an article was posted that criticizes the administration's decision on the rules re this provision. see
http://tinyurl.com/239jb3g
One commenter (Vaccine) on the article. states:
Repealing this regulation in no way prevents doctors from talking to patients about end of life planning - it just means Medicare won't pay doctors extra for certain types of conversations. Conversations, which incidentally are intended to save the Medicare program money by encouraging patients to affirmatively think about whether they want expensive all-means-possible end of life efforts.
I responded to the article and her comment.
I think Vaccine makes a very useful comment. I agree that end of life counseling is extremely valuable. In essence those who oppose it, are saying they want a government that wants people to die a painful death rather than a peaceful death. However, the political realities is that the administration was politically obligated to remove this language from the regulation, because they did not include it in the proposed rule and they had agreed to remove this language in order to get the bill passed.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Countering the attack on health reform
with the attack mounting on health reform, I see the need for us to get involved again in supporting it. please let me know thoughts on this.
I am planning to organize phone banks again and welcome help on this. have some thoughts on pr material. think obama needs to speak from oval office at some point. rallies are needed.
here are a few talking points
the republicans want a government that:
o denies health care to 50 million people, so that they can suffer unnecssarily,
o raises the cost of health care by x%, and increases our debt by $1 trillion
o raises drug costs for medicare benes
o lower the quality of medical care and increase inefficiencies in health care
o insists that dying patients suffer much pain and not allow them the option of a peaceful and/or pain free death
o undermines the competitiveness of our all our industries to other countries because of the high cost and inefficient health care
is this the government that we want.
or do we want a government that (the opposite of all these statements)
please let me know comments on this.
I am planning to organize phone banks again and welcome help on this. have some thoughts on pr material. think obama needs to speak from oval office at some point. rallies are needed.
here are a few talking points
the republicans want a government that:
o denies health care to 50 million people, so that they can suffer unnecssarily,
o raises the cost of health care by x%, and increases our debt by $1 trillion
o raises drug costs for medicare benes
o lower the quality of medical care and increase inefficiencies in health care
o insists that dying patients suffer much pain and not allow them the option of a peaceful and/or pain free death
o undermines the competitiveness of our all our industries to other countries because of the high cost and inefficient health care
is this the government that we want.
or do we want a government that (the opposite of all these statements)
please let me know comments on this.
NYT: U.S. Alters Rule on Paying for End-of-Life Planning
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/health/policy/05health.html?hp
see this article by robert pear who first brought the issue to the public's attention.
see this article by robert pear who first brought the issue to the public's attention.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Current House Chairs defend health reform
http://go.usa.gov/rK0
a well written counter to Republican plans to dismantle law by the three outgoing democratic committee chairs in the house with jurisdiction over the bill.
a well written counter to Republican plans to dismantle law by the three outgoing democratic committee chairs in the house with jurisdiction over the bill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
