raunchydog wrote: > The Senate Finance Committee will drop > a controversial provision on consultations > for end-of-life care... > Nobody wants to talk about the 'death panel' or health care 'rationing'. Some folks just seem to be in a state of denial. Of course there's going to be a death panel. How else are we going to ration health care? Somebody is going to have to decide on eligibility.
> The committee, which has worked on putting > together a bipartisan healthcare reform bill, > will drop the controversial provision after > it was derided by conservatives as "death > panels" to encourage euthanasia. > According to what I've read, Streve Jobs got a liver transplant. Supposedly he has pancreatic cancer. He's got private insurance as well as a group policy. So somehow he got his name on the top of the list. I thought there was a waiting list for such a procedure. But how many liver transplants would be allowed under Medicare if you had pancreatic cancer? Does Medicare pay for any alternative health care in cancer cases? Who decides when chemotherapy is over? Who decides if a person with terminal cancer gets a hip replacement? Who decides when your time is up to be kicked out of rehab if your Medicare runs out? > "We dropped end-of-life provisions... > So many questions - so few answers. > ...but is expected to unveil its proposal > shortly after Labor Day. > According to Section 1233 of the reform health care plan, there is going to be a review by a panel to determine patient status every five years for senior citizens, to evaluate their health condition and whether or not they can remain in a skilled nursing facility or in a hospice program. > Grassley said that bill would hold up > better compared to proposals crafted in > the House, which he asserted were "poorly > cobbled together." > Nobody wants to talk about the costs, rationing health care or getting the discount pharmaceuticals. Something smells fishy. > The veteran Iowa lawmaker said the end-of-life > provision in those bills would pay physicians > to "advise patients about end-of-life care and > rate physician... > That's the rub, isn't it? Wouldn't a government doctor be biased to counsel dying patients > "Maybe others can defend a bill like the Pelosi > bill that leaves major issues open to > interpretation, > Now I ask you, how many of you would be happy with the three twits, Pelosi, Frank, and Reid, sitting on a panel that decides what treatment you will or will not receive at the end of your life based on politics and economics? > This whole mess would have been unnecessary if > Obama had pushed Medicare for All from day one... > And if Obama had kept his promise not to be bought off by special interests. But in fact, the U.S. taxpayer cannot afford universal free health care at this time. And why should they? Why should the taxpayers pay for health insurance for those who pay no income taxes? Let's fact it, millions of people will never have health care insurance.
