--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchy...@...> wrote: > > The Senate Finance Committee will drop a controversial provision on > consultations for end-of-life care from its proposed healthcare bill, its top > Republican member said Thursday. > > 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. > > "On the Finance Committee, we are working very hard to avoid unintended > consequences by methodically working through the complexities of all of these > issues and policy options," Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a statement. > "We dropped end-of-life provisions from consideration entirely because of the > way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly." > > The Finance Committee is the only congressional committee not to report out a > preliminary healthcare bill before the August congressional recess, but is > expected to unveil its proposal shortly after Labor Day. > > Grassley said that bill would hold up better compared to proposals crafted in > the House, which he asserted were "poorly cobbled together." > > "The bill passed by the House committees is so poorly cobbled together that > it will have all kinds of unintended consequences, including making taxpayers > fund healthcare subsidies for illegal immigrants," Grassley said. 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 > quality of care based on the creation of and adherence to orders for > end-of-life care. > > "Maybe others can defend a bill like the Pelosi bill that leaves major issues > open to interpretation, but I can't," Grassley added. > > http://tinyurl.com/p9xc5a > http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/finance-committee-to-drop-end-of-life-provision-2009-08-13.html > > This whole mess would have been unnecessary if Obama had pushed Medicare for > All from day one. It's a simple concept. Just gradually lower age for > Medicare eligibility until it covers everyone. Anyone not covered would buy > insurance and the insurance companies would have to compete for an ever > shrinking pool of customers. Getting a health care bill aimed at Single payer > for all could have been a painless process instead of becoming the debacle it > is. Polls said the people were in favor of single payer, but Congress' > confusing efforts will continue to lose public support and were going to end > up with a bill that serves insurance/big pharma, not the people. >
I am a supporter of Medicare for all but as a long time lobbyist on health care, I have to say that it never had a chance. There are a number of reasons for this, from the way senate rules work to the power of industry lobbies. There are something like 6 health care industry lobbyists per senator and representative. I had hoped we could phase in to something like that by allowing people over a certain age, like 55, to start medicare early, but that has gone nowhere either. It is tiring and hard work to make our way through all of this. I am working on trying to find ways for the GBO to quantify best practices savings. Muddy and difficult work and not very interesting to the public but of significant importance. Too much of the so called public debate and press coverage is not spent on important issues, but on rumors and side issues.
