Obama reverses plan to pay for death counseling

[primroselane]

Medicare regulation to delete references to end-of-life planning as part of the annual physical examinations covered under the new health care law.

The move is an abrupt shift, coming just days after the new policy took effect on Jan. 1.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/he...h.html?_r=1&hp

So quickly abandoned, I can only assume the Administration perceived the action to be of minor value.

[Bearfootfarm]

First he flips, then he flops

[naturelover]

It does not mean that Obama has reversed the plan to pay for death counselling.

I can only assume the Administration perceived the action to be of minor value.

I think you're missing the point. It's more like perceiving the 'reference' to the action to be of minor value. It's nothing to take to heart, it's only a modification in wording. The key word there is 'reference'. To delete references to end-of-life planning as part of the regulated annual physical examinations.

I also notice that it says:

“We will amend the regulation to take out voluntary advance care planning,” the official said. “This should not affect beneficiaries’ ability to have these voluntary conversations with their doctors.”

So all it means is discussion of it won't be regulated as a requirement during the annual examination. It does not mean the doctor or patients can't bring up the topic themselves and it does not mean doctors won't be getting paid for discussing end-of-life planning during an annual physical examination or at any other time the patient wishes to discuss it. It's just not a requirement to discuss it during the annual physical.

I did notice the previous article linked there said that "this regulation could be modified or reversed especially if Republican leaders tried to use this small provision to perpetuate the ‘death panel’ myth". http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us...tml?ref=policy

I guess they did and so it was.

No point in getting hung up in wording. The intent and action is still the same.

Meh.

.

[primroselane]

The article is entitled, "U.S. Alters Rule on Paying for End-of-Life Planning".

[naturelover]

Originally Posted by primroselane

The article is entitled, "U.S. Alters Rule on Paying for End-of-Life Planning".

I know it does, and it's a terribly misleading and erroneous title for the article, it makes it too easy to misunderstand the article. But if you read the article very carefully you'll see that's not really what they're saying. I've noticed that a lot of propagandist type media outlets do that a lot with many of their "catchy" attention-getting article titles and they really shouldn't do that because it's false advertising. I often think media outlets do that on purpose to get people's attention to read their news and then get them all stirred up but I wonder if they realize how much harm it might cause to the public in certain situations. There should be regulations about truth in advertising too. I thought there was.

.

[Tricky Grama]

I agree w/NL. The community organizer did not reverse his plan-it was his plan all along.
Does anyone think its strange w/all that is going on thats important to do, the community organizer sock puppet decides to get this done...now...b/4 "R"s can oppose?

[Batt]

Originally Posted by Tricky Grama

I agree w/NL. The community organizer did not reverse his plan-it was his plan all along. Does anyone think its strange w/all that is going on thats important to do, the community organizer sock puppet decides to get this done...now...b/4 "R"s can oppose?

As presented in Ernie's post..."Movement To Contact." Push till you hit resistance, then try to flank the opposition,

[Bearfootfarm]

So all it means is discussion of it won't be regulated as a requirement during the annual examination.

Where did it ever say anything was "required" to begin with?

It was never a part of the bill that was passed

[Tricky Grama]

Guess that rep in OR didn't get his wish. Blumenthal wrote in an email: "We ask that you not broadcast this accomplishment. The longer this goes unnoticed the better our chances are of keeping it."

Again, this class of "D"s are the more reprehensible yet. Who can align themselves w/this party!

[fishhead]

It's shameful that we don't provide end-of-life counciling. There was one of those fake "prolife" groups that was opposing the counciling.

It also makes no economic sense in keeping people ignorant besides being inhumane.

[Bearfootfarm]

It also makes no economic sense in keeping people ignorant besides being inhumane.

No one is stopping anyone from learning anything
Drs can continue to give advice just as they have always done, and they have always gotten paid for it before.

[primroselane]

If, after many years upon this earth, a person is so ignorant that on his/her own initiative they cannot investigate options in dying, then I think they should not be allowed to die.

[Wanderer0101]

Originally Posted by primroselane

Medicare regulation to delete references to end-of-life planning as part of the annual physical examinations covered under the new health care law.

The move is an abrupt shift, coming just days after the new policy took effect on Jan. 1.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/he...h.html?_r=1&hp

So quickly abandoned, I can only assume the Administration perceived the action to be of minor value.

When the lights come on the cockroaches scurry for cover. Unfortunately they'll keep coming back until you step on them.

[Tricky Grama]

Originally Posted by fishhead

It's shameful that we don't provide end-of-life counciling. There was one of those fake "prolife" groups that was opposing the counciling.

It also makes no economic sense in keeping people ignorant besides being inhumane.

Anyone & everyone can get end-of-life counselling. Now, the Gov't won't be telling docs how/when/how often to do it & pay them accordingly.
Appeard as tho something sinister was going on, to have this 'panel' taken out of healthcare b/c folks opposed, then have it brought back up-under cover of darkness. (holidays-no one paying attention, etc)

[Tricky Grama]

Originally Posted by primroselane

If, after many years upon this earth, a person is so ignorant that on his/her own initiative they cannot investigate options in dying, then I think they should not be allowed to die.

Yeah. Or taxed out of this world.