Obamacare Pushes for Early Death

outdoor338 wrote: You libs are about to have your obama health care bill exposed, my, my..what a shame..you passed it without reading it, you don't know what's in it, yet.. :VeryScared: you voted for it. The republicans will help you understand it..most Americans don't want it..are liberals really this stupid? Yes..they are!

rofllol The Republicans aren't interested in helping anyone understand it, all they are interested in is grandstanding and misinterpreting the meaning of the legislation to scare people into supporting them (or, in the case of Sarah Palin, outright lies as to what's in the bill).
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/art ... th-panels/
PolitiFact's Lie of the Year: 'Death panels'
By Angie Drobnic Holan
Published on Friday, December 18th, 2009

On July 16, Betsy McCaughey, the former lieutenant governor of New York and a conservative health care commentator, suggested that the Democratic plan included a measure requiring seniors be told how to end their lives. "Congress would make it mandatory — absolutely require — that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner," she said on a radio show hosted by conservative Fred Thompson.

PolitiFact gave McCaughey a Pants on Fire rating for that statement. There were no mandatory sessions proposed. Instead, for the first time, Medicare would pay for doctors' appointments for patients to discuss living wills, health care directives and other end-of-life issues. The appointments were optional, and the AARP supported the measure.
Nevertheless, Republican officials began amplifying McCaughey's comments.

House Republican Leader John Boehner issued a statement July 23 that said, "This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted into law."

Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., said on the House floor July 28 that a Republican alternative for health reform was "pro-life because it will not put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government."

Palin's statement then launched the health care debate into overdrive. The term was mentioned in news reports approximately 6,000 times in August and September, according to the Nexis database. By October, it was still being mentioned 150 to 300 times a week.

• • •

The phrase "death panels" appears to be original to Palin. A search of news databases showed no use prior to her Facebook posting. On Aug. 10, PolitiFact rated Palin's statement Pants on Fire. In the weeks that followed, health care policy experts on both the right and the left said the euthanasia comparisons were inaccurate. Gail Wilensky, a health adviser to President George H.W. Bush, said the charge was untrue and upsetting.

As for Palin, she told the conservative National Review in an interview on Nov. 17, the same day her bestselling memoir Going Rogu e was released, that she didn't regret her comments.

So McCaughey is charging that the "educational materials" that are being put together are a sign that the government will be controlling our decisions. Where do you think the pamphlets that you now see in doctor's offices come from? And just because you read some information on a topic means that you must follow all the recommendations in that pamphlet to the letter with no regard to your personal preferences? Ridiculous! This bill merely stipulates that there will be funding provided to create educational material and outlines the guidelines for the creation of said educational materials (ie "Patient Decision Aid").
Here's an analysis of Section 936 so you can read it for yourself: http://www.informedmedicaldecisions.org ... lation.pdf

Or the actual bill: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3 ... rsion=ocas
SEC. 936. PROGRAM TO FACILITATE SHARED DECISION MAKING.

(A) PURPOSE. The purpose of this section is to facilitate collaborative processes between patients, caregivers or authorized representatives, and clinicians that engages the patient, caregiver or authorized representative in decision-making, provides patients, caregivers or authorized representatives with information about trade-offs among treatment options, and facilitates the incorporation of patient preferences and values into the medical plan. ( DEFINITIONS. In this section:

(1) PATIENT DECISION AID. The term patient decision aid means an educational tool that helps patients, caregivers or authorized representatives understand and communicate their beliefs and preferences related to their treatment options, and to decide with their health care provider (not a government official) what treatments are best for them based on their treatment options, scientific evidence, circumstances, beliefs, and preferences.

(2) PREFERENCE SENSITIVE CARE. The term preference sensitive care means medical care for which the clinical evidence does not clearly support one treatment option such that the appropriate course of treatment depends on the values of the patient or the preferences of the patient, caregivers or authorized representatives regarding the benefits, harms and scientific evidence for each treatment option, the use of such care should depend on the informed patient choice among clinically appropriate treatment options. (C) ESTABLISHMENT OF INDEPENDENT STANDARDS FOR PATIENT DECISION AIDS FOR PREFERENCE SENSITIVE CARE. Radical.

(1) CONTRACT WITH ENTITY TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS AND CERTIFY PATIENT DECISION AIDS. (A) IN GENERAL. For purposes of supporting consensus-based standards for patient decision aids for preference sensitive care and a certification process for patient decision aids for use in the Federal health programs and by other interested parties, the Secretary shall have in effect a contract with the entity with a contract under section 1890 of the Social Security Act. Such contract shall provide that the entity perform the duties described in paragraph (2). ( TIMING FOR FIRST CONTRACT. As soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall enter into the first contract under subparagraph (A). (C) PERIOD OF CONTRACT. A contract under subparagraph (A) shall be for a period of 18 months (except such contract may be renewed after a subsequent bidding process). Good. I hate it when subcontractors never finish what they legally contracted to do and keep asking for more money...

(2) DUTIES. The following duties are described in this paragraph: (A) DEVELOP AND IDENTIFY STANDARDS FOR PATIENT DECISION AIDS. The entity shall synthesize evidence and convene a broad range of experts and key stakeholders to develop and identify consensus-based standards to evaluate patient decision aids for preference sensitive care. ( ENDORSE PATIENT DECISION AIDS. The entity shall review patient decision aids and develop a certification process whether patient decision aids meet the standards developed and identified under subparagraph (A). The entity shall give priority to the review and certification of patient decision aids for preference sensitive care. (d) PROGRAM TO DEVELOP, UPDATE AND PATIENT DECISION AIDS TO ASSIST HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS AND PATIENTS. Does "assist" mean the same thing as "tell them what to do"?

(1) IN GENERAL. The Secretary, acting through the Director, and in coordination with heads of other relevant agencies, such as the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Director of the National Institutes of Health, shall establish a program to award grants or contracts (A) to develop, update, and produce patient decision aids for preference sensitive care to assist health care providers in educating patients, caregivers, and authorized representatives concerning the relative safety, relative effectiveness (including possible health outcomes and impact on functional status), and relative cost of treatment or, where appropriate, palliative care options; ( to test such materials to ensure such materials are balanced and evidence based in aiding health care providers and patients, caregivers, and authorized representatives to make informed decisions about patient care and can be easily incorporated into a broad array of practice settings; and (C) to educate providers on the use of such materials, including through academic curricula. OMG! You mean that the educational materials are going to come from doctors and scientists from the most prestigious health care institutions who might have the best knowledge concerning procedures involved in end-of-life decisions and know best how to explain it to interested patients???!!!

(2) REQUIREMENTS FOR PATIENT DECISION AIDS. Patient decision aids developed and produced pursuant to a grant or contract under paragraph (1) (A) shall be designed to engage patients, caregivers, and authorized representatives in informed decision-making with health care providers; ( shall present up-to-date clinical evidence about the risks and benefits of treatment options in a form and manner that is age-appropriate and can be adapted for patients, caregivers, and authorized representatives from a variety of cultural and educational backgrounds to reflect the varying needs of consumers and diverse levels of health literacy; (C) shall, where appropriate, explain why there is a lack of evidence to support one treatment option over another; and (d) shall address health care decisions across the age span, including those affecting vulnerable populations including children.Sounds way too rational for me.

(3) DISTRIBUTION. The Director shall ensure that patient decision aids produced with grants or contracts under this section are available to the public. One would hope so; after all, they are being produced for the public. Of course, we still don't have access to the majority of published research that was paid for by federal grants so I guess it's good to clarify this as law...

(4) NON-DUPLICATION OF EFFORTS. The Director shall ensure that the activities under this section of the Agency and other agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health, are free of unnecessary duplication of effort.(e)GRANTS TO SUPPORT SHARED DECISION MAKING IMPLEMENTATION.Oh, so they're making sure that money isn't wasted by having multiple agencies create duplicate versions of these pamphlets - that's so non-wasteful of them.

(1) IN GENERAL. The Secretary shall establish a program to provide for the phased-in development, implementation, and evaluation of shared decision-making using patient decision aids to meet the objective of improving the understanding of patients of their medical treatment options. So they're going to monitor the establishment, usage, and effectiveness of the use of decision-making aids to make sure that tax-payer dollars aren't wasted. Oh, but maybe it's just another bureaucratic program that'll suck money down the drain and be useless as it doesn't specifically state that this program will ever end...

(2) SHARED DECISION-MAKING RESOURCE CENTERS. (A) IN GENERAL. The Secretary shall provide grants for the establishment and support of Shared Decision-making Resource Centers (referred to in this subsection as Centers) to provide technical assistance to providers and to develop and disseminate best practices and other information to support and accelerate adoption, implementation, and effective use of patient decision aids and shared decision-making by providers. ( OBJECTIVES. The objective of a Center is to enhance and promote the adoption of patient decision aids and shared decision- making through (i) providing assistance to eligible providers with the implementation and effective use of, and training on, patient decision aids; and (ii) the dissemination of best practices and research on the implementation and effective use of patient decision aids. Yup, these are probably overkill - a waste of money to create. Okay, one thing I'm against in this bill. Whew. I was starting to get worried that I'm a mindless drone, blindly following orders from my government.

(3) SHARED DECISION-MAKING PARTICIPATION GRANTS. (A) IN GENERAL. The Secretary shall provide grants to health care providers for the development and implementation of shared decision-making techniques and to assess the use of such techniques. ( PREFERENCE. In order to facilitate the use of best practices, the Secretary shall provide a preference in making grants under this subsection to health care providers who participate in training by Shared Decision-making Resource Centers or comparable training. (C) LIMITATION. Funds under this paragraph shall not be used to purchase or implement use of patient decision aids other than those certified under the process identified in subsection (c). (4) GUIDANCE. The Secretary may issue guidance to eligible grantees under this subsection on the use of patient decision aids.(f) FUNDING. For purposes of carrying out this section there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2010 and each subsequent fiscal year.. This sounds reasonable as long as it isn't funded year after year.

"Most Americans don't want it": we're talking about a 6% difference in the most recent poll (which is only of 1,000 adults) between those who vote to repeal vs those who don't - and 46% is not a majority. Most of those who want it repealed probably do so because of the misinformation coming out about it.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145496/Favor ... e-Law.aspx
In U.S., 46% Favor, 40% Oppose Repealing Healthcare Law
Three-quarters of Republicans favor repeal; 64% of Democrats oppose it
by Jeffrey M. Jones
January 7, 2011

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/10/15 ... -the-poll/
Repealing Health Care Reform: Figuring Out What the Polls Are Saying

The Kaiser Family Foundation, which describes itself as a "a non-partisan source of facts, information, and analysis for policymakers, the media, the health care community, and the public," took a look at eight major national polls on the issue (see the chart below) and finds the results are "all over the lot." (While this issue is Kaiser's central mission, I've found their work on polling, including their own tracking polls, to be pretty credible.)
Different polls asked the question about support and opposition to health care as well as support and opposition to repeal in different ways, so there's some comparing apples-and-oranges. Add to this that polling in individual states -- and the repeal question is one asked most often by Rasmussen Reports -- shows that voters in 26 states favor repeal by a significant margin, voters in four others support repeal by margins of four points or less and voters in two states oppose repeal. The question wasn't asked in all the states.

Unsurprisingly, a major factor in differences among the polls is how the question was structured and asked, which is a key factor when deciding for yourself how conclusive you believe a particular poll is. "It's less clear what proportion of Americans are demanding repeal, as opposed to expressing a more passive opposition to the law," Kaiser said. "If offered an option of saying it would be best to first give the law a chance to work, some in the opposition camp would likely choose that option over immediate repeal."

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/7 ... eal-ap-gfk
Health Care's Silent Majority
Jonathan Cohn October 25, 2010

The latest evidence comes from the new Associated Press-GfK poll, which Greg Sargent flagged on Friday. In the survey, 32 percent of registered voters responding said they wanted to repeal the law completely while another 9 percent said they wanted to revise the law so it did less. But 39 percent said they wanted to revise the law so it did more and 18 percent said they wanted to leave it as is. Opinion tips more towards scaling the law back if you consider only likely voters, but even then only 37 percent want repeal and less than 50 percent want to scale the law back at all.

Put it together with polling that shows Americans overwhelmingly favor the individual elements of health care reform--like guarantees of coverage for people with pre-existing conditions--and it's hard to make a credible argument that most Americans want repeal. As Steve Benen, who also noticed these new results, says

I wonder what the discourse would be like if equal attention were paid to those who want even more ambitious health care reforms as compared to those who think the Affordable Care Act some sort of secret communist plot.