Posted by Homegrown Boy:
Utter horseshit, and Nancy Willing has already replied to it there.
On the off chance, however, that HGB is truly just ignorant and not posturing with talking points, let's visit Thaddeus Pope at Medical Futility Blog and find out what the last decade of research into end-of-life counseling has actually found:
There are--as I make the count--four ways HGB could choose to react to the information that his beliefs are not upheld by the research:
1) He could, in the face of new data, modify his beliefs. [Did I mention this was the least likely outcome?]
2) He might challenge the reliability, validity, or objectivity of the studies. [But to do that--rather than just to make some vague ideological point that he doesn't trust liberal academics--he would not only have to link through multiple times, read the studies, and then educate himself on what reliability and validity mean as statistical terms.]
3) He might make dark references to the fact that the government will use thought-wave transference and kidnapping of family members to influence doctors who have cared for these patients for years into being willing to urge them just to pull the plug so that they can get their death bonuses and pay for their new Mercedes.
4) He could just ignore the fact that somebody challenged him with data and keep talking louder and louder.
Point of clarification: the fact that I am pointing out that end-of-life counseling in the current versions of the health insurance reform bill is not a dire government plot to kill granny is not to be construed as an endorsement of the bill. It is to be construed as a statement that when I oppose provisions of the bill, or the process by which it is being crafted, I will try to do so using actual facts instead of shit I just made up.
Section 1233. Kind of an Orwellian tinge to it.
Well it is Orwellian for it refers to the end of life counseling sick seniors will get from the state run medical society if it passes. (cmon angry Brooks Brothers mobsters – make my day)
It refers to financial incentives for agreeing to die.
Please note the well to do with educated kids will be there to intervene but the poor and uneducated will be told it’s all good and the plug will get pulled.
Utter horseshit, and Nancy Willing has already replied to it there.
On the off chance, however, that HGB is truly just ignorant and not posturing with talking points, let's visit Thaddeus Pope at Medical Futility Blog and find out what the last decade of research into end-of-life counseling has actually found:
Peer-reviewed, published studies [are[ establishing that end-of-life consultations improve care. Among other points made in the linked articles:End-of-life discussions decrease suffering and distress for patients and loved ones
Hospice patients live longer
Inability to participate in treatment decisions can cause patients uncertainty and distress
87% of patients say they “want as much information as possible”
Patients want doctors to communicate with them about their treatment options
There are--as I make the count--four ways HGB could choose to react to the information that his beliefs are not upheld by the research:
1) He could, in the face of new data, modify his beliefs. [Did I mention this was the least likely outcome?]
2) He might challenge the reliability, validity, or objectivity of the studies. [But to do that--rather than just to make some vague ideological point that he doesn't trust liberal academics--he would not only have to link through multiple times, read the studies, and then educate himself on what reliability and validity mean as statistical terms.]
3) He might make dark references to the fact that the government will use thought-wave transference and kidnapping of family members to influence doctors who have cared for these patients for years into being willing to urge them just to pull the plug so that they can get their death bonuses and pay for their new Mercedes.
4) He could just ignore the fact that somebody challenged him with data and keep talking louder and louder.
Point of clarification: the fact that I am pointing out that end-of-life counseling in the current versions of the health insurance reform bill is not a dire government plot to kill granny is not to be construed as an endorsement of the bill. It is to be construed as a statement that when I oppose provisions of the bill, or the process by which it is being crafted, I will try to do so using actual facts instead of shit I just made up.
Comments
This will carry over with him into any campaign he should aspire to win.
And while I concur about your analysis of "end-of-life" consultations, I must say I am flummoxed by your seeming non-chalant attitude that the government would be involved in such ... and also considering some of the characters in Obama's admin.
The government need not be involved in that at all, as it's something that should be purely between the physician & patient.
That said, the more vocal opponents of Obamacare are turning this into something it's not. It's no evil government plot to kill off the elderly.
As a comparison, should doctors be given a financial incentive to insist on abortions? Of course not. I don't want the government giving financial incentives that pressure physicians into particular methods of care.
But the government doesn't mind using shit they just made up!
Forward Vision @
www.mikevine.com
I have always said I have higher standards than the government.