it's about cutting costs; it's about quality," said Tia Powell, director of the Montefiore-Einstein Center for Bioethics. Pointing to extensive research, she said: "The good news is if you get people in an environment that is of their choosing, where there is support and they have good pain control, it is very likely to extend their life."
Not since 2003, when Congress and President George W. Bush became involved in the case of Terri Schiavo, who lay in a vegetative state in a hospice in Florida, have lawmakers waded into the highly charged subject, said Howard Brody, director of an ethics institute at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston.
The attacks on talk radio began when Betsy McCaughey, who helped defeat President Bill Clinton's health-care overhaul 16 years ago, told former senator Fred D. Thompson (R-Tenn.) that mandatory counseling sessions with Medicare beneficiaries would "tell them how to end their life sooner" and would teach the elderly how to "decline nutrition . . . and cut your life short."
House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Republican Policy Committee Chairman Thaddeus McCotter (Mich.) said they object to the idea because it "may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia."
Brody says the proposal to reimburse counseling sessions "is an excellent idea," because too few doctors or adult children know what an elderly person wants, even sometimes when the patient has signed a medical directive.
About one-third of Americans have living wills or a document designating a health-care proxy who would make decisions if they become incapacitated, said Barbara Coombs Lee, president of Compassion & Choices, a nonprofit group that focuses on the rights of the terminally ill. "But it's alarming how rarely they actually get honored because often doctors haven't familiarized themselves with the patient's wishes," she said.
Wesley Smith, an attorney for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, said Obama's focus on controlling costs and the legalese in the bill have contributed to the confusion. "People fear these counseling sessions will push toward less care because the point is to cut costs," he said. The average cost of care for a chronically ill Medicare patient in the final six months of life is $46,400, according to Dartmouth University data.
The emphasis on cost containment means "you'll end up with denial of care for the elderly," said Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, who also testified against the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. Possible abortion coverage and end-of-life care in the health bill will be "a watershed battle for the life community."
In the past two weeks, AARP has fielded a few thousand calls from people who mistakenly think the legislation would require every Medicare recipient to "choose how they want to die," said James Dau, a spokesman for the organization.
Though he is "willing to give the benefit of the doubt" to some who may be confused, Dau complained that the effort to "intentionally distort" the proposal "is just plain cruel to anyone who is forced to make one of these difficult decisions at the end of life."
The American Medical Association, which supports the provision, has received similar inquiries and protests from patients who fear doctors will begin denying care late in life.
"These are important discussions everyone should have when they are healthy and not entering a hospital, so they are fully informed and can make their wishes known," said association President J. James Rohack. "That's not controversial; it's plain, old-fashioned patient-centered care."
After letting the controversy simmer on talk radio and the blogosphere, expecting that it might blow over, Democrats have begun to respond.
The allegations of mandatory counseling and euthanasia "are blatantly false," Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) and Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) wrote colleagues. The accusations are "as offensive as they are untrue."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

66 Comments so far
Show AllThe right has, does and will continue to use whatever is available to distort the truth to serve their own greedy agenda. Most times, what is available is some religious dogma. Don't get me wrong...the left does the same...they just use different methods...the Constitution, civil and personal rights. But, in both cases, it's mostly a question of convenience and what will work to gather the masses to a particular issue. It's all soon forgotten when the bottom line is realized. The sheeple listen, obey and return to American idol or whatever reality show is in style. Reason? Think? Read? Discuss? Debate? Good luck!
"Don't get me wrong...the left does the same..."
Yeah? Bull. Is there a stream under your bridge?
People has to open their eyes to see this is another repug fear mongering episode in their plan to keep their propagander machine well oiled. Where is their plan? They are always seeking ways to keep destroying this country.
Speaking as one in the target group, I would welcome something on the order of Switzerland's "Dignitas."
Where's Phil Donahue when you need him?
dwyerj1 August 1st, 2009 11:19 am
Phil's presence was not facilitative to the corporate and state effort at mass mind control, so he was canned.
Being a supporter of single payer I welcome this argument. It is in the bill and a way to kill it as plainly a very bad bill for the people with little changes but more opportunity for the insurance industry to profit. I hope this bill fails and I will promote "kill granny". Perhaps then we can look at HR 676.
I can follow your line of reasoning, but that's a mighty big "perhaps."
I agree that the so-called "public option" should be defeated. It's a nightmare of complexity and trickiness as it stands, but its failure is likely to lead to nothing except more political flim-flammery IMO.
Its fascinating how the religous right, who are sure there's a heaven, are so afraid of dying. My belief is that as the swell of baby boomers (of which I'm one) begins to need assisted living and more medical attention, gov'ts will have no choice but to implement some sort of assisted suicide for those who choose it. Yes, it may make some elders feel pressured to 'go early' to ease obligations of families to care for them. A properly structured and regulated system can ensure that no one is 'assisted' against their will. Best to make these decisions while you are still in possession of all your marbles. After spending a week with my 93 year old mother who is about to move into a retirement home, I've vowed to join a Right to Die Society.
Thankfully, in Canada, there is a greater separation of church and state.
Sort of Soylent Green and 1984 rolled into one package.
If you really want to get depressed check out dieoff.org.
In terms of metaphors to guide us, I would suggest the Pied Pipper which is sort of a lemming response.
Maybe the government will make a lot of defective vaccines for the swine flu.
Just like the right to call the kettle black - it's their support of the current no single payer government health care option for all that has health care in such a shambles. When I get laid off from my job I will not have health insurance and there will be no meeting with my doc to see how I want to be treated in my later years as I won't get to ever see a doc again until I am declared dead by one.
The right wing media/political machine is well practiced in the techniques of the big lie and no lie or distortion is too bizarre or totally wrong not to be used. They are well aware that their echo chamber will repeat the lie so much that many folks will finally assume that even the unbelievable is actually true. The truth is just getting up and getting its pants on as the lie races ahead down the media road--and so often never catches up in many minds. From Limbaugh and Hannity and Coulter to Mitch McConnell, Orin Hatch, and other Repug thugs, the lie spreads and then increasingly shows up in the "respectable" corporate TV and print media. Goebbels and the other Nazi propagandists would be stunned and amazed to witness the breadth and depth of the big lie/disinformation environment in which the US ruling elites have submerged the population. And as media has conglomerated globally into six central corporations, they have worldwide impact in every area of information. All the more need for spaces of sanity and analysis on the web, independent media like Pacifica and community, NOT NPR, radio, and Al-Jazeera. Yes, Al-Jazeera, a much more objective news source than corporate TV here and accessible on the web. Why else have the rulers essentially banned it from cable networks here? And also killed its reporters and bombed its buildings from time to time. Watch the excellent documentary Control Room to learn more about Al-Jazeera.
AS a senior at 73 and counting the whole thing is insulting if you are afraid of death great go hide under the bed but remember it will find you.10 years back I signed with this outfit called Lifelegacy where they just wait for me to croak and then come pick up the body and use it for research and it is for free.There is no "me" in a hole and dont want to be hovering over a body being smoked.Kinda squimish but to see my body taken apart for study will be cool!Tony
A caveat: not all bodies are suitable for research. Body donation programs typically reject bodies that have been autopsied, or from which organs (other than corneas) have been removed for donation. Such bodies, and those that have suffered major trauma or recent major surgery or have begun to decompose, cannot be properly embalmed for study. Among other postential reasons for rejection: advanced metastatic cancer, sepsis, obesity, emaciation, TB, MS, ALS, HIV/AIDS, Hep B and C, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, objections of next-of-kin. If a body is rejected, it is up to the next-of-kin to make other arrangements, so please ensure that yours know your preferred backup plan. Also, most body donation programs cremate bodies after study (usually a year or so after donation) and offer the ashes to the next-of-kin, so you should also specify what you want done with them.
I'm all set,it has all been put into my will and as for the body if they reject it so be it."It" dont belong to me anymore but thanks for the info.Tony
We all know what national "health care" did for 1930's Germany. Rationing based on who is considered more valuable to society. I saw the following snippet RE the 1107 page Obama "care" plan:
>>>1) All American citizens being ordered to have a National ID Card (page 58) . 2) US government to have immediate access to every American citizens bank accounts (page 59). 3) All property owned by Doctors in the US to be determined by government (page 317). 4) All American citizens ordered to give the US government power of attorney over their living wills (page 425). 5) The US government given a new power to determine who and how their citizens die (page 427). 6) End of Life plan for each American citizen ordered by the government (page 429). 7) US government to decide on who, and who can’t be married (page 489). All this will be “railroaded in” if this 1,107 page bill is passed...<<<
more: >>Obama's Science Czar Wrote Book Advocating "Planetary Regime" Which Would Require Mass Sterilizations, Forced Abortions
These are the ideas of John Holdren, Obama's newly appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, i.e., Science Czar.
In a book he co-authored in 1977, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, he wrote that:
• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise [which would seriously jack with Cloward-Piven];
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force. <<
not to mention that Obama's plan enshrines the 30% insurance administration and profit fee compared to Medicare's 3%, and dooms the "public option" to failure as all the expensive patients are dropped from the private insurance rolls and stuck in the "public" plan. the whole thing is rigged for elite control, eugenics, and profit.
"1) All American citizens being ordered to have a National ID Card (page 58) "
That's an insurance card just like every American who currently has insurance already has, fool.
"2) US government to have immediate access to every American citizens bank accounts (page 59)."
That sets standards for insurance companies to enable easier online payment of medical bills, moron.
"3) All property owned by Doctors in the US to be determined by government (page 317)."
That sets standards on the percentage of doctor ownership of a hospital required for that hospital to advertise itself as doctor-owned, stupid.
God. Go spout your pathetic disinformation somewhere else.
Not like it matters here, since we all oppose the bill for not being single-payer healthcare.
Must be a paid Heritage Foundation troll.
Oh, and the text of HR 3200, in case anyone wants to see if my 3 rebuttals are correct or not:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/
cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111
_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.txt.pdf
zmann August 1st, 2009 1:32 pm
the lobbyists write much of the legislation we see today. congress frequently doesn't even have a chance to read it. new house rules preempt discussion on many important bills. bills are stuffed with all sorts of garbage. obama and his handlers are wall street shills to the core.
so tell me, what is your take on holdren's book? do you contend that the elites are not using GMO, chemtrails, depleted uranium, mass media, war, no child left behind, and rigged tax systems to dumb down, control, rape, and ultimately cull the bottom 95% of us who eugenicists/transhumanists say are not needed for a "green" robot-dominated future?
my main concern is that too many people think obama and the duopoly are here to serve our interests. the evidence does not support this belief.
let's get together and reboot our financial system, starting with HR 1207 and S604 Audit The Federal Reserve
peace
PS. luv your self righteousness
Capitalism without consumers cannot survive. They have to keep us around. We can't be allowed to die until the last penny is wrung from us.
Your original post contained the same sort of conservative misinformation I hear every day while monitoring schmucks like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Laura Ingraham. It is rather obvious where you get your talking points from, and I won't bother debating a single thing with you.
zmann August 1st, 2009 2:15 pm
"Your original post contained the same sort of conservative misinformation I hear every day while monitoring schmucks like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Laura Ingraham. It is rather obvious where you get your talking points from, and I won't bother debating a single thing with you."
I live in a liberal/artsy town that voted overwhelmingly for Obama. I have been threatened several times for sharing information that is critical of our new black messiah.
How can I not be suspicious of the "Health Care' bill when even Democracy Now carries stories about its allowing even more profiteering by the insurance industry?
Why shouldn't we be suspicious of just about everything our government is up to these days, when reducing military spending and taxing Wall Street speculators (tobin tax) are "off the table" along with single payer?
That I was susceptible to some paranoid misinformation is far less dangerous, in my opinion, than your closed minded refusal to dialogue.
And people say this nation is not headed for civil war. You don't think the "left" is just as easily given to murder and genocide as the "right?" Think again. Both sides are funded by the banker class (think Soros, Murdoch, Rockefeller, Rothschild, et al.) that sits offshore and will delight as the USA descends into chaos, calling in the UN troops a year or two into it to mop things up and herald their new world order.
Peace
Now that you're fed, you can go and collect your paycheck.
Everybody, the troll is fed. No need to further feed it.
Thank you zmann. I have been answering stupid emails on a daily basis from acquaintances who are ignorantly participating in this misinformation campaign by propagating this crap without taking a moments time to verify anything. Is it any wonder we continue getting hosed because so many choose to be so underinformed.
This bill should be opposed because it does NOT fundamentally address what is wrong with our healthcare system. It continues and will even expand the practice of placing insurance companies in the role of gatekeepers of healthcare. Our individual and collective health will continue to be treated as a commodity to be bought and sold in the free market.
HR676 Medicare For All. Everyone in, no one out, equal access regardless of one's ability to pay.
Exactly. Yet the lies told about this bill, as crappy as the bill is, do need to be countered. If they stir up conspiracy theories and irrational fear of government having a role in healthcare (and government already pays more than 50% of all healthcare costs in this country, I believe), then they will do the same to single-payer.
This latest right noise machine salvo cum talking point is a clear sign of desperation and a paucity of actual ideas. While it indicates clear decline, one must remember that a predator is most dangerous when injured and cornered. It is at this moment that Single Payer advocates should point that American seniors are fortunate enough to have Medicare instead of being left to the not too tender care of the US health insurance industry. In fact, the legislation allows for something that the for-profit insurance industry loathes, allowing the customer to determine their own care in consultation with their doctor.
I've tried to remind conservative Seniors I know (including my parents and their friends) that when they were born there was no Medicare. One of my mother's friends insists that she "worked for everything" she has. Her major gripe about any kind of universal health care is that there might be "lazy, unemployed people" getting health care, and why should they when she had to pay her own doctor bills all her life? There is no getting through to these types. They will criticize anyone whom they feel has a sense of "entitlement." But these are the same Seniors who think the world is owed to them just for having lived to a certain age- no matter what they've contributed or done in their lifetime.
Using an end of life care debate for fear-mongering is unconscionable. However, end-of-life care is a key issue in cost control. I've read that 1/3 and I've read 2/3 of all medical (Medicare?) costs are incurred in the last year of life.
I've also witnessed a radical mastectomy on a blind, 98 yr old bedridden woman with advanced dementia who died 6 months after surgery anyway. I've seen cardiac bypass surgery done 3 times in 5 years on the same 81-86 yr old. The 3rd one finally killed her but took 2-3 months of misery to do so.
I don't know what the answer is but we can't keep this up. Medicare has been in the red for years. One answer I don't like is gov't counseling, mandatory or not.
As an aside, the people noted above who fear gov't mandated abortion don't seem to realize that once you give gov't the power to control what goes on between women's legs it cuts both ways. We must have the freedom to control our bodies, whether in sexual/reproductive matters, drug use or health care treatment.
cassandra
I couldn't agree more that using an end of life care debate for fear-mongering is unconscionable. I've spent the entirety of my 32 year career as a health care professional in a non-profit, acute care hospital setting serving a patient population that is about 90% Medicare. Part of the reason end-of-life care becomes so costly is that many individuals (the article states nearly 2/3 of Americans) do not have advance directives in place or have not adequately communicated them. This places those of us at the bedside making treatment decisions to default to a level of care that will preserve life, which may be inconsistent in terms of what that particular patient would define as "quality of life".
There are many reasons for rejecting this bill, especially from the standpoint of lacking a strong public option (my preference would be HR676, Medicare For All). However, one of bill's assets does encourage development of advance directives and a mechanism to have it follow the patient throughout the continuum of care. Still, this in and of itself is no reason to support or reject the bill as it as written.
A big part of the reason Medicare is "in the red" has to do with an ever growing elderly population, increased life expectancy and a risk pool limited to those who consume a proportionately larger share of health care resources. Expanding the pool to include EVERY American, as HR676 proposes, would great lower the per capita expenditures of everyone involved.
All of the above. But, even with Advanced Directives, residents in nursing homes are always sent to the ER and then admitted to hospitals, often in ICU, because no one at the nursing home is willing to risk a "wrong" decision.
When 10 year olds are developing Type II Diabetes at an alarming rate, I'm not sure increasing the pool will be as useful as it may have once been. Unless doctors change the way they "practice" medicine, especially at the Family Medicine level, we will not be able to control costs no matter what. It's a paradigm shift that's needed, before any change will matter. See "War on Holistic MDs" for an eyeopener. (You'll find many citings of the same article.)
cassandra
I would only add that the first paradigm shift begins with each of us as individuals. Juvenile, Type II diabetes is largely the result of obesity and a sedentary lifestyle which is typically the product of upbringing. Fully 30% of our nation's population is now considered obese, not just merely overweight and juvenile diabetes is now reaching epidemic proportions. Certainly we must each take responsiblity and control over our own health in every manner possible, especially in terms of proper diet and excercise. Education is key to that and is part of the cornerstone of every single payer healthcare system in the Western world.
Most single payer health care systems in other industrialized nations focus on early access to preventive healthcare. Our current manner of "delivering" healthcare for 50 million Americans without access is also the most costly. For strictly lack of money to pay for treatment, they do not present themselves for care until they are seriously ill and end up on the doorsteps of hospital E.R.'s like ours. Many of them suffer from chronic, oftentimes genetic, and usually untreated disorders. They also rarely get the sort of follow up care and support they need to improve their overall health.
It is sad, inhumane and finally the most cost inefficient method of delivering healthcare. None of us are well served by this current model; it hurts our nation as a whole, diminishes our ability to compete with companies overseas that do NOT have to provide health benefits to employees, and, lastly, enlarging that risk pool to include ALL Americans will make a difference in terms of quality, reduced cost, improved outcomes and equal access. This is not theory, the data supports it.
Perhaps this is an area where insurance could provide the means to satisfy people's wishes concerning end-of-life issues. If a patient wishes to have extraordinary measures taken to prolong his/her life, he/she could sign up for an insurance policy that would pay expenses. Taxpayers should not be asked to foot the bill for surgeries that offer little more than a few months of hospitalized existence.
Money needs to go to the young first to enable children to grow up healthy and parents to remain productive. I say this as a "senior citizen."
Check out hundreds of examples we have documented of this disgusting campaign.
http://mediamatters.org/topic
/health_care/?page=1
Once again the nutjob/MSM (the only difference is the tone and rhetoric the message is the same since they are both republican owned and controlled) shows their true intent. It is so simple once you realize the idiotic criticisms they make about humane policies is exactly what they are doing.
Allow me to explain, nothing could be better for the American republican ruling class than killing the old people. They care nothing about humans other than manipulating, controlling, and making profits from their hard work. Once their working time has expired do you think they want to keep them alive? Hell no. It would be like maintenance on a piece of equipment after it has been junked what sense would that make. No they have always been greatly opposed to any policy that extends the live of the sick and elderly, it is simple economics.
FREEDOM LOVING ... August 1st, 2009 1:44 pm
"republican ruling class" ...
Hitler was an environmentalist, a leftist, and a vegetarian. "Fascism" according to Mussolini, is the corporate control of the state.
The issue here is exactly that -- corporatism -- which both parties are whores for, not the labels for the two sides of one party deceit.
Hitler was a "leftist"? Then why did he have communists murdered?
C'mon! Stop pushing the know-nothing right wing (sorry to be redundant) agenda.
Corporatism IS the problem, and both major parties are in bed with the profits-before-people corporations.
But Hitler was an ultra-jingoist, racist, right wing sociopath (as opposed to Stalin, the ulra-jingoist, paranoid, left wing sociopath).
ED August 1st, 2009 3:36 pm
okay, so obama is retaining gates, emmanuel, and the wars in iraq, afghanistan, and iran because he is NOT a jingoistic, sociopathic warmonger complicated by a narcissistic personality disorder?
i think we have more agreements than not.
grand jury indictments of bernanke, paulson, geitner, and crew. audit the fed. no personhood for corporations. no more debt based monetary system. oh, yeah, and bring the troops home.
peace
It's possible for a rightwing leader to hijack the term socialist, leftist, communist, etc ... and twist it so that only the top monied get it while everyone else is screwed. Hitler/Germany did steal the peace symbol from India and gave it a bad name. I once stumbled upon an article published on this site where the author mentioned that Hitler merely capitalized on the corporatism that was put in place. All he had to do was dump in his social conservatism and there you'd have it. It's rather bizarre even trying to think about it.
They're still doing it. Glenn Beck has been attempting to paint progressives as fascists, especially the progressive movement of the early 20th century. He especially despises Teddy Roosevelt and most of all Woodrow Wilson...and he claims there are Republican progressives. It is disgusting to hear every day.
Ouch ! If Beck's that bad, he's technically despising Raygun who actually liked those earlier figures, well at least TR. I wonder if GB makes Limbaugh look "liberal" in pale comparison.
That's why the Nazis called themselves Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the National Socialist German Worker's Party. They managed to squeeze in a nod to the downtrodden workers as well.
Both parties were out to gut Medicare, Medicaid, and finally Social Security. If the Democrats really cared to help seniors, they would humanely replace Medicare with single payer and, if I'm understanding Medicaid correctly though I'm still reading more on it, replace Medicare with opening the doors to more alternative practitioners and putting natural cures first. Neither the Republicans nor Democrats really care about seniors but they just want to push their buttons and toy with their emotions ! Look how they're dividing the younger and the older up as it is. I've met young people who still foolishly think that putting Social Security in the stock market will make them rich and they would complain about their parents being pesky against letting them do it ! Well, maybe the elder know better ! I don't know how long I'll live but whatever happens, I look forward to joining the wiser and tougher from the heart crowd.
Medicaid would be eliminated by single-payer. Since every citizen would be covered for any medical expenses, programs for only low-income citizens would no longer be necessary.
Thanks zmann. I can't believe I've fallen behind on understanding health care. Then again, I really need to get my checkups done more often such as yearly. By the way, thanks for the link on Pelosi finally open to allowing the vote on HR676. Let's see how interesting this gets.
Heh, I bet there are less than a dozen people in the country that fully understand everything in the various healthcare bills, or how healthcare works.
And it looks like CD posted the story that HR 676 will be allowed a vote this year, even if it is from the very inept TheHill.com.
The party of Death rears it's ugly head again.
Can we try a wooden stake through the heart this time?
The Daily Show's John Hodgman has a very Soylent Green-flavored healthcare solution: Just take organs from homeless people.
Lets at least give his organs a home!!
If the progressives could stop obsessing and endlessly writing about every lunatic notion that comes along, perhaps there could be a discussion of some substance.
Though I doubt it.
I don't say ignore anything, but does every commenter and his sister have to get in on the act?
The doofus Eric Cantor today pointed a finger at the "liberals" for prolonging the 'birther' craziness.
I'd say he has a point, but I'm not quite that cuckoo...yet.
There is something about what the Schiavo woman's condition should be addressed.
My mother had the same condition after a surgery caused too much oxygen loss to the brain and where fortunately my mother lived only little over 3 more years in this condition, a condition that is a total loss of the person inflicted but even though she still retained the areas in the brain that kept the heat beating and the respiratory system working and there is no coming back from this.
My brothers and myself all knew she would never return to anything resembling a normal life much less a half life of some kind of communitive abilities and with her constant need for care in turning her to prevent bed sores, feeding and hydrating her, it was one expensive plight for the family and disasterous for all especially our dad who visited her every day. She eventually died from an infection caused from lack of activity that a normal life prevents.
Keeping people in non-resusative conditions is nothing but BIG medical business' way of boosting profits and shows little compassion for the victim or the family when the memories are worth lots more for the families involved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case
Now, knocking off old people because they may 'tend to be in the way' is WRONG.
"...forum sponsored by the seniors group AARP..."
Seniors group? Try insurance company.
Obama is such a smart guy. You would think that if he really wanted change, he would have first moved to bust the monopoly known as corporate media.
But no, he has chosen to leave the media in the hands of a few right-wing corporate giants.
Seriously: If you were a smart person, wouldn't you want a fair media in place before embarking on systemic reform? I say yes.