Posted on 08/13/2009 11:53:07 AM PDT by nomoremods
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 being derided as "death panels" to encourage euthanasia by conservatives.
"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."
(Excerpt) Read more at briefingroom.thehill.com ...
More than the politicians, yup.
But disclaimer: to the point where he made it clearer than the lawyerspeak.
It wasn't bill numbers, it was a year.
Should have been 2013. Thypo corrected Here
Hows yer dog doing?
Then Obama & Co. spent an ENTIRE WEEK on the defensive over "death panels", and it is still building in the public consciousness. The ENTIRE NATION is talking about "death panels". Can you recall a memorable sentence on health care from either Mitt or Huckabee in the past 6 months? When will Republicans realize that this woman is the real deal?
It doesn’t matter because it’s still in all the House versions .
“We dropped end-of-life provisions from consideration ...”
DON’T BE FOOLED.....Changes NOTHING!!!
‘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.”
SO NOW....when they continue to DO as they’ve ALWAYS PLANNED.... RATION end of life health care.... they will just no longer plan to pay your physician to counsel you on it.
Wow! just wow.
Thanks for the typo correction.
Snoopy is fine. He’s 12 now and slowing down just a little. But he’s just as friendly and loving as ever. I feel blessed by God to have such a wonderful and faithful friend. Thanks for asking.
So now there’s 10% less sh*t in this delicious sh*t sandwich. NOW will you eat it?
Um- no. Actually I don’t want ANY of it, thankssomuch.
“I can envision that grandma character from Clint Eastwoods movie “Any Which Way But Loose”. Remember the grandma that had the shotgun!
Similar to Mad Max. One of my favorite scenes. “
My favorite “Grannies” of all time were the ones in “The Outlaw Josie Wales”.
I don’t trust them. I want the whole Obamacare bill euthanized. Nuke it from space. That’s the only way to be sure.
Agree with you. Rather than fight to have certain objectionable portions of the bill tossed out or modified, all of the members of the GOP should be dead-set against the entire bill, because the whole thing sucks. No compromises, no small “editing victories” — just standing up against the entire thing and outlining to the American people, in detail, exactly why it is such a horrendous idea.
Forget “the spirit of bipartisanship,” this is war. But the GOP has no spine at all.
we must keep up the pressure
~~~
Absolutely! It’s a standard negotiation tool.
You start out your terms with the most outrageous
demands, then whittle them down, ‘reluctantly’ giving
up what won’t fly in the negotiation process, hopefully
leaving the heart of what you really wanted all along.
EVERY CLAUSE MUST BE EXAMINED FULLY.
Yes, Grassley said as much yesterday in his Townhalls
“This is a step in the right direction, but it is not the important thing. The problem is still the Health Benefits Advisory Committee. That is the “death panel.: (Some of my line numberings may be wrong, but the statements are copied right from the House bill)
SEC. 123. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
12 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—
13 (1) IN GENERAL.—There is established a
14 private-public advisory committee which shall be a
15 panel of medical and other experts to be known as
16 the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to
17 recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced,
18 and premium plans.”
//
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/health/policy/01compare.html
The Institute of Medicine panel said studying both those conditions should be among the top priorities.
The panel, composed of doctors, health care experts and consumers, was convened at the request of Congress. Its recommendations are expected to have an impact on how some of $1.1 billion initially allotted by lawmakers for comparative effectiveness research is spent.
Along with recommending 100 health areas for comparative effectiveness reviews, the panel’s report focused heavily on setting up systems for collecting the data to undertake such studies and ensuring that such information is clearly communicated to patients. The panel also urged that the government subsidize the training of a new generation of researchers skilled in doing comparative effectiveness reviews.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12648
Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07242009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/deadly_doctors_180941.htm
Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.
//
http://www.memphisdailynews.com/editorial/Article.aspx?id=44191
Other ideas
Once Congress returns to Washington, Corker suggested citizens should pay close attention to the Senate Finance Committee’s discussion on using $410 billion from the Medicare program to leverage a new health care entitlement program.
The plan has drawn support from the American Association of Retired Persons.
“I think the AARP has truly acted … like a political shill on this,” Corker commented. “I think they’ve thrown their constituents under the bus on this.”
She already opposes the bill in its entirety.
No need for her to nitpick.
What about cost effectiveness provisions? They are still gonna kill the old and the young.
These airheads truly believe that the incredibly inexact field of ‘outcomes research’ can accurately guide therapy. It can't, and it doesn't. The data it produces tells you as much about the limitations of these types of statistical analysis as it does about the parameter being studied. That's not to say that clinical research is irrelevant. Quite the opposite. It is essential. However, there is a big difference between well-performed clinical research and statistics driven outcomes analysis.
How can you drop something that doesn’t exist? LMAO
The Dems are such a bunch of nimnals.
Thot the left said they didn’t exist.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. They can always add the provisions back in once it’s passed. They’re a bunch of liars and traitors, and I will NEVER, EVER trust them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.