We've had birthers for a while. Now we have deathers.

I'll read the whole thing later, but the pages I've looked at look right on.

I should be talking to my folks about this, of course, but I'm probably too chicken...

"Death Book For Dummies."/

There are a few bringing up real questions but the noise from this idiocy drowns them out.

I'm afraid to read it.
/

Palin should get back on Facebook and screech about how the libruls are trying to euthanize vets. A sure seller.

WTF is wrong with this?

I think the idea is that, anything that even mentions the possibility of you dying and/or preparing for it in a responsible way, like leaving a will, notifying family, making plans for your funeral, means it's a DEATH >>INSERT NOUN HERE< and that it is an evil thing that is being forced down our necks by SOCIALISTS and COMMUNISTS.

re: #2 SanFranciscoZionist

I'll read the whole thing later, but the pages I've looked at look right on.

I should be talking to my folks about this, of course, but I'm probably too chicken...

DO IT! It is liberating.

re: #7 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

WTF is wrong with this?

Are you serious?? It uses the word "death" twenty-four times!!!

re: #2 SanFranciscoZionist

I'll read the whole thing later, but the pages I've looked at look right on.

I should be talking to my folks about this, of course, but I'm probably too chicken...

EVERYBODY needs to do this. It doesn't matter how old you are; look at the Schiavo case for an example of what can happen to a young adult who hasn't made proper preparations.

Opposing this sort of advice is repugnant. There are far too many people who haven't made such plans, and you know what happens to you if you haven't put your wishes in writing? The government decides what happens to you, typically guided by state law, but increasingly with Federal meddling.

Encouraging people to make end of life plans ensures that the government has little or no say in such matters. It is stupid beyond belief to claim otherwise.

Quick answer: no, it is not a "death book" by any means. The reality is that if one is faced with end of life choices and you do not make advance directives or living wills you effectively leave those choices to others including the courts in many instances.

Facts regarding this book include that the main author, Robert A. Pearlman, MD, had been with the VA's National Center for Ethics in Health Care since 2000. This book was set to be released in 2007 but was essentially pulled by the White House at that time (George W. Bush).

The National Center for Ethics in Health Care was also established in 1991 under then President George H. W. Bush.

Even though it was released it is currently being revised with a revised version set to be released this fall.

In the event of my possible demise.

Only the outrageous is taken seriously.

Won't repeat the long post I made a few days ago about this with my folks and my siblings. But, DO IT! DO IT WITH YOUR FOLKS, YOUR GRANDPARENTS, YOUR ADULT CHILDREN (About you and them!)...

God forbid I ever have to make such a decision about a loved one without their wishes clearly known.

re: #8 Teh Flowah

I think the idea is that, anything that even mentions the possibility of you dying and/or preparing for it in a responsible way, like leaving a will, notifying family, making plans for your funeral, means it's a DEATH >>INSERT NOUN HERE< and that it is an evil thing that is being forced down our necks by SOCIALISTS and COMMUNISTS.

I think that's part of it. I don't know. People get weird about this stuff. I remember having a job in my early twenties where you got life insurance, and you could buy up from what they'd cover. The HR person was clearly afraid I'd freak out, and seemed almost taken aback when I explained why the thirty thousand would be fine at this point in my life.

No one here gets out alive.

Discuss.

re: #17 Racer X

No one here gets out alive.

Discuss.

The leading cause of death is birth.

Charles, perhaps there is some unfounded paranoia about Your Life Your Choices, but it definitely has a bias against medical treatment.

Compare that to the most widely distributed living will, which Towey authored. Five Wishes has received positive reviews from not only Consumer Reports but also an NCI-NIH study that praised its even-handed treatment of a difficult ethical situation.

Unlike YLYC, Five Wishes advocates neither for nor against medical treatment.

These are some good questions, regarding the political rush:

· Because I do think something ought to happen, wouldn't it be prudent to list out the real problems with the current system and do a complete root cause analysis on them? Once we determine that, we could offer up solutions that may or may not be in the form of new regulation.

o What is the goal of this anyway? If we clearly understood the goal, perhaps that is a better, more cost efficient way to get there.

· Please give your top three reasons for why this needs to be done instantaneously.

· Why not, instead, address the uninsured population with generous stop loss provisions, so that their true out of pocket exposure would be on a par with the insured population?"
[Link: sites.google.com...]

re: #18 Sharmuta

The leading cause of death is birth.

Life is slow death...

re: #20 jaunte

These are some good questions, regarding the political rush:

That's been done. Trust us.

re: #12 Gus 802

Facts regarding this book include that the main author, Robert A. Pearlman, MD, had been with the VA's National Center for Ethics in Health Care since 2000. This book was set to be released in 2007 but was essentially pulled by the White House at that time (George W. Bush).

Do you know why? It looks pretty routine to me. Did they plan to do revisions?

re: #19 directorblue

"perhaps there is some unfounded paranoia about Your Life Your Choices, but it definitely has a bias against medical treatment."

I have a bias against medical treatment that does not involve the patient gaining a resemblance to life back.

Call me Kevorkian, but it is how I feel.

re: #1 Charles

We've had birthers for a while. Now we have deathers.

Well, that must make me a lifer.

re: #17 Racer X

No one here gets out alive.

Discuss.

No matter how we struggle and strive?

re: #23 SanFranciscoZionist

Do you know why? It looks pretty routine to me. Did they plan to do revisions?

Looks routine to me as well. Didn't see a reason just came across a planned revision for a fall re-release.

re: #25 ted

Well, that must make me a lifer.

A liver.

Over a decade ago, I had an attorney draw up ordinary & health care powers of attorney and a directive to physicians.

Why am I not dead yet?!?!
I WAS CHEATED!
I want my money back!

///

re: #19 directorblue

What are some examples of bias in this book?

re: #29 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Frickin' cut-rate attorneys.

re: #1 Charles

We've had birthers for a while. Now we have deathers.

Ok, Lizards, a question...

*FACEPALM*

or

Draw a circle on a sheet of paper and pound forehead in circle?

re: #28 voirdire

A liver.

With fried onions and a side of mashed.

re: #17 Racer X

No one here gets out alive.

Discuss.

I'll let Jim discuss it for me.

My mother has promised to haunt each and every one of her children if we keep her on life support for more than a few days...

re: #29 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Over a decade ago, I had an attorney draw up ordinary & health care powers of attorney and a directive to physicians.

Why am I not dead yet?!?!
I WAS CHEATED!
I want my money back!

///

Think about Life Insurance, you're betting against yourself.

re: #19 directorblue

Charles, perhaps there is some unfounded paranoia about Your Life Your Choices, but it definitely has a bias against medical treatment.

Compare that to the most widely distributed living will, which Towey authored. Five Wishes has received positive reviews from not only Consumer Reports but also an NCI-NIH study that praised its even-handed treatment of a difficult ethical situation.

Unlike YLYC, Five Wishes advocates neither for nor against medical treatment.

You do understand that the booklet is a guide to what is needed when medical treatment is no longer a viable or desirable option, don't you? It's meant for those who have already passed beyond the point where they want medical care, and strongly advocates that patients make those choices for themselves before they reach the point where they are unable to communicate.

re: #17 Racer X

re: #28 voirdire

A liver.

Liver. Ugh.

So no one else thinks that (page 21) when they express ideas like "I live in a nursing home" can only be at best "Difficult, but acceptable" in "What makes your life worth living?" might seem a bit biased?

"I can no longer contribute to my family's well being."
"I cannot seem to “shake the blues.”"

Seems to ME, that it pushes people in one direction...

re: #34 MandyManners

I'll let Jim discuss it for me.

Youtube Video

Well, he would know something about that.

re: #40 Buck

So no one else thinks that (page 21) when they express ideas like "I live in a nursing home" can only be at best "Difficult, but acceptable" in "What makes your life worth living?" might seem a bit biased?

"I can no longer contribute to my family's well being."
"I cannot seem to “shake the blues.”"

Seems to ME, that it pushes people in one direction...

Idiot.

Hank Williams always seems to have the right take--this brings the nirthers into it too...

A distant uncle passed away and left me quite a batch
And I was livin'g high until that fatal day
A lawyer proved I wasn't born
I was only hatched.

Ev'rything's agin' me and it's got me down
If I jumped in the river I would prob'ly drown
No matter how I struggle and strive
I'll never get out of this world alive.

re: #19 directorblue

Charles, perhaps there is some unfounded paranoia about Your Life Your Choices, but it definitely has a bias against medical treatment.

Compare that to the most widely distributed living will, which Towey authored. Five Wishes has received positive reviews from not only Consumer Reports but also an NCI-NIH study that praised its even-handed treatment of a difficult ethical situation.

Unlike YLYC, Five Wishes advocates neither for nor against medical treatment.

Five Wishes may cause you some issues:

"Those of us trained in the law usually assume responsibility covers things we know will result from our actions, in addition to what we intend. "I didn't intend to break the window" is no defense if I knew the window was closed and chose to throw a baseball to my friend outside anyway.

The double effect dogma can trip you up if you don't see it coming. Wish Number 2, "My Wish For the Kind of Medical Treatment I Want Or Don't Want," includes the general instruction "I do not want anything done or omitted by my doctors or nurses with the intention of taking my life" (italics original).

Then the form goes on to list medical interventions that keep a person alive and allows you to check the box, "I do not want life-support treatment." Thus it creates internal conflict within the document.

Even if you check the "do not want life-support" box, a hospital or doctor could object that stopping life support would "intend" death and the form you signed expressly prohibits that. What a confusing mess that could create! "

If the VA booklet that kind of contradiction, we would have something to gripe about and was one reasoan the VA would not buy his booklet.

re: #39 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Liver. Ugh.

Chicken liver...Yum...Chopped liver...Yum-Yum.

re: #24 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I have a bias against medical treatment that does not involve the patient gaining a resemblance to life back.

Call me Kevorkian, but it is how I feel.

I have Congestive Heart Failure (CHF) which is controlled by a pacemaker and a diet with a 2000 milliliter of liquid/2000 milligram of sodium per day diet. It is working well, but I have this intense fear of being in a nursing home gasping for breath, unable to do much of anything.

If I can't contribute in some way, I don't wanna live.

re: #24 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I have a bias against medical treatment that does not involve the patient gaining a resemblance to life back.

Call me Kevorkian, but it is how I feel.

The important thing is to do what the patient desires. In order to make that happen, advance directives are an absolute must. And for those directives to be effective, consultation with an attorney who has expertise in this area in the state or states in question is essential.

re: #36 opnion

Think about Life Insurance, you're betting against yourself.

Quite true, and then your hairs get scalped by the estate taxes.

/... bbl ... grocery shopping

---
Jonathan E.: Does he... ah... Does he dream?
Japanese Doctor: No. There is no brain wave at all. No sort of consciousness. Just a deep coma. A vegetable. No dreams. Nothing.
Jonathan E.: But even, uh, a plant... uh, feels something.
Japanese Doctor: Who can say? Please.
[hands Jonathan the release form]
Jonathan E.: It, uh, senses life. I mean, uh, it turns towards the sun. It's alive, isn't it?
Japanese Doctor: [stressing] You must sign.
Jonathan E.: You, uh, you just leave him the way he is. Just leave him the way he is.
Japanese Doctor: Someone will have to sign. There is no other way.
Jonathan E.: Arrangements will be made.
Japanese Doctor: Please. There are hospital rules that have to be...
Jonathan E.: No, there aren't. There aren't any rules at all.
-Rollerball

. You bypass the Death Panel if your name is in the Book.
//

re: #48 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Quite true, and then your hairs get scalped by the estate taxes.

/... bbl ... grocery shopping

They can have my hairs. Leave my heirs alone.

re: #41 MacDuff

He was a good man. Pretty good welder, when he set his mind to it.

re: #45 ted

Chicken liver...Yum...Chopped liver...Yum-Yum.

80% of why I am a vegetarian can be traced to liver.

Dammit. I had friends on that death star.

re: #37 SixDegrees

You do understand that the booklet is a guide to what is needed when medical treatment is no longer a viable or desirable option, don't you? It's meant for those who have already passed beyond the point where they want medical care, and strongly advocates that patients make those choices for themselves before they reach the point where they are unable to communicate.

Are you sure? Cause as I point out... cannot seem to “shake the blues.” and live in a nursing home don't seem to be when medical treatment is no longer a viable or desirable option.

re: #47 SixDegrees

The important thing is to do what the patient desires. In order to make that happen, advance directives are an absolute must. And for those directives to be effective, consultation with an attorney who has expertise in this area in the state or states in question is essential.

What doe that mean?

re: #40 Buck

So no one else thinks that (page 21) when they express ideas like "I live in a nursing home" can only be at best "Difficult, but acceptable" in "What makes your life worth living?" might seem a bit biased?

"I can no longer contribute to my family's well being."
"I cannot seem to “shake the blues.”"

Seems to ME, that it pushes people in one direction...

The language that you quote does not seem helpful to a depressed veteran.
If this was an interactive Health Risk Assesment I would understand.
In that case it could trigger an intervention.

re: #40 Buck

So no one else thinks that (page 21) when they express ideas like "I live in a nursing home" can only be at best "Difficult, but acceptable" in "What makes your life worth living?" might seem a bit biased?

"I can no longer contribute to my family's well being."
"I cannot seem to “shake the blues.”"

Seems to ME, that it pushes people in one direction...

Seems to me that someone has a penchant for reading things that aren't there.

re: #53 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

80% of why I am a vegetarian can be traced to liver.

i can understand that.

Per her advance directive, the next time my mom needs to be intubated, she will not be. She will die a slow and agonizing death as her lungs stop bringing in sufficient oxygen. Or, maybe it will be fast and agonizing. What first? A heart attack? Her brain stops, thereby causing the rest of the body to stop functioning?

Great googly-moogly.

re: #19 directorblue

Charles, perhaps there is some unfounded paranoia about Your Life Your Choices, but it definitely has a bias against medical treatment.

Compare that to the most widely distributed living will, which Towey authored. Five Wishes has received positive reviews from not only Consumer Reports but also an NCI-NIH study that praised its even-handed treatment of a difficult ethical situation.

Unlike YLYC, Five Wishes advocates neither for nor against medical treatment.

I just read the whole thing. If there's a bias against medical treatment, it didn't jump out at me. Examples?

re: #18 Sharmuta

The leading cause of death is birth.

Warning. Don't swallow saliva over long periods of time.

re: #23 SanFranciscoZionist

Do you know why? It looks pretty routine to me. Did they plan to do revisions?

It was pulled by Bush after objections by the guy that wrote the more pro life, Wishes booklet that he was trying to sell the VA.

"I can no longer contribute to my family's well being."
"I cannot seem to “shake the blues.”"

This describes a lot of unemployed people.

re: #40 Buck

So no one else thinks that (page 21) when they express ideas like "I live in a nursing home" can only be at best "Difficult, but acceptable" in "What makes your life worth living?" might seem a bit biased?

"I can no longer contribute to my family's well being."
"I cannot seem to “shake the blues.”"

Seems to ME, that it pushes people in one direction...

That's out of context. The section reads:

Learn more...

You may still have some questions about advance care planning. The “Resources” sections that follow are designed to give you a better understanding of specific topics. You can refer to only the sections that
concern you, or read it straight through—whichever works for you.

Here’s a sample of the kinds of questions that are answered in the Resources section:

• What makes life worth living?
• What’s likely to happen if you have a serious stroke? What do you need to think about in advance?
• What if someone you love needs a feeding tube? What are the pros and cons?
• What can you do to keep the courts out of these advance care planning decisions?

This is followed by the resources section.

re: #42 Cato the Elder

Idiot.

Haven't people had their accounts blocked for that?

re: #61 Charles

I just read the whole thing. If there's a bias against medical treatment, it didn't jump out at me. Examples?

Page 21. Dialysis, Nursing home care, and even wheelchairs are only "acceptable" at best.

re: #56 ted

What doe that mean?

It means what it says - you need to sit down with an attorney to make sure your wishes are not only clear by backed up by the proper legal documents. Laws vary from state to state, so getting someone who is familiar with local laws is critical.

re: #61 Charles

IsraPundit highlights some of the odd implications in that document.

re: #62 debutaunt

Carlin. RIP.

IMO...Booklets and other things are really just fodder.Most people choose to live.

Greets and saluts from the NYC metro area. While the GOP can't quite figure out how to honestly attack Obamacare's multitude of problems (and they are legion), the death panel stuff clearly resonates and forces the Democrats to spend more time and effort defending.

It's a hack political trick, and it could work.

However, the Democrats will eventually get their act together and shift the focus elsewhere.

So, how about this -

The Democrats have to explain exactly how their end of life care suggestions will save money.

If this this supposed to be voluntary, where's the savings? After all, if this is voluntary, you're not going to get most people to consider alternative care options that reduce health care costs (hospice care vs. all available means for a terminal illness for example).

The GOP would be wise to shift this to cost - because it would get the fiscal conservatives and moderates on the ropes who want to see health care reformed to rethink the situation in terms of cost - honest costs, instead of wishful thinking as the Democrats repeatedly offer up on these entitlements.

re: #55 Buck

Are you sure? Cause as I point out... cannot seem to “shake the blues.” and live in a nursing home don't seem to be when medical treatment is no longer a viable or desirable option.

I'm sure you want to read all sorts of things into a booklet that encourages people to take personal responsibility for their own end of life decisions rather than leaving such decisions to the government. However, your reading is delusional.

re: #67 Buck

Page 21. Dialysis, Nursing home care, and even wheelchairs are only "acceptable" at best.

Do you know anyone who's just itching to be on dialysis? "Acceptable" is about as good as it gets. "Goody gumdrops" is an unlikely response.

"Your Life, Your Choices" presents end-of-life choices in a way aimed at steering users toward predetermined conclusions, much like a political "push poll." For example, a worksheet on page 21 lists various scenarios and asks users to then decide whether their own life would be "not worth living."

The Wall Street Journal is actually pushing this nonsense? God forbid someone think about life as a vegetable and if they'd want to spend their life that way. A terminally ill person might not want to die in the hospital. Do they have a right to this choice?

I think this is part and parcel to the right to life movement. If the government gets involved with an individual's right to death, they feel it's a growing tide of the "death culture" they see surrounding abortion and society at large. Never mind if an individual does have the right to choice their means of death.

re: #71 ted

IMO...Booklets and other things are really just fodder.Most people choose to live.

From all of the literature, not surprisingly prolonged depression can
sap the will to live.

I am not a betting man, but if I were I'd lay very heavy odds that each of the authors of this booklet have very clear advance directives, living wills and all sorts of protections to keep themselves off of life-support if there is no chance of recovery.

That was a really long sentence. Sorry for the structure.

re: #47 SixDegrees

The important thing is to do what the patient desires. In order to make that happen, advance directives are an absolute must. And for those directives to be effective, consultation with an attorney who has expertise in this area in the state or states in question is essential.

Drawing up the legal papers with advance directives in consultation with an attorney is one thing. When death is staring you in the face, and there's the most minuscule chance of survival, I have no doubt that things look far different.

When my sister was terminal, the hospice we chose provided quite few pieces of helpful literature. These discussions did include life support, even though hospice is there when the choice is "no"". The literature given did not seem to "push" any direction, but did offer a lot of answers to questions that are uncomfortable to talk about (such as the dying process itself). They were done quite tastefully, and I recall the visitor (RN) -we chose to keep my sister home rather than in a facility- was incredibly compassionate - she cried with us as we talked through these things.

I wish people would discuss it in these terms. Has there been a representative from Hospice to weigh in on these things? If not, I wonder why.

re: #71 ted

IMO...Booklets and other things are really just fodder.Most people choose to live.

Under what circumstances? Most people would choose to go home and play with their grandchildren or pet their cat. I don't know that 'most people' would choose to be kept barely alive by extreme measures.

re: #73 SixDegrees

I'm sure you want to read all sorts of things into a booklet that encourages people to take personal responsibility for their own end of life decisions rather than leaving such decisions to the government. However, your reading is delusional.

Thank you. I read a document that seems to steer users toward predetermined conclusions. You say I am delusional... I guess I should just off myself, and not be a burden to you..

///

re: #74 SanFranciscoZionist

Do you know anyone who's just itching to be on dialysis? "Acceptable" is about as good as it gets. "Goody gumdrops" is an unlikely response.

I'm in a wheelchair since 16yo.
Use a ventilator past 10 years.

Loving life.

re: #77 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I am not a betting man, but if I were I'd lay very heavy odds that each of the authors of this booklet have very clear advance directives, living wills and all sorts of protections to keep themselves off of life-support if there is no chance of recovery.

That was a really long sentence. Sorry for the structure.

You're ok, the grammer police are off duty.

this booklet look like a book: should i commit suicide now or ask for help later

re: #72 lawhawk

The Democrats have to explain exactly how their end of life care suggestions will save money.

If this this supposed to be voluntary, where's the savings? After all, if this is voluntary, you're not going to get most people to consider alternative care options that reduce health care costs (hospice care vs. all available means for a terminal illness for example).

I don't think this is meant to 'save money' per se. I don't mean the whole plan, I mean giving vets a booklet on organizing their end-of-life care.

Book or not the VA sucks.

Treatment of last resort. I suppose I qualify but you won't catch me using the VA. Too many horror stories from too many friends.

Which brings up 2 points, the obvious one and the subtle one:

Obvious: How good can the government be in health care provisioning if it does it so poorly for the men and women who have defended the country?

Subtle: If it actually does a decent job via the VA and the bitching simply comes from those who would prefer to have options, how will single payer not create a culture of constant complaint about health care in this country? Will that somehow be better than the complaining we have now? Or is the idea to provide Democrats with a new set of goodies they can promise each election cycle? ("2 sets of glasses a year instead of 1 if you elect me!" or "Free orthodentia for the kids if you elect me!" or "We are the compassionate ones- so elect us to solve the out of control infection rates in our hospitals!")

re: #60 MandyManners

Per her advance directive, the next time my mom needs to be intubated, she will not be. She will die a slow and agonizing death as her lungs stop bringing in sufficient oxygen. Or, maybe it will be fast and agonizing. What first? A heart attack? Her brain stops, thereby causing the rest of the body to stop functioning?

Great googly-moogly.

My grandmother made exactly the same decision. Being intubated is a horrifying experience; being kept alive when your own body has decided to die may be even more so. It was her decision to make, and when the time came her death was relatively fast and painless as far as I could tell.

You have the comfort of knowing it's what she wants.

re: #67 Buck

Page 21. Dialysis, Nursing home care, and even wheelchairs are only "acceptable" at best.

That's part of a questionnaire which is in answer to "life like this would be." The actual phrase that you quote reads, "difficult, but acceptable." The other possible responses includes "worth living, but just barely, not worth living, and can't answer now."

re: #81 Buck

Thank you. I read a document that seems to steer users toward predetermined conclusions. You say I am delusional... I guess I should just off myself, and not be a burden to you..

///

How many Bucks does it take to change a lightbulb?

None. "Don't mind me, I'll just sit here in the dark."

re: #77 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I am not a betting man, but if I were I'd lay very heavy odds that each of the authors of this booklet have very clear advance directives, living wills and all sorts of protections to keep themselves off of life-support if there is no chance of recovery.

That was a really long sentence. Sorry for the structure.

I'm on life support with no chance of recovery.

re: #67 Buck

Page 21. Dialysis, Nursing home care, and even wheelchairs are only "acceptable" at best.

I think acceptable is a appropriate term, I don't see any of those conditions that would be labeled as welcomed, or desired. It's amazing how we can go through all those pages and nit pick one or two words.

re: #85 SanFranciscoZionist

I don't think this is meant to 'save money' per se. I don't mean the whole plan, I mean giving vets a booklet on organizing their end-of-life care.

Actually, based on President Obama's past statements, it is precisely an area in which to save money because of the bulk of health care costs coming in the final year of life. If you can shift to less costly health care options, you save money.

re: #80 SanFranciscoZionist

Under what circumstances? Most people would choose to go home and play with their grandchildren or pet their cat. I don't know that 'most people' would choose to be kept barely alive by extreme measures.

Medical blog I read, The Happy Hospitalist, had an entry about six weeks ago about a 99 year old man on the vent "because dad always wanted to live to be 100."

I'm sure he didn't want to do it like that.

re: #82 ted

I'm in a wheelchair since 16yo.
Use a ventilator past 10 years.

Loving life.

God bless you, I'm glad your life has been lengthened and enriched by those things. But I assume you see them as acceptable because they allow you to continue an enjoyable life, not fun items in and of themselves.

re: #85 SanFranciscoZionist

BTW, soldiers are counseled on all of this stuff when they join in, and before they deploy - even back to back deployments. Just an FYI.

re: #85 SanFranciscoZionist

re: #85 SanFranciscoZionist

I don't think this is meant to 'save money' per se. I don't mean the whole plan, I mean giving vets a booklet on organizing their end-of-life care.

I think it is. Think of it as "pre-tort" reform. Every lawsuit avoided by a defined end-of life directed is money saved.

re: #79 ArmyWife

When my sister was terminal, the hospice we chose provided quite few pieces of helpful literature. These discussions did include life support, even though hospice is there when the choice is "no"". The literature given did not seem to "push" any direction, but did offer a lot of answers to questions that are uncomfortable to talk about (such as the dying process itself). They were done quite tastefully, and I recall the visitor (RN) -we chose to keep my sister home rather than in a facility- was incredibly compassionate - she cried with us as we talked through these things.

I wish people would discuss it in these terms. Has there been a representative from Hospice to weigh in on these things? If not, I wonder why.

I was recently with a young mother whose mother-in-law was terminal with cancer. She rallied when she learned she'd be a grandmother, but shortly after the little guy's birth, she began to deteriorate again. She decided for home care, because she wanted to hear the baby while she could. It was such a bittersweet story- beautiful and sad. She died happy.

No one from the government should be involved in my end-of-life decisions. If they're running it, it's going to be hard to keep them out of it.

Please, save the planet.

Kill yourself

{chick is a dude}

re: #82 ted

I'm in a wheelchair since 16yo.
Use a ventilator past 10 years.

Loving life.

*Wants to shake Ted's hand*

re: #94 SanFranciscoZionist

God bless you, I'm glad your life has been lengthened and enriched by those things. But I assume you see them as acceptable because they allow you to continue an enjoyable life, not fun items in and of themselves.

I agree. Thx.

They're not fun but allow me to have fun and live life.

re: #90 ted

I'm on life support with no chance of recovery.

We're glad you're here Ted.

re: #99 Racer X

Please, save the planet.

Kill yourself

{chick is a dude}

I would only take that advice from someone who went first, had her corpse stuffed, and held up the sign in a taxidermist's display.

re: #90 ted

Not what I mean at all Ted. You are obviously an example of what is right about it.

I have typed, deleted, typed deleted... I'll just say this...

"I am glad you are here. You certainly can add to the conversation and teach us all... "

re: #71 ted

IMO...Booklets and other things are really just fodder.Most people choose to live.

For a while, perhaps. Very few, in my experience, desire to continue living when life becomes unacceptably constrained, painful or devoid of better prospects in the future.

The bias is towards keeping people alive, a perversion of the Hippocratic oath made lurid in today's medical world. If you're happy with that default, and with letting the state defaults take their course, then there's nothing you need do. But such a decision needs to be an informed one; it is quite likely that government defaults aren't at all what you had in mind.

re: #9 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

DO IT! It is liberating.

Both my parents have passed, and we did it well before it was needed.
Thanks god we did as my mother had dementia, and getting her to sign anything, or make informed choices would have been impossible.
It's so disheartening to see this kind of bull being pushed front and center.
It's is exactly like FBV said, it frees you up to do what is necessary and makes the difficult a lot easier to face, since the most difficult ones have already been made by the person to whom it matters most.

re: #64 Alouette

This describes a lot of unemployed people.

...and a lot of the employed.

re: #81 Buck

Thank you. I read a document that seems to steer users toward predetermined conclusions. You say I am delusional... I guess I should just off myself, and not be a burden to you..

///

You didn't read it at all, if that's what you think it says.

re: #90 ted

I'm on life support with no chance of recovery.

So - boiled down - what are your thoughts / fears on Obamacare / single payer?

If health reform results in high quality universal care I'd suppose a person in your position would be fine with it. But if one buys into the extreme rhetoric, you should be scared shitless. I assume you have studied this quite a bit - do you see any positives coming out of the reform effort?

re: #99 Racer X

Please, save the planet.

Kill yourself

{chick is a dude}

Artificial life will be created 'within months' as genome experts claim vital breakthrough

Read more: [Link: www.dailymail.co.uk...]

What the hell happened to Charles? Charles, the GOP should aim to do two things about healthcare.
1. Stand back and watch the Blue Dogs kill the Progressives and avoid getting blood stains. Keep the government out of health care (and most things)
2. After the battle, introduce free market reforms, include some of those articulated by John Mackey of Whole Foods, or even the CEO of Safeway several months ago..

re: #90 ted

You look ok from here!

re: #110 Gella

Artificial life will be created 'within months' as genome experts claim vital breakthrough

Read more: [Link: www.dailymail.co.uk...]

Artificial life has been around for a long time, viz. Pat Robertson.

re: #82 ted

Ted? You ever mention this before?

Hell, I tell everyone when my frickin' back hurts!

Bless you and the chair you rode in on.

re: #92 lawhawk

Actually, based on President Obama's past statements, it is precisely an area in which to save money because of the bulk of health care costs coming in the final year of life. If you can shift to less costly health care options, you save money.

Yes, the big dollars are at the end of life. Whether that should be somewhat halted is a raging medical ethical debate.
The State of Oregon has efficacy panels that make decisions about how much treatment is allowed in those situations.
As it stands now, health plans have a "Medical Necessity" provision and are silent as to age & prognosis.

Has anyone here read "Boomsday" by Christopher Buckley?

re: #111 LA Conservative

Flounce

re: #102 Racer X

We're glad you're here Ted.

Thx...me too...my point is this is a very subjective and personal matter.. I found out the will to live is powerful above all.

re: #111 LA Conservative

What the hell happened to your manners?

re: #119 buzzsawmonkey

If you want artificial life, hang out with the New York club crowd for a while. That's as artificial as it gets.

i did it few times with chicago crowd

re: #82 ted

I'm in a wheelchair since 16yo.
Use a ventilator past 10 years.

Loving life.

You da man!

re: #42 Cato the Elder

Idiot.

LOL. And correct

As I've said before, end of life counseling occurs all the time with physicians, patients, and their families. When you bring the government bean-counter into the room, the dynamics change slightly.

In fairness, the HMOs have been bean-counting for the past twenty years in the same way. That's why I think we should move away from third-party payer (which includes ObamaCare) to HSAs and high-deductible health plans, giving patients choice and control over their health care.

re: #117 Gus 802

Flounce

Karma: 1

LA Conservative
(Logged in)
Registered since: Nov 22, 2008 at 6:06 pm
No. of comments posted: 5
No. of links posted: 0

re: #61 Charles

The four end of life scenarios seemed to me to have an anti-treatment basis.

For example, the coma

Tom had never said anything about what he would
want if he were in an accident. His parents kept him
"hooked up" for weeks and weeks to give him every
chance.

The Stroke

I'd rather die quickly than suffer a long, slow decline.

Terminal Illness

I'd rather be comfortable than live a long time.

Is this book a proto-Soylent Green? Of course not. But the fact is dying is expensive. We have a president who has stated that "bending the cost curve" on health care is among his top priorities. At the same time, he wants to bring more people under a single health system. The easiest way to control cost is to deny medical treatments.

I think instead of demonizing people who worry about "death panels", (which is hyperbolic) we ought to ask if there is any appropriate role for the government in end of life decisions. Bureaucracies by their nature are impersonal and cold. They will want to bend the cost curve for everyone rather than give one person two weeks, two months, or two years to live. Frankly, I think the potential for the government to subtly push people towards pulling the plug is very real.

re: #98 voirdire

No one from the government should be involved in my end-of-life decisions. If they're running it, it's going to be hard to keep them out of it.

If you don't put your end-of-life decisions in writing many times it winds up in court. Last time I checked, courts are run by "the government."

On further consideration, I think Buck and Directorblue may have a point. There is some odd "life like this would be" choices on page 21 being applied to obviously non-life-threatening situations.

re: #114 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Hell, I tell everyone when my frickin' back hurts!

I see awesome moments everyday in the world of heart defects. But sometimes you just gotta stand back and admire those who are much stronger.

Roll on, Ted!

Repeating my post from the previous thread:

Just got off the phone with a physician friend of mine. My friend says:

1. To control costs in medicine, you have to give patients some financial skin in the game. There's no incentive to reduce costs if health care costs patients nothing. Too many health plans and the government provide "dollar one" coverage, i.e., the insurance picks up every nickel of the cost. That's horrible moral hazard, providing exactly the wrong incentives. We'd be better off with the government providing catastrophic coverage for every American with a $25,000 deductible. In other words, the first $25,000 per year of health care costs is paid privately, by the patient through an HSA, through private insurance, or a through a government voucher in the case of the indigent.

2. The government strictly regulates only health care costs in excess of $25,000 per patient per year, as well as the use of the government vouchers. The government requires transparency in pricing and quality of health care from all physicians and other providers. Everything else is in the private market.

3. Such a system would drastically reduce the size of the existing health care bureaucracy, would reduce regulations and government interference in health care, and would reduce costs dramatically by reintroducing competition based upon price and quality.

re: #67 Buck

Page 21. Dialysis, Nursing home care, and even wheelchairs are only "acceptable" at best.

Do you think those things are all wonderful? Should there have been a choice for "No problem! Everything's cool!"

Still, hardly a "death book."

re: #63 avanti

It was pulled by Bush after objections by the guy that wrote the more pro life, Wishes booklet that he was trying to sell the VA.

Is that the case?

re: #109 karmic_inquisitor

So - boiled down - what are your thoughts / fears on Obamacare / single payer?

If health reform results in high quality universal care I'd suppose a person in your position would be fine with it. But if one buys into the extreme rhetoric, you should be scared shitless. I assume you have studied this quite a bit - do you see any positives coming out of the reform effort?

Honestly, members of the severely disabled community are being fooled...we need care, attendants housing etc. I dont buy into as I feel we would actually be denied care.

re: #120 Sharmuta

What the hell happened to your manners?

He took 'em off life support.

Come on!

"Difficult but acceptable" is the best you can say about all those options.

re: #124 quickjustice

As I've said before, end of life counseling occurs all the time with physicians, patients, and their families. When you bring the government bean-counter into the room, the dynamics change slightly.

In fairness, the HMOs have been bean-counting for the past twenty years in the same way. That's why I think we should move away from third-party payer (which includes ObamaCare) to HSAs and high-deductible health plans, giving patients choice and control over their health care.

Patients have choice and control over their health care now. You're free to choose your HSAs and high-deductible health plans. For some of us, they suck.

Don't be too hard on it, folks. Being a conservative of the troglodytic variety in LA is like being a louse at an exterminators' convention.

re: #104 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Not what I mean at all Ted. You are obviously an example of what is right about it.

I have typed, deleted, typed deleted... I'll just say this...

"I am glad you are here. You certainly can add to the conversation and teach us all... "

Thx...likewise.

re: #128 Gus 802

If you don't put your end-of-life decisions in writing many times it winds up in court. Last time I checked, courts are run by "the government."

Last time I checked, each branch of "the government" was meant to be autonomous. You want the executive branch telling the judiciary branch what it should do?

Since we're on the topic of strange claims vs reality...

From the Sensuous Curmudgeon comes this link to a new interview with everybody's favorite Moslem creationist:

Harun Yahya preaches Islam, slams Darwin and awaits Jesus

What’s your next big project?

I have more than 250 books now, more near 260. I am preparing a book about skulls. I am showing skulls which are fossils as evidence there was no evolution. So I continue to produce Islamic books.Harun Yahya book on the end times
But not another Atlas of Creation? No further campaign?

Our biggest project right now is to lay the grounds for the coming of Jesus Christ, to just prepare the background of this. When he comes, he’s going to have extraordinary power and perform phenomenal miracles. Islam will spread rapidly through the world. The miracles he will show will be undeniable, including to the anti-Christ.

So all of this is the buildup for his second coming?
That’s correct.

[...]

Where does the Atlas fit into that?

Satan has deceived people by Darwinism. In fact, nothing can be a product of coincidence, not you, not me, not an orange, not an apple, not Albert Einstein. This is just a deception of Satan. We are just preparing the background for this belief.

[...]

Charles's focus has confused me... I thought the issue wasn't the end of life planning, which we do in our family (e.g., living wills, durable attorney, dnr, organ donation wishes, etc.)... I thought the issue was the GOVERNMENT getting involved in it in any way, pro or con.

re: #118 ted

Thx...me too...my point is this is a very subjective and personal matter.. I found out the will to live is powerful above all.

You're opinion is greatly appreciated. We tend to joke around on touchy subjects like this. I know there are several Lizards who have severe health issues and their input is valuable in this discussion.

re: #137 Charles
I'm referring more to "not worth living" for being in a wheelchairl or "cant get outside."

re: #141 sattv4u2

Last time I checked, each branch of "the government" was meant to be autonomous. You want the executive branch telling the judiciary branch what it should do?

That would be true if your statement represented the matter in this book.

re: #131 quickjustice

Repeating my post from the previous thread:

Just got off the phone with a physician friend of mine. My friend says:

1. To control costs in medicine, you have to give patients some financial skin in the game. There's no incentive to reduce costs if health care costs patients nothing. Too many health plans and the government provide "dollar one" coverage, i.e., the insurance picks up every nickel of the cost. That's horrible moral hazard, providing exactly the wrong incentives.

Wow! I've never had that option. Not even as a student. Where can I get me some of that?

Hey all, this is simply too much crazy...

There can be absolutely nothing good that comes from this sort of thing. We all know that the average person is not going to go out and look for the facts, rather they will believe people in authority when the tell tell them things that they are prone to believe or want to believe.

Those who are pushing this sort of agenda are cynically violating the public trust for their own ends. However they are also foolishly failing to look at the consequences.

What honestly happens to America as a Republic if you convince a large portion of the people falsely, that the government wants to kill them?

It is one thing to have a fringe of black helicopter people. It is another to have national figures feeding their delusions to such an extent, that more average people begin to suspect that where there is smoke there is fire.

This is nothing more or less than Goebels' big lie in action. However, those perpetrating the lie to understand that they are creating a tiger that they can not hold by the tail easily. If it becomes ok to bring guns to your opponent's rallies, it becomes ok to bring them to yours. It the times are so desperate that the government wants to kill you, then the desperation of the times may call for replacing the government.

But the replacement - if this hysteria blooms fully will not be a simple switch in parties. It will be a complete replacement of our social contract.

The word fascist gets bandied about too much by people trying to make cheap points. This is one case where the America I know and love is seeing a real revival of actual fascism.

re: #111 LA Conservative

Not to speak for Charles but to share what I have observed ...

I am not sure that Charles' position is at odds with allowing the Democrats' factions to undo each other over any particular issues.

Nor is it clear to me that he is against market reforms.

What he is against is the sort of irrational fear mongering / bear baiting / nazi comparing crap that he was pretty much against when the same was directed at GWB and the WOT.

Charles would be in a tough spot if he cared about being labeled a conservative republican - but he never adopted those labels. He has been pretty consistent about mocking those who go "idiotarian" on just about any policy issue.

Right now, the Republicans have been co-opting idiotarian. Perhaps it will get them seats in the next election - but it is still idiotarian.

And LGF has and always will be anti-idiotarian.

re: #146 Gus 802

That would be true if your statement represented the matter in this book.

Per your Last time I checked, courts are run by "the government.", my point is still valid, book or not

re: #137 Charles

Come on!

"Difficult but acceptable" is the best you can say about all those options.

Looks like we have another conspiracy theory on our hands.

re: #141 sattv4u2

Last time I checked, each branch of "the government" was meant to be autonomous. You want the executive branch telling the judiciary branch what it should do?

Pick one:

A) Congress choses for you.
B) The President choses for you.
C) A Judge choses for you.
D) You chose for you.

re: #67 Buck

Page 21. Dialysis, Nursing home care, and even wheelchairs are only "acceptable" at best.

How is that a bias against medical treatment? Is there something about "difficult, but acceptable" that implies "therefore please just let me die if I'm ever in that condition?"

Of course not. Quite the opposite.

re: #132 Charles

Do you think those things are all wonderful? Should there have been a choice for "No problem! Everything's cool!"

I love my Electric Storm Ranger Wheelchair...Max 8mph...25miles/charge.

re: #149 karmic_inquisitor

You forgot "dammit!"

re: #128 Gus 802

Yes, but a government of laws, not men. I'm not talking about the formalities. I'm talking about whether I have the choice to spend my own money keeping myself alive.

re: #143 Sunlight

Charles's focus has confused me... I thought the issue wasn't the end of life planning, which we do in our family (e.g., living wills, durable attorney, dnr, organ donation wishes, etc.)... I thought the issue was the GOVERNMENT getting involved in it in any way, pro or con.

Nope. The issue is end of life planning, and whether or not this pamphlet is a sneaky attempt to cut costs by trying to influence people to ask their own medical care to be terminated, posing as a means to help people articulate and therefore achieve their own personal choices.

re: #144 Racer X

You're opinion is greatly appreciated. We tend to joke around on touchy subjects like this. I know there are several Lizards who have severe health issues and their input is valuable in this discussion.

Its hard for all of us to face until we get there.

Its normal.

re: #143 Sunlight

Exactly my point. I don't need a collection of questions of "How the Government is going to take away my freedoms". I need the defeat of any proposal that aim to do that. Once the children are no longer the majority in the House, then we can have a discussion of free market insurance reforms.

re: #143 Sunlight

Again - Charles is anti-idiotarian. "Death Book" is idiotarian. "Death Panel" is idiotarian.

Charles is calling it straight. Why adopt idiotarian tactics when adopting rational arguments can deliver the same result?

re: #145 Danny

I'm referring more to "not worth living" for being in a wheelchairl or "cant get outside."

The purpose of this book is to enable people to THINK about these issues. Those questions are designed to facilitate a DISCUSSION. It's not as if checking "not worth living" for being in a wheelchair means you get put to sleep if you should ever lose the ability to walk. I don't believe that would even be legal (leaving ethics aside for the moment) in any state. In fact, an answer like that might indicate that a vet could use some counseling, might be suffering from depression, or need a medication adjustment.

Suddenly, helping people THINK about unpleasant issues has become "the government pulling the plug?" It's absurd. Really.

re: #84 Gella

this booklet look like a book: should i commit suicide now or ask for help later

I down dinged you purely for the incoherence of your post.

From an earlier thread:

My father was a physician and a very tough veteran of WWII. During his last days, he fully understood what was happening to him. He had signed an advance directive (no heroic measures to keep him alive). When his kidneys failed, the hospital put him on dialysis, meaning there were wires and tubes sticking out of him from everywhere. Dialysis is an "heroic", and very expensive, kidney replacement technology without which you die. He woke up, gestured us close, and whispered, "I want to go home."

I turned to the family and said, "He's pulled the trigger." We took him home to die without wires and tubes sticking out of him. He totally controlled the circumstances and timing of his death. As I've said elsewhere, a piper of the Black Watch Regiment piped him to his final rest.

re: #161 Lynn B.

I know that.

re: #152 Sharmuta

Pick one:

A) Congress choses for you.
B) The President choses for you.
C) A Judge choses for you.
D) You chose for you.

"D" - final answer.

re: #156 voirdire

Yes, but a government of laws, not men. I'm not talking about the formalities. I'm talking about whether I have the choice to spend my own money keeping myself alive.

Where has it been suggested that we do otherwise? That being if you have "the money" and want to "keep yourself alive."

re: #159 LA Conservative

Did you read #149? If not, I think you should. Please do.

Thank you.

re: #155 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

You forgot "dammit!"

If I'm getting around in a wheelchair with oxygen assist, like Ted, and loving life, participating here on LGF, and doing heaven knows what else that's fun and fulfilling, I'd at least like the option of checking off "I'm fine, thank you very much" if not "life is great and I'm thankful for the things that let me live it". Just sayin'.

In Ted's shoes I would probably write that in if the questionnaire didn't include it.

Saw a beautiful one-armed girl today. I somehow doubt she thinks her life is merely acceptable.

re: #159 LA Conservative

Exactly my point. I don't need a collection of questions of "How the Government is going to take away my freedoms". I need the defeat of any proposal that aim to do that. Once the children are no longer the majority in the House, then we can have a discussion of free market insurance reforms.

Ditto.

re: #148 ludwigvanquixote

I cannot agree enough. I also see this movement as very tied to anti-science and anti-intellectualism. They stifle critical thinking, and it has both left and right wing varieties.

re: #157 Last Mohican

Nope. The issue is end of life planning, and whether or not this pamphlet is a sneaky attempt to cut costs by trying to influence people to ask their own medical care to be terminated, posing as a means to help people articulate and therefore achieve their own personal choices.

The entire purpose of the document, stated over and over in very clear terms, is that people at the end of their lives need to be aware of these issues and take steps to deal with them, before it becomes too difficult for one reason or another.

This seems like a strange way to sneak in encouragement for euthanasia -- by strongly urging people to learn and think for themselves.

re: #163 quickjustice

From an earlier thread:

My father was a physician and a very tough veteran of WWII. During his last days, he fully understood what was happening to him. He had signed an advance directive (no heroic measures to keep him alive). When his kidneys failed, the hospital put him on dialysis, meaning there were wires and tubes sticking out of him from everywhere. Dialysis is an "heroic", and very expensive, kidney replacement technology without which you die. He woke up, gestured us close, and whispered, "I want to go home."

I turned to the family and said, "He's pulled the trigger." We took him home to die without wires and tubes sticking out of him. He totally controlled the circumstances and timing of his death. As I've said elsewhere, a piper of the Black Watch Regiment piped him to his final rest.

Wonderful story...G-d Bless him.

I think these conversations should happen. I've had them with my husband and my parents. I do not want the government involved, though. I really don't. I am a card carrying Republican - but I don't trust THEM to be involved in this, either.

None of this is relevant to reforms we need. I go back to an old, old post of mine - let's look at the real root causes of our problem - define a solution and move on. This stuff is beyond the scope, and because it is beyond the scope, people are suspicious.

re: #152 Sharmuta

Pick one:

A) Congress choses for you.
B) The President choses for you.
C) A Judge choses for you.
D) You chose for you.

I think everyone would choose "D." However, that has to be stipulated in a legal document like a living will.

My objection to the public "option" health "insurance" has nothing to do with death panels, death books or anything of the sort. Count the number of people you have between you and your grocer when you buy groceries. Last time I checked it was just me and the grocer in a simple one-one transaction. Now if I use insurance to buy my health care, I have the salesman, his boss, and on up the ladder along with their insurance company so when I pay my bill through premiums a good share of the payment is siphoned off before it gets to the doctor. Then the doctor has to have a whole staff of people to collect from the insurance companies to deal with all their paperwork. Now they want to put the entire federal government in that payment stream. Just say NO. We already have too many parasites in the payment stream. Then the doctor has to take in $200,000 of revenue to pay his malpractice insurance before he can start to put groceries on his table. These are the problems. Putting it in the hands of the federal government will make it more expensive, more cumbersome, more difficult, more bureaucratic and less user-friendly. Just say NO.

re: #152 Sharmuta

Pick one:

A) Congress choses for you.
B) The President choses for you.
C) A Judge choses for you.
D) You chose for you.

Always "D 1st
If I HAD to choose others, they would be (In order of preference)

C, A, B

re: #166 Gus 802

Where has it been suggested that we do otherwise? That being if you have "the money" and want to "keep yourself alive."

What kind of a program do you think the Dems ultimately want to have? One where I get to do what I want with my money?

re: #159 LA Conservative

Exactly my point. I don't need a collection of questions of "How the Government is going to take away my freedoms". I need the defeat of any proposal that aim to do that. Once the children are no longer the majority in the House, then we can have a discussion of free market insurance reforms.

Right, you want it defeated entirely. That's fine. At least you're honest about it, unlike Sarah Palin and Michael Steele and Fox News, who are promoting alarmism and lies.

re: #177 voirdire

What kind of a program do you think the Dems ultimately want to have? One where I get to do what I want with my money?

You'll have to answer that question for yourself.

re: #175 UncleRancher

My objection to the public "option" health "insurance" has nothing to do with death panels, death books or anything of the sort. Count the number of people you have between you and your grocer when you buy groceries. Last time I checked it was just me and the grocer in a simple one-one transaction. Now if I use insurance to buy my health care, I have the salesman, his boss, and on up the ladder along with their insurance company so when I pay my bill through premiums a good share of the payment is siphoned off before it gets to the doctor. Then the doctor has to have a whole staff of people to collect from the insurance companies to deal with all their paperwork. Now they want to put the entire federal government in that payment stream. Just say NO. We already have too many parasites in the payment stream. Then the doctor has to take in $200,000 of revenue to pay his malpractice insurance before he can start to put groceries on his table. These are the problems. Putting it in the hands of the federal government will make it more expensive, more cumbersome, more difficult, more bureaucratic and less user-friendly. Just say NO.

NO!

"Death and All of It's Friends" by Coldplay ... great tune!

[Link: www.last.fm...]

re: #171 Charles

The entire purpose of the document, stated over and over in very clear terms, is that people at the end of their lives need to be aware of these issues and take steps to deal with them, before it becomes too difficult for one reason or another.

This seems like a strange way to sneak in encouragement for euthanasia -- by strongly urging people to learn and think for themselves.

Yes, I agree totally. I may have been unclear. This booklet is the second of my two alternatives: it's a means to help people articulate and therefore achieve their own personal choices. It's a way to make sure that people still have control over their lives, even if they can no longer articulate what they want for themselves. And it's more than that. It's a way to help people's family members make extremely painful and challenging decisions.

re: #168 Cato the Elder

If I'm getting around in a wheelchair with oxygen assist, like Ted, and loving life, participating here on LGF, and doing heaven knows what else that's fun and fulfilling, I'd at least like the option of checking off "I'm fine, thank you very much" if not "life is great and I'm thankful for the things that let me live it". Just sayin'.

In Ted's shoes I would probably write that in if the questionnaire didn't include it.

Saw a beautiful one-armed girl today. I somehow doubt she thinks her life is merely acceptable.

I think you nailed. Many people look and say "I'd rather die than live like that"

I reply..."Betcha you woudn't"

re: #152 Sharmuta

re: #176 sattv4u2

Always "D 1st
If I HAD to choose others, they would be (In order of preference)

C, A, B

And BTW ,,, "B" being last would go for ANY President, not just this one!

re: #179 Gus 802

You'll have to answer that question for yourself.

how?

The grandmother of one of my German friends dealt with her life's end like an old Roman matron.

She called all of her family to her, one by one, told them she'd had a great life, that she loved them all, and that they were not to do anything to thwart her final decision.

Then she turned her face to the wall in her own bed at home, stopped eating and drinking, and died in her sleep three days later.

Requiescat in pace.

re: #149 karmic_inquisitor

I appreciate your civil response. What is or is not idiotarian is not completely objective. I appreciate that one does not want to be labeled, which is why I am registered "Undeclared" as independents are called in California. There are battles, and there are wars. This is not a war of our choosing but it is ours to win to preserve liberty.

re: #183 ted

I think you nailed. Many people look and say "I'd rather die than live like that"

I reply..."Betcha you woudn't"

Ted , you are bringing the best perspective to this conversation.

re: #6 Cato the Elder
Good Afternoon all,

Cato, I expected to see you post here today. This is an exceptionally appropriate thread for your post, since you are, once again, beating a dead horse.
/Waiting for another limerick

re: #97 Sharmuta

I was recently with a young mother whose mother-in-law was terminal with cancer. She rallied when she learned she'd be a grandmother, but shortly after the little guy's birth, she began to deteriorate again. She decided for home care, because she wanted to hear the baby while she could. It was such a bittersweet story- beautiful and sad. She died happy.

My dad died at 88, after learning he had a grandson on the way. It was like he was just hanging around for the news.

re: #181 _RememberTonyC

"Death and All of It's Friends" by Coldplay ... great tune!

[Link: www.last.fm...]

Heya TC

John Smoltz starting for the Cardinals today. He already was in a jam in the 1st inning (he got out of it though)

It's correct to say that 80% of government health care costs are incurred in efforts to prolong the lives of terminally ill, or very elderly, people. The only reason it's even a public policy issue is that it's taxpayer money, not the patient's money, that being expended.

That's the only reason government is even involved in this debate. Why not means-test for patients instead? Rich patients can spend anything they want to prolong their lives out of their own pockets, and people dependent on government money must follow strict protocols which dictate to them what care will and will not be provided. Given that it's taxpayer money, is such a policy inhumane?

re: #176 sattv4u2

Always "D 1st
If I HAD to choose others, they would be (In order of preference)

C, A, B

Sure- but to think a brochure aimed at guiding people on this difficult issue is the government pushing people to chose death is just ridiculous.

re: #168 Cato the Elder

Amen.

re: #86 karmic_inquisitor

Book or not the VA sucks.

Treatment of last resort. I suppose I qualify but you won't catch me using the VA. Too many horror stories from too many friends.

Which brings up 2 points, the obvious one and the subtle one:

Obvious: How good can the government be in health care provisioning if it does it so poorly for the men and women who have defended the country?

Subtle: If it actually does a decent job via the VA and the bitching simply comes from those who would prefer to have options, how will single payer not create a culture of constant complaint about health care in this country? Will that somehow be better than the complaining we have now? Or is the idea to provide Democrats with a new set of goodies they can promise each election cycle? ("2 sets of glasses a year instead of 1 if you elect me!" or "Free orthodentia for the kids if you elect me!" or "We are the compassionate ones- so elect us to solve the out of control infection rates in our hospitals!")

Obvious question in response: Who is talking about single payer?
It's been repeatedly stated that it's not even on the table.

And please don't say that it'll ultimately get there... this is now (as in the "fierce urgency variety!) we are talking about, not the hypothetical future.
I have my reasons for being wary, but to see comments like that blithely interjected into the conversation like it's in the bill, just means I can't take what you say seriously, as it probably doesn't' really have bearing in what is real, it's just your feeling.
All valid, mind you, but still, just because you believe something, doesn't mean it's necessarily true.

re: #111 LA Conservative

What the hell happened to Charles? Charles, the GOP should aim to do two things about healthcare.
1. Stand back and watch the Blue Dogs kill the Progressives and avoid getting blood stains. Keep the government out of health care (and most things)
2. After the battle, introduce free market reforms, include some of those articulated by John Mackey of Whole Foods, or even the CEO of Safeway several months ago..

I read the article by John Mackey and thought it was pretty good; however if you think health care is just another version of free market competition, like the price of corn or cars or TVs or plumbing repair, then you really don't know what you are talking about. If you think you can trust private insurers, hospitals, or many doctors even, to act in your best interests instead of their own, without oversight and regulation of some sort, then you are at best naive.

re: #138 Lynn B.

I'm sorry you had a bad experience. What alternative do you propose?

re: #168 Cato the Elder

If I'm getting around in a wheelchair with oxygen assist, like Ted, and loving life, participating here on LGF, and doing heaven knows what else that's fun and fulfilling, I'd at least like the option of checking off "I'm fine, thank you very much" if not "life is great and I'm thankful for the things that let me live it". Just sayin'.

Sure, I think all of that is wonderful and I don't mean to denigrate anyone, but this document isn't some kind of quiz where you have to check off answers and get a grade -- it's just advice.

re: #187 Cato the Elder

Actually, my mother died in the hospital by the same means.

re: #194 Sharmuta

Sure- but to think a brochure aimed at guiding people on this difficult issue is the government pushing people to chose death is just ridiculous.

The only disagreement I would have with your statement is that ludicrous more aptly describes it, imo

re: #183 ted

I think you nailed. Many people look and say "I'd rather die than live like that"

I reply..."Betcha you woudn't"

It really comes down to what you want, doesn't it? I live most of my life in my head. If I can read and talk, I'm happy.

My father the physician and I were joking around one day. "What do you need to be happy?"

For me: enough internal organ function for brain health. One arm, for holding a book. An eye. Someone to make the bed. Everything else is a bonus.

Government run health care.

This is the main argument. Death books / panels / etc. are all distractions. Do you really want the government sticking their nose into health care? Everything the government touches turns to crap.

re: #189 opnion

Ted , you are bringing the best perspective to this conversation.

When you've stared death in the eye...you'd be amazed how focused you become.

No lefty progressive Obamatron is gonna make decisions for me.

Another sleeper just melted down in the previous thread. Two years without a comment.

re: #180 MacDuff

NO!

Thank you. Thank you very much.

re: #203 Racer X

Government run health care.

This is the main argument. Death books / panels / etc. are all distractions. Do you really want the government sticking their nose into health care? Everything the government touches turns to crap.

But the VA care, is government care, and always has been.

re: #205 Charles

Another sleeper just melted down in the previous thread. Two years without a comment.

Took time. It was thinking!

re: #193 quickjustice

Why should the Government be so involved?
Also, taxpayer's money = our money

re: #193 quickjustice

That's an interesting idea, to be injected into a very worthwhile debate about rationing health care at the end of life.

But I think it's worth being clear about this: the "Your Life, Your Choices" booklet is not part of the debate. It has nothing to do with cost containment. It's an effort to help patients keep control of their lives when they become incapacitated.

If a person says "I have decided that I'm enjoying my life, and I want to be kept alive despite needing a ventilator, and dialysis three times a week, and being unable to move or speak," and the government says "we're sorry, but it's too expensive," then we have a debate. The only role of this booklet is to help the person to arrive at the first statement.

re: #202 Cato the Elder

It really comes down to what you want, doesn't it? I live most of my life in my head. If I can read and talk, I'm happy.

My father the physician and I were joking around one day. "What do you need to be happy?"

For me: enough internal organ function for brain health. One arm, for holding a book. An eye. Someone to make the bed. Everything else is a bonus.

For me...everyday is a blessing.

re: #197 Naso Tang

It all boils down to your comfort zone with government or private enterprise working for your benefit.

re: #207 avanti

Is that an endorsement of gov't health care?

re: #198 quickjustice

I'm sorry you had a bad experience. What alternative do you propose?

A bad experience with what?

re: #207 avanti

But the VA care, is government care, and always has been.

Yes ,, but for "GOV'T" employees, not nor EVER the general public

And at that, have you not read reports about VA hospitals???

Part 8 of my Dear Mr President series ...

Dear Mr President ... the (non radical) muslim nation of libya welcomed the murderer of 270 people home this week and hailed him (it) as a hero. Several months back, the (supposedly moderate) muslim palestinian authority welcomed back sami kuntar, the killer of an Israeli cop, an Israeli man, and his daughter, whose head was smashed by kuntar's rifle butt. he too was hailed as a hero. Do you not think the people in that region have some "issues" that might make them less than acceptable as partners in business or peace? Can you imagine any Americans or Israelis welcoming home the killers of children and the mass murderers of college students home as heroes? I also feel that these people, along with the scots who released the libyan are thumbing their noses at us ... and at you. Have you comprehended that yet?

re: #207 avanti

But the VA care, is government care, and always has been.

The quality of VA care vs. Private Medical care is...?

So... I just finished skimming the VA PDF, and then went to read the WSJ opinion piece (and the Palin pimping of such)...

Wow. For Towey to say:

This hurry-up-and-die message is clear and unconscionable [...]

is demagoguery in the first degree.

What I got out of the VA pamphlet was (as far as morality), rather, Your life is short and your end of life decisions are your responsibility.

Ultimately, people like Towey, Palin, and the like do not want people making their own decisions. They rather would like to impose their own arbitrary standards on other people.

re: #192 sattv4u2

Heya TC

John Smoltz starting for the Cardinals today. He already was in a jam in the 1st inning (he got out of it though)

Hiya Sat ... Last night on Baseball Tonight, Buck Showalter said that Cards pitching coach Dave Duncan is the guy who may be able to help Smoltz figure things out. I wish Smoltzie well ... he was always a good guy.

re: #202 Cato the Elder

It really comes down to what you want, doesn't it? I live most of my life in my head. If I can read and talk, I'm happy.

My father the physician and I were joking around one day. "What do you need to be happy?"

For me: enough internal organ function for brain health. One arm, for holding a book. An eye. Someone to make the bed. Everything else is a bonus.

Yes- it does come down to what people want. What if they want to die at home and not hooked up to machines? What if they do want assisted suicide? What rights do we have concerning our own death?

I'm sure if we could all choose, it would be to go peacefully in our sleep, but we're not all going to be the lucky. It's all very personal, and attacking this book is avoiding the larger issues involved: medical choice including rejection of treatment by patient consent.

re: #205 Charles

Another sleeper just melted down in the previous thread. Two years without a comment.

Put him in the ICU. Have Stinky read him his options.

re: #207 avanti

But the VA care, is government care, and always has been.

Medical practice and hospitals are also regulated by state and federal agencies. Effectively that makes even private care government regulated.

re: #213 ArmyWife

Army Wife! I've missed you! Where have you been? Working on the house?

Think about this:

College students right now studying to be doctors. Do you really think they are looking forward to working in a government job? Hell no! How many will opt out to become plastic surgeons? Thats where the real money is. We see that now - and it will only get worse unless the "system" is revamped to provide incentive for good, smart people to get into health care and make a profit.

Competition for quality health care at a reasonable price is a good thing.

re: #204 ted

When you've stared death in the eye...you'd be amazed how focused you become.

No lefty progressive Obamatron is gonna make decisions for me.

"The noose doth wonderfully focus the mind", I've heard it said.

You are quite the inspiration, Ted. A lot of us don't exactly know how to define "quality of life". You seem to have that question answered.

re: #199 Charles

Sure, I think all of that is wonderful and I don't mean to denigrate anyone, but this document isn't some kind of quiz where you have to check off answers and get a grade -- it's just advice.

If it's free, it's advice; if you pay for it, it's counseling; if you can use either one, it's a miracle. -- Historian and author Jack Adams (1838-1918)

re: #205 Charles

Another sleeper just melted down in the previous thread. Two years without a comment.

I never understand this sleeper thing. I feel like, if I were a raving lunatic who was furious with all us LGF Darwinists for covering up the news about FEMA's black helicopter squadron, or whatever, I'd probably have trouble containing myself for two years before I started posting about it.

re: #197 Naso Tang

Health Insurance and Health Care are both regulated. I started my working life in the Quality Assurance (Compliance) for a health insurer. Like the financial industry, there is plenty of mis-regulation which results in very bad outcomes. While I am not a complete libertarian free-marketer, I know I can always fire my insurance company, but I can never fire my government.

re: #213 ArmyWife

re: #217 NelsFree

AVANTI ,, Painting himself into a corner since Nov 27, 2008 at 5:46 pm

re: #216 _RememberTonyC

Part 8 of my Dear Mr President series ...

Dear Mr President ... the (non radical) muslim nation of libya welcomed the murderer of 270 people home this week and hailed him (it) as a hero. Several months back, the (supposedly moderate) muslim palestinian authority welcomed back sami kuntar, the killer of an Israeli cop, an Israeli man, and his daughter, whose head was smashed by kuntar's rifle butt. he too was hailed as a hero. Do you not think the people in that region have some "issues" that might make them less than acceptable as partners in business or peace? Can you imagine any Americans or Israelis welcoming home the killers of children and the mass murderers of college students home as heroes? I also feel that these people, along with the scots who released the libyan are thumbing their noses at us ... and at you. Have you comprehended that yet?

The POTUS

replies.

re: #218 freetoken

So... I just finished skimming the VA PDF, and then went to read the WSJ opinion piece (and the Palin pimping of such)...

Wow. For Towey to say:

is demagoguery in the first degree.

What I got out of the VA pamphlet was (as far as morality), rather, Your life is short and your end of life decisions are your responsibility.

Ultimately, people like Towey, Palin, and the like do not want people making their own decisions. They rather would like to impose their own arbitrary standards on other people.

Jim Towey has an agenda of his own. I don't think that's exactly a secret.

re: #227 Last Mohican

I never understand this sleeper thing. I feel like, if I were a raving lunatic who was furious with all us LGF Darwinists for covering up the news about FEMA's black helicopter squadron, or whatever, I'd probably have trouble containing myself for two years before I started posting about it.

The more you try and understand the more your head will hurt.

re: #188 LA Conservative

I appreciate your civil response. What is or is not idiotarian is not completely objective. I appreciate that one does not want to be labeled, which is why I am registered "Undeclared" as independents are called in California. There are battles, and there are wars. This is not a war of our choosing but it is ours to win to preserve liberty.

With all of that at stake, why allow the leading voices to lie so unabashedly? Would it not be better to forward the many lethal arguments that are fact based? Especially since everyone is paying attention?

Again - a lot is at stake. Fundamentally I agree that this is an issue of liberty. Losing liberty to paternalism is just as bad as losing liberty to a tyrant.

So why hand the paternalists ammunition for counter arguments by spreading amped up falsehoods when you can take them out with a clean shot to the forehead in the form of facts.

Facts about financing it.

Facts about managing it.

Facts about perpetually politicized health benefits and what new costs future giveaways will bring.

Facts about the potential of killing off private insurance except for the ultra-wealthy.

And yes - facts about what choices we will be allowed to make (and most pointedly - how there are multiple amorphous bills right now which deprive all of us the ability to rationally choose if we support the effort or not - any specific criticism can be countered as a "fear" because the final bill has yet to exist).

re: #229 sattv4u2

so many updings, so little time!

re: #131 quickjustice

Repeating my post from the previous thread:

Just got off the phone with a physician friend of mine. My friend says:

1. To control costs in medicine, you have to give patients some financial skin in the game. There's no incentive to reduce costs if health care costs patients nothing. Too many health plans and the government provide "dollar one" coverage, i.e., the insurance picks up every nickel of the cost. That's horrible moral hazard, providing exactly the wrong incentives. We'd be better off with the government providing catastrophic coverage for every American with a $25,000 deductible. In other words, the first $25,000 per year of health care costs is paid privately, by the patient through an HSA, through private insurance, or a through a government voucher in the case of the indigent.

2. The government strictly regulates only health care costs in excess of $25,000 per patient per year, as well as the use of the government vouchers. The government requires transparency in pricing and quality of health care from all physicians and other providers. Everything else is in the private market.

3. Such a system would drastically reduce the size of the existing health care bureaucracy, would reduce regulations and government interference in health care, and would reduce costs dramatically by reintroducing competition based upon price and quality.

Interesting.

re: #207 avanti

But the VA care, is government care, and always has been.

Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case.

re: #225 MacDuff

"The noose doth wonderfully focus the mind", I've heard it said.

You are quite the inspiration, Ted. A lot of us don't exactly know how to define "quality of life". You seem to have that question answered.

Thank you.

Yes...it took time and adjustment...but i found out life is worth living even if it ,may not always be under our terms.

re: #223 NelsFree

hi there! I've been around - it has been a busy last few weeks. We've been working on decorating the new house. Plus, my husband just got down here down here full time from MD and is on leave before he reports to Ft. Lee. The biggest thing? We dropped our first born off at college yesterday. I cried.

re: #230 avanti

The POTUS

replies.

that response cannot even be comprhended ... it makes no sense whatsoever ... can you explain?

re: #227 Last Mohican

I never understand this sleeper thing. I feel like, if I were a raving lunatic who was furious with all us LGF Darwinists for covering up the news about FEMA's black helicopter squadron, or whatever, I'd probably have trouble containing myself for two years before I started posting about it.

You will follow orders, #34, and that is all you will do.

/

re: #216 _RememberTonyC

Part 8 of my Dear Mr President series ...

Can you imagine any Americans or Israelis welcoming home the killers of children and the mass murderers of college students home as heroes?

Not to be picky or anything, but a bunch of ultra-patriots did just that for William Calley after My Lai.

The single sold over one million copies in just four days, and was certified gold by the RIAA on 15 April 1971.

And we've witnessed support for the likes of Kahane and Goldstein right here on LGF.

There's not much that I can't imagine Americans doing, especially when it comes to swallowing falsehoods and excreting lies.

Sen. Specter Calling for Hearings into End of Life Guide for Vets

The Department of Veterans Affairs is under increasing scrutiny this week after it was revealed a controversial end of life counseling pamphlet may be revived and distributed to veterans.

The guide called "Your Life, Your Choices," was originally suspended under the Bush Administration, but it is apparently being brought back by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jim Towey, a former Bush Administration official, brought the revival to national prominence this week with an article in the Wall Street Journal, which outlined his criticisms of the booklet.

When asked about the guide on Fox News Sunday, Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) said "I think consideration ought to be given right now to suspending it pending hearings." Specter, who sits on the Veterans Affairs Committee, says that there are questions that need to be answered about the booklet.

/Arlen will get to the bottom of this!

re: #217 NelsFree

The quality of VA care vs. Private Medical care is...?

Better than some, worse than others, and getting better. Wounded vets get the best care possible, routine care at some hospitals is not great.

re: #238 ArmyWife

hi there! I've been around - it has been a busy last few weeks. We've been working on decorating the new house. Plus, my husband just got down here down here full time from MD and is on leave before he reports to Ft. Lee. The biggest thing? We dropped our first born off at college yesterday. I cried.

Cry?
Mazel Tov!

re: #239 _RememberTonyC

that response cannot even be comprhended ... it makes no sense whatsoever ... can you explain?

I thought I missed something.

re: #220 Sharmuta

Yes- it does come down to what people want. What if they want to die at home and not hooked up to machines? What if they do want assisted suicide? What rights do we have concerning our own death?

I'm sure if we could all choose, it would be to go peacefully in our sleep, but we're not all going to be the lucky. It's all very personal, and attacking this book is avoiding the larger issues involved: medical choice including rejection of treatment by patient consent.

Who's attacking the book? Not I.

re: #209 NelsFree

The only reason government is involved at all is that it's taxpayer money we're talking about. If you want government out of it, then pay for it yourself, or with private insurance.

Third party payer (HMO or government) = little or no patient autonomy

Patient pays = complete autonomy to the extent the patient can afford the device or service

re: #86 karmic_inquisitor

My father served this country in the US Army fighting to prevent the Communists from spreading into South Korea. When he needed health care for dementia, he was steered into a bureaucracy that yielded a complete waste of time and he did not receive any benefit for which he was entitled. That cost was shifted to my mother.

You can fire (or sue) your insurer, but you can't fire your government.

re: #241 Cato the Elder

That's very cute, lumping Kahane and Goldstein into the same shitbin.

Remind me how many people Kahane murdered (or was even accused of murdering) again? You know, before he was murdered himself?

re: #241 Cato the Elder

And we've witnessed support for the likes of Kahane and Goldstein right here on LGF.

There's not much that I can't imagine Americans doing, especially when it comes to swallowing falsehoods and excreting lies.

did the President of the US welcome them back as khadafy and abbas did? i know you like to be an asshole, but I'm not playing ... see ya, dude.

re: #239 _RememberTonyC

that response cannot even be comprhended ... it makes no sense whatsoever ... can you explain?

Yep, I gave you a rotating news link, that changed,
try..

re: #246 Cato the Elder

Who's attacking the book? Not I.

Sorry- I didn't mean to imply you were. Clearly others are or we wouldn't have this thread.

re: #217 NelsFree

The quality of VA care vs. Private Medical care is...?

And the availability of VHA care vs. private medical care for veterans? Granted, if one has the ability to obtain private care it is of better quality than VA care. However, that is not an option for the majority of veterans. If someone can find a better alternative to the VHA I'm sure that people would be interested. As it stands the VHA is the only option.