Nicely-packaged list of issues on which Obozo's Regime ignores laws and court rulings.
While they do whatever-in-Hell they want to do, YOU will sit down, shut up, and be sexually assaulted by TSA.
See, there's a difference between you and them. More equal, and all that.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Amazing! This is unheard of! What an outrage! OMG!
"end-of-life advisory incentives".
"Incentinves". Is that Luntz speak? Because it appears nowhere in the NY Times article posted. Nor was it anywhere in the PPACA or in the proposed rules.
There is hardly a medical facility in the US that will not ask a patient if they have an advanced health care directive on file and ask them to create or complete one depending on the patient's age and medical prognosis. Both my parents had one, my brother has one. Heck, my wife and I have one.
And every one of these AHCDs puts decisions in the very hands of the patient, which is the SPECIFIC REASON for their existence.
The only thing the new rule (and the REPUBLICAN-ORIGINATED proposal stripped from the PPACA) does is pay for the meeting with the patient's physician to plan or review the directive.
So the article you link to starts out in the first paragraph with a subtle lie. Why would the rest of it have any credibility?
You have to pass the bill to know what's going to be changed in it.
Ummmnhhh, Jim: PAYING for e-o-l counseling IS an "incentive."
But then, maybe you don't understand the real world.
BTW, I'm not opposed to this initiative--but it is odd, no, that the (D) folks wanted it kept secret?
An incentive for patients to get their affairs and choices in order? OK, I'll grant that. Is that the "incentive" YOU are referring to? If so, that's a good thing, isn't it?
"it is odd, no, that the (D) folks wanted it kept secret?"
Not at all. Why give the Palin's and the Grassley's of the world another opportunity to lie and distract people from real issues?
The incentive is that docs will be PAID for the e-o-l counseling.
Are you always that dense?
Are you always that dense? I'm asking: You are implying that some "incentive" is bad, but you are not connecting who is incented with what bad thing they are incented to do.
No, Jimbobobobobo, YOU are dense.
I'm not opposed to this initiative
Gee. That means that I do NOT 'imply that some incentive is bad.'
See, "not opposing" means "neutral" or "favoring."
I know. Reading for comprehension is not required at Metavante.
I read one of my "librul" websites and they also referred to the coverage as an incentive, so I'll back track a bit on this post.
However, I think, and I was wondering if you agreed, that the incentive is aimed towards the patient to make informed choices while capable of doing so.
Apparently the wackos are already up in arms about the return of the death panels, so it's quite understandable that the administration would want to keep this quiet.
And is the name calling necessary?
I only call names out of utter frustration when seemingly intelligent people display an obstinate inability to READ ENGLISH.
Since the MD gets the money, the MD is 'incented,' not the patient.
You will note that I do not buy into every politicrap statement made by partisans. Here, the National Interest is first.
Republicans, Democrats--not even ranked.
Yeah, but I can read English just fine. And I think you are incorrect in who gets the incentive and why. The doctor gets paid for services performed. The question is who pays, the patient directly or the insurance company (in this case Medicare).
"Here, the National Interest is first." I don't think I would argue against that. But in this case I'm curious as to exactly what YOU think the "National Interest" is?
You can 'read English,' eh?
Then exactly WHY am I "wrong" when I state that the MD is "incented" because HE IS PAID?
In this case it's Medicare that pays. But the incentive is to the MD.
Read this blog long enough and you'll figure out what the National Interest is.
But first, learn how to read.
Are you simply a jerk or what?
Post a Comment