Friday, May 20, 2016

One for the Good Guys? End of Life Care is Not a Prelude to Euthanasia

 In a recent column in the Weirs Times, Jane Cormier wrote that the NH House's killing SB 476 was " One for the Good Guys." I couldn't disagree more. I respect Ms. Cormier's stand on right to life. Extending that position though  as Ms Cormier has done  to end of life choices and care  by equating it with euthanasia is wrong and irresponsible. The implication that end of life care discussions somehow does not respect life couldn't be further from the truth. She wrote: " When the government decides to take up the discussion of " end of life care" , we know they are really talking about euthanasia."  
Yet another example of the irrational fear that the far right continues to blindly follow and perpetuate. ( Remember the " death panels"?)
SB76 sought to only create a commission to study end of life choices. The far right's refusal to even have a conversation about this difficult subject should be of great concern for all NH residents. 

End-of-life care is  the support and medical care given during the time surrounding death. The problem I have correlating "end of life care" discussions with euthanasia is that it can deter people from not having had these important  discussions before a medical crisis occurs and making some important decisions.

Do you have answers to these questions?
  • If you were diagnosed with a life-limiting illness, what types of treatment would you prefer?
  • Have you named someone to make decisions on your behalf if you become unable to do so?
  • How would you like your choices honored at the end of life?
  • What can others do to best support you and your choices?
 The commission voted down would do nothing more than study this important issue so that more people can have answers to these questions before it is too late and their end of life wishes are not enacted. 

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

1/1 - Rep. Jane Cormier was right when she wrote: "When the government decides to take up the discussion of "end of life care", we know they are really talking about euthanasia."

In response, Punterieri wrote: "Yet another example of the irrational fear that the far right continues to blindly follow and perpetuate. (Remember the " death panels"?)"

Yes we remember the death panels well, even though they were not called that at the time. Punterieri acts as though the government would never lie to us...

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 created the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (CERs) to coordinate comparative effectiveness research across the Federal government. The Council will specifically make recommendations for the $400 million allocated to the Office of the Secretary for CER. In the stimulus bill, CER, or Comparative Effective Research panel will provide “…information on the relative strengths and weakness of various medical interventions”.

Translated that means, if there is some sort of medical intervention that could save your life that the CER does not feel is effective enough to warrant the cost, you're out of luck.

In this document, you can actually see who serves on these boards that will be the determiners of what procedures are considered worthy.

https://www.nlm.nih.gov/hsrinfo/cer.html

The Obamacare bill as well as the stimulus before it, already had provisions for something called IPABs — Independent Payment Advisory Boards — which will determine if you are worthy of the treatment you seek, due to your age and health status etc., as well as CERs (Comparative Effective Research Boards) respectively, and Peter Orszag (another czar who has since left the Obama administration) said all the legislators knew about it.

Anonymous said...

2/3 - Then we heard that another czar, Steven Rattner, came forward to confirm the need for ‘death panels’… and yes, he actually used that word! He called for rationing, and making elderly the targets:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/obama-adviser-admits-we-need-death-panels/

Many also heard it straight from the source, Peter Orszag, one of Obama's health care czars. Orszag, Obama’s former Director of the Office of Management and Budget, said in an interview at the Economic Club of Washington, that Medicare, and the elderly, would be the target of the biggest savings.

http://spectator.org/37727_ipab-acronym-death-panel/

Unfortunately, the VIDEO OF PETER ORSZAG saying this at the Economic Club has been pulled from all sources on the internet, after numerous websites had posted it and wrote about it.

In the interview, Orszag explained rationing, and praised IPABs and CERs. He claims it was “underappreciated” when it was explained to congress — “statutory power to put forward proposals to reduce health care costs…”

Then there was Mark Halperin, who said this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQLebnwJxBc

Anonymous said...

3/3 - Indeed, if people didn't take Orszag's word for it on CERs and IPABs, they should have heeded the words of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel another czar, who reinforced the idea that it was foolish to preserve life through expending money on people who are past the age of 75.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e1JnSoaMyw

It's not like these ACA architects never lied before. Take Jonathan Gruber, MIT economist, for example, dubbed the “Obamacare architect”.

"A few months back, he was caught on tape admitting that Obamacare doesn’t provide subsidies for federally-run insurance exchanges; it’s now the topic of a new case before the Supreme Court. Today, new video surfaced in which Gruber said that “the stupidity of the American voter” made it important for him and Democrats to hide Obamacare’s true costs from the public. “That was really, really critical for the thing to pass,” said Gruber. “But I’d rather have this law than not.” In other words, the ends—imposing Obamacare upon the public—justified the means."

Gruber also admitted that he and others who authored the bill padded the Affordable Care Act with so much obscure language so as to hide the fact that you would NOT, in fact, be allowed to "keep your plan".

Gruber said basically ACA was redistribution of wealth: "This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk rated subsidies, if... you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money—it would not have passed.... Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass... Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not."

http://youtu.be/G790p0LcgbI

Gruber explains how John Kerry helped him dupe the public who was ‘too stupid’ to understand this was merely a tax on cadillac plans…

http://youtu.be/iUOyqw5HhRI

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/11/10/aca-architect-the-stupidity-of-the-american-voter-led-us-to-hide-obamacares-tax-hikes-and-subsidies-from-the-public/#7306f7ad779b

You can also hear Obama's speechwriters yukking it up about how they lied:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/05/11/obama-speechwriters-laugh-about-you-can-keep-it-obamacare-lie-n2161286

So next time someone claims there are no 'death panels', remember the CERs and IPABs and what they were created to do — rationing and deciding who gets what and how much is spent.

And as for the statement that "SB76 sought to only create a commission to study end of life choices. The far right's refusal to even have a conversation about this difficult subject should be of great concern for all NH residents" could not be further from the reality that the government's 'commission' has no right to stick its nose in these matters which are better left to the patient, his or her family, and the doctor. Period.

Moultonboro Blogger said...

Anon 1,2,3- in brief response to your canned "anti Obamacare" rants, there are and never have been death panels. Ms. Cormier is not correct that "When the government decides to take up the discussion of "end of life care", we know they are really talking about euthanasia." It is as I wrote, irrational fear without any basis in fact. Zero. Your comments epitomize this irrationality. I would suggest you read RSA 137-J as it exists and get yourself informed rather than taking soundbites and talking points from the far right playbook.

Anonymous said...

Found the video..

Here is one of Obama’s czars, Orszag, explaining rationing and praising IPABs and CERs. At around 17:15 he says it was “underappreciated” when it was explained to congress — “statutory power to put forward proposals to reduce health care costs…”

Anonymous said...

I have taken NO "soundbytes" from the "far-right playbook" but only have taken the proponents of ACA's own words.

I myself lost a "cadillac" plan because the costs skyrocketed.

When there is a government board or panel (CER) who has the power to limit your right to obtain a certain medication or procedure, that is rationing. I have already experienced that personally.

When there is government board or panel (IPAB) that decides what your insurance will pay for, based on the 15-45 rule, (the most extreme suggestion from Emanuel and Singer) they are in fact, promoting euthanasia. Indeed it is said someone over 60 may now not be eligible for procedures such as kidney and heart transplants, What right do they have when many 60 year olds look no older than 40 and may be healthy otherwise?

When the czar admits it should be cuts in Medicare, elderly are targets.

Discussing end of life care would not be of any concern to gov't unless it involved money... and that is what this is all about.


Anonymous said...

My responses are never "canned", but original, as in this case, this research was done especially for you and your blog, and based on things the ACA proponents, crafters, and supporters have themselves said.

Moultonboro Blogger said...

Take a deep breath anon.... You are still wrong by the way regardless of your sources.

Different Anon said...

The long comments by the anon prove the bloggers point. Irrational fear mongering may cause people to not make the best decisions. "Discussing end of life care would not be of any concern to gov't unless it involved money... and that is what this is all about"
That alone should tell any reader that anon has bought into the tea potty nonsense.

Beyond dumb said...

Creating a state law, to create a commission, to study something!

What's next, a commission to study the commission, to study the supposed lawmakers?

Dave Rossetti said...

Chief Justice Roberts decision on the Constitutionality of Obama-care states that free and natural men/women are not subject to any of the privileges or penalties of Obama-care. He references an IRS law that states free and natural men are not subject to income tax as well. Great read, check it out. There is also a great video on the subject on "YouTube".