Impeding changes to our Health Care system

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

WWTKD? (What Would Ted Kennedy Do?).......


http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...ss_eaters.html

Why not just call it what the other wing nuts are calling it...Obama's Suicide Bill.

Here is the provision:

''Advance Care Planning Consultation
''(hhh) (1) 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 19 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 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 association, 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 21 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 de18 fined 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 desired 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.''.

Please point out where it says (or any section in the bill)..as you highlighted.... The bill even empowers physicians to make an "actionable medical order" to "limit some or all specified interventions..." In effect, the government can determine that a "life-limiting" condition demands the withholding of treatment..

Simply ignoring the subsection that states: ...effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;

The individual's preferences seems quite clear to me. I dont know how that translates into "government can determine that a "life-limiting" condition demands the withholding of treatment."

What is wrong with providing consultation for advance care planning for the terminally ill?

Damn dude, do you really believe everything you read w/o even bothering to confirm its validity?

Get a grip, Merc. You're obsession with snipping and pasting everything you read (most of which are partisan editorials that have no regard for the facts, but whose intent is to scare) that might support you position only makes you look more ignorant of the facts and gives you less credibility than you already have, at least IMO.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

You're obsession with snipping and pasting everything you read (most of which are partisan editorials that have no regard for the facts, but whose intent is to scare)...

Ummm... that would be BS. Few links are partisan. Where is the transparency? Why the secret meetings with members of the industry? Why not just come out and tell everyone about them from the beginning? Why no normal trail of photo ops with the visits? Remember the Energy meetings with Cheney? What double standards... And you support this numbnut?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Ummm... that would be BS. Few links are partisan. Where is the transparency? Why the secret meetings with members of the industry? Why not just come out and tell everyone about them from the beginning? Why no normal trail of photo ops with the visits? Remember the Energy meetings with Cheney? What double standards... And you support this numbnut?

Hey,...IMO, you are obsessed and I thinks it amusing if not a little frightening.

Obama identified participants...Bush/Cheney did not. An indisputable fact.

I dont particularly want the press at every meeting. I want participants to be able to have open and honest discussions w/o it being misrepresented by many of the wing nut editorials you post.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Obama identified participants...Bush/Cheney did not. An indisputable fact.

I dont particularly want the press at every meeting. I want participants to be able to have open and honest discussions w/o it being misrepresented by many of the wing nut editorials you post.

Well your guy fails big on that one. They only released the names after being threatened by a FOIA request and it was delayed. It is about what Obama is doing. He promised a change. Secret meetings are not part of that promise. What secret business deals do they have to hide?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Well your guy fails big on that one. They only released the names after being threatened by a FOIA request and it was delayed. It is about what Obama is doing. He promised a change. Secret meetings are not part of that promise. What secret business deals do they have to hide?

Again..what part dont you understand.

Obama released the names....Bush did not. I know you cant or wont accept the difference.

I am for transparency as much as anyone, but I understand that it does not mean every minute of every discussion should be subject to press scrutiny. I hope it never comes to that.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Again..what part dont you understand.

Obama released the names....Bush did not. I know you cant or wont accept the difference.

I am for transparency as much as anyone, but I understand that it does mean every minute of every discussion should be subject to press scrutiny. I hope it never comes to that.

Again..what part dont you understand. It is not about what they finally have done after being pressed. What deals were made with the industry? Release the notes. Tell us what was discussed, what was the agenda, what were the topics. Show us the notes of the meetings. What do they have to hide?