Palin Was For "Death Panel" Before She Was Against Them...

Well you know that's how people work. I just read another part of the bill that was posted on here by another whack job that claims the government is now invading homes to tell you how to raise your children and what values to instill in them cause you know that's what the government is all about! Anyway, I can't figure out how people read into something and completely and utterly see something that isn't there and that NEVER existed in the first place. It drives me insane. I'm getting tired of people completely missing the point of things and adding their own beliefs into the matter.

So, let's see...according to Palin and some of the responses I've read...it's a good thing to "encourage" medical personnel to discuss advance directives with patients but to make talking about it a requirement in the healthcare bill is a bad thing because talking = forcing and your evil doctor, who in many cases has cared for you for years, will give you bad advice cause he's tryin to kill you. I gotcha.

There is a difference between State business and Federal business. All 50 states have such laws, so what could possibly be the point of the federal government passing reduntant laws.. unless it is to usurp the state laws. There are major differences between the two though. First of all, the federal bill requires a signature from a physician and "one other health care professional" where today, an Advanced Directive only requires signatures from the person and a notary OR a health care professional. This one also requires physicians to report advanced directive participation to the federal government. The state laws rarely require any form of reporting. What business of it is there's? Absolutely NONE! The ironic thing about the whole advanced directive debate here is, all the legitimate parts of this section are already being done by the states. So why is the federal government sticking their nose into it? Advanced Directives are VERY important documents and everyone should be encouraged to have them. However, the status quo is already working, so why mess with it? The one exception would be education, something that health care professionals (not just medical professionals) already do. There isn't a health care professional alive that doesn't already advocate them. The only thing the fed could add to anything here is some law requiring us all to have them (which, in fairness, isn't part of this bill). Let's remind the fed of their role in government and in our lives. Let's NOT allow them to take authority by codifying things simply because doing it is a good idea.

I am not suprised as it is very evident that semantics come into play when politicians twist words around to support their issues.

Annie, you can't expect her to remember things, she's too busy shooting wild game from the air and "net fishing" for salmon. I think you nailed her this time!

You aren't suffering from dementia, I think there's a Palin to English dictionary, try...maybe.... I dunno, amazon they sell everything. Or you can always just chalk it up to, Palin changes her mind and that's all great, you're just suppose to go with the flow. As a person that use to work in a nursing home and another facility that housed MR/DD I couldn't stand to watch my loved ones suffer. I would pull the plug myself to keep them from having to suffer. My mother actually told me that she would never put me in charge of her wishes because she knows that I wouldn't let her live and she wants to live no matter what state her body/mind is in.

Okay, let's explain the difference. Here's what the Alaska Healthcare Decisions Day says: " it is estimated that less than 50 percent of severely or terminally ill patients have an advance directive" Terminally ill patients, or those who will die regardless of treatment, should have the opportunity to get information on advance directives. They would have to ask for this information though, so it is purely voluntary. What does the Health Care reform say? Who will be subjected to end of life counseling? Well, here's a little info on that quoted from Palin's notes on her FB page. * "Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual ... or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility... or a hospice program." During those consultations, practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services. Now put this in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As Charles Lane notes in the Washington Post, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones.... If it’s all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to “bend the curve” on health-care costs?” * Okay, so this isn't like people seeking out information, the doctors are expected to broach this subject with their patients. The doctors, who are paid by the government for these services, will be expected to provide supporting documentation to prove they have provided these services. As Lane also points out: *Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren’t quite “purely voluntary,” as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, “purely voluntary” means “not unless the patient requests one.” Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive -- money -- to do so. Indeed, that’s an incentive to insist. Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they’re in the meeting, the bill does permit “formulation” of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would “place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign,” I don’t think he’s being realistic. * Now, what was the incentive for doctors to provide this information on Healthcare Decisions Day? It is stated that their purpose is: " to encourage medical professionals and lawyers to volunteer their time and efforts to improve public knowledge and increase the number of Alaska’s citizens with advance directives" Volunteer. Meaning the state would not be paying them to advise people and so their advice would not be tainted by any promise of monetary gain by producing any type of advance directive. Not to mention that the state of Alaska doesn't have anyone nearly as scary as Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel as a top health adviser, and Obama does. Dr. Emanuel has stated that the core group for which medical services should be allocated is aged 15 - 40 with young infants and the elderly being less important. Is there a difference. There sure is. And as this Alaskan bill points out, DNRs and living wills are already available to people in every state and there is no need whatsoever to include them in a federal health care bill. It's either superfluous or an agenda.