[CitizenM]

Seems simple. I would much rather the politicians would try this. Rather than bind us all to the ridiculous program they have written. Or someone has written, who knows who wrote the plan, anyway??? None of the Congressmembers have read it, as Pelosi states. She thought that was funny. What an eye opener to Americans who think their representatives care what bills they pass!!! So what are they being paid for, we would like to know!!!

This proposal can be read, and the mandates can be written logically and concisely. A much better start anyway. IMHO

[jessduntno]

This ain’t too hard to read. Want a Nurse Practitioner deciding on the end of your life?

Advance Care Planning Consultation

Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:

‘‘(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.

‘(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.

‘(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.

‘(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965).

‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.

‘(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include—

‘(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual’s family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;
‘(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and
‘(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decisionmaker (also known as a health care proxy).

‘‘(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement for explanations under clause (i) to consultations furnished in a State—

‘(I) in which all legal barriers have been addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining treatment to constitute a set of medical orders respected across all care settings; and ‘‘(II) that has in effect a program for orders for life sustaining treatment described in clause (iii).

‘‘(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a States described in this clause is a program that—

‘(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;

‘(II) distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law) may sign orders for life sustaining treatment;

‘(III) provides training for health care professionals across the continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining treatment; and

‘(IV) is guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care socia-lation, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association.

‘(2) A practitioner described in this paragraph is

‘(A) a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)); and
‘(B) a nurse practitioner or physician’s assistant who has the authority under State law to sign orders for life sustaining treatments.

‘(3)(A) An initial preventive physical examination under subsection (WW), including any related discussion during such examination, shall not be considered an advance care planning consultation for purposes of applying the 5-year limitation under paragraph (1).

(B) An advance care planning consultation with respect to an individual may be conducted more frequently than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant
change in the health condition of the individual, including
diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or a hospice program.

(4) A consultation under this subsection may include the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order.

(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term ‘order regarding life sustaining treatment’ means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that—

‘(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the individual and be followed by health care professionals and providers across the continuum of care;
‘(ii) effectively communicates the individual’s preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care de20
sired by the individual;

‘‘(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized within a given locality, region, or State (as identified by the Secretary); and
‘‘(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as defined in section 1866(f)(3)) if executed by the individual.
‘‘(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items

‘(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;
‘(ii) the individual’s desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting;
‘(iii) the use of antibiotics; and
‘(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.’’.

[Jim Robinson]

That’s great, but the law banning central government provided/enforced health care has already been written and it’s just one sentence:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Alberta's Child]

His solution is TOO simple.

Health care will always be a "problem" in any society where it is delivered through a third-party payment system. And it really doesn't matter if that third party is a government agency or an insurance company.

The basic dilemma is that the introduction of a third party into the process throws the supply/demand principles of economics completely out of kilter.

[seanhackbarth]

Lots of American have similar concerns. Senator Tom Coburn and Senator John Barrasso, both doctors, have been emphasizing the need to make sure health care legislation is read, understood, and properly debated. You can watch them discuss health care policy on “The Senate Doctors Show.” It’s live today at 5:00 pm ET. You can also watch previous episodes.

http://republican.senate.gov/doctors/

Sean Hackbarth
Senate Republican Conference

[Jeff Head]

Instead, the House Democrats are going to shove the following down all of out throats unless we the people understand it and then raise unholy hell with them about it and they fear for their political lives.

Here is a link to the full House Democrat Health Care Plan in PDF. In Section 1233 E & F, pages 426-433, you find the part about mandatory end-of-life counseling for anyone over 65 years of age. Section 152 Page 50: All healthcare services will be provided without regard to "personal characteristcs" which is not defined within the document but is understood to include immigration status.

A lot more provisions now being documented at that site.

HOUSE DEMOCRAT HEALTH CARE PLAN - http://www.jeffhead.com/DemHealthCare.htm

Also, here's a large image of the Democratic (Obama) Health Plan chart-another Obama empty promise. This is the one the House democrats are censuring. Email these links or the image to everyone you know.

Decmocrat (Obama) Health Plan
http://www.jeffhead.com/DemHealthCare.htm

Obama and all those pushing his radical agenda are abject marxist ideologues. Their "fundamental; change" is nothing more than a destruction of the American free market and fundamental republican principle.

A PETITION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RESTORATION

THE AUDACITY OF TRUTH ABOUT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

A 4TH OF JULY TEA PARTY SPEECH

UNITED SOCIALIST STATES OF AMERICA - A SONG
By Ron and Kay Rivoli

...and on the lighter side, take your mind off the Obamanation for a few minutes and enjoy some beautiful Western US scenery slideshows.

JEFF HEAD'S WESTERN US SCENERY SLIDE SHOWS

[MarMema]

Stop paying for all emergency room treatment that is non-lifesaving treatment.

Yes, yes, yes, yes.

[haroldeveryman]

“We are getting ripped off by our government. We are paying each of our elected officials hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to represent us. All they are doing is generating thousands of pages of unread documents. Leaders of the Democrat Party are publicly justifying never reading what that write. They prefer to leave the decisions to government bureaucrats.”

Great description of our current system of government. Too bad that the author of the post see’s no possibility of his recommendations coming to pass.

Here’s how we CAN get out of this mess.
1. Fire all of our government bureaucrats, lawyers, and secretaries.

2. Replace them with 100, 000 monkeys in front of word processors. This will produce an immediate improvement what our legislative branch turns out. Guaranteed! And our congressmen and Senators won’t even have to learn to read.

3. As an added bonus it will save enough money to pay off the deficit .

[newfreep]

Just on FOX, Cavuto was attacking a guest who was saying GOVT healthcare is wrong. Cavuto seemed to be supporting Obozo’s govt takeover - VERY disappointing to see Cavuto cave to such anti-free market socialism.

[BunnySlippers]

How about just “catastrophic care” for everyone. Regular primary care will still be provided as it is now.

But if you have cancer, an accident, the gov’t provides catastrophic care.