Posted on 12/26/2010 6:57:59 AM PST by tobyhill
When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.
Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.
Congressional supporters of the new policy, though pleased, have kept quiet. They fear provoking another furor like the one in 2009 when Republicans seized on the idea of end-of-life counseling to argue that the Democrats’ bill would allow the government to cut off care for the critically ill.
The final version of the health care legislation, signed into law by President Obama in March, authorized Medicare coverage of yearly physical examinations, or wellness visits. The new rule says Medicare will cover “voluntary advance care planning,” to discuss end-of-life treatment, as part of the annual visit.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Heard this morning that some POS democrat from Oregon emailed the NYT asking them not to run this story to keep it secret from the public. His rationale was that if it remains hidden the approval and implementation would be successful. Nazi Socialist Democrat bastards.
FUBO & FAD
Yup. Head that on Fox today. Bastards.
Thank you for the reminder. Palin’s original warning was about government panels rationing health care based upon one’s value to society. This remains the big threat to all of us, especially elders.
This debate was never about end of life counseling. The liberal media is trying to deflect debate away from the rationing boards, and unfortunately, a lot of people are falling for it.
Merry Christmas Red.
Yeah, I read this earlier.
It’s going to get lots worse as we go along cause he is going to now try to rule decree and gub mint grabs.
According to FOX, the WH is spinning like mad to control this story, claiming that the rule was first conceived during the Bush admin.
I dont know its origins, but if the O administration embraces it, they own it.
Good One!
I agree with your interpretation, but I’ve taken a real roasting about it (tough not this time).
Yep, we’re here.
Government by regulation = statism.
Call it anything you want - fascism, totalitatianism, communism, socialism, corporatism, soft tyranny. It looks to me and my American University political science degree training that the United States is in the process of creating a new style of distatorship, one in which we’ll still retain a frosting of individual rights and the illusion of limited government, but will actually create a bureaucratic state centered in Washington which will seek to regulate all aspects of our lives.
Maybe that’s why we’re having such a hard time coming up with a name - this is a brand-new thing. And how American is that? We’re coming up with a whole new kind of tryanny, in the same way that we formerly came up with new kinds of transportation, housing, economics, and artistic expression.
To me, this feels like the inverse of China, where a frankly totalitarian regime has loosened restrictions just enough to create economic growth. It seems as if Obama is taking a free market, limited government regime and tightening it just enough to restrict economic growth to only those places that the government allows. Perhaps we’ll meet in the middle and become even better friends.
The scariest part for me is the thought that the Roman republic similarly lost its republican traditions slowly over time, and even when it installed a permanent dictator, still gave lip service to the idea of the republic. Centuries afterwards, the provinces still conducted themselves on republican values, while Rome itself was tryanny. Is this our future - a bureaucratic elite in Washington cranking out regulation after regulation, while here in Alaska we still go through the charade of state soveriegnty and elect our little mayors and state legislature?
Or are we already well past that point right now?
God help us.
It’s all about the utility factor - pre born infants and aging seniors are useless in the materialist economy these Marxocrat Darwinians believe in.
Pro-life ping!
ok, I’m totally amazed that the NY Times printed this article. I have to check out the actual site and see what the comments are. NY Times readers are such sheep....what will they say now when their holy grail has revealed such treachery by this administration?
Why do you think they keep moving the SS age UP? My pastor waited until 65 to sigh up to draw his SS, he could have retired from his primary job at 62 and still gone on preaching. NEVER saw the first check as he had a massive heart attack before it ever came. Now they are talking about moving the age limit to a higher retirement range. Your body is beginning to wear out at about 60..take your SS at 62 and get on with living your life.
A major problem with signing these “Advanced Directives” is that they end up authorizing withholding food and water.
You and I don’t consider that “extraordinary measures”, but the cost conscious hospitals and insurance companies do.
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.