Government by regulation. Shhh.

[Chuckiechan]

Charles Krauthammer - Government by regulation. Shhh.

Most people don't remember Obamacare's notorious Section 1233, mandating government payments for end-of-life counseling. It aroused so much anxiety as a possible first slippery step on the road to state-mandated late-life rationing that the Senate never included it in the final health-care law.

Well, it's back - by administrative fiat. A month ago, Medicare issued a regulation providing for end-of-life counseling during annual "wellness" visits. It was all nicely buried amid the simultaneous release of hundreds of new Medicare rules.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), author of Section 1233, was delighted. "Mr. Blumenauer's office celebrated 'a quiet victory,' but urged supporters not to crow about it," reports the New York Times. Deathly quiet. In early November, his office sent an e-mail plea to supporters: "We would ask that you not broadcast this accomplishment out to any of your lists . . . e-mails can too easily be forwarded." They had been lucky that "thus far, it seems that no press or blogs have discovered it. . . . The longer this [regulation] goes unnoticed, the better our chances of keeping it."

So much for the Democrats' transparency - and for their repeated claim that the more people learn what is in the health-care law, the more they will like it. Turns out ignorance is the Democrats' best hope.

[MTAtech]

Most people don't remember Obamacare's notorious Section 1233, mandating government payments for end-of-life counseling.

The end-of-life counseling provision was put in place by Johnny Isakson, Republican Senator from Georgia, who co-sponsored the 2007 Medicare End-of-Life Planning Act.

Obviously, Krauthammer is showing what a moron he his by painting end-of-life planning as something dark and sinister or as he calls it "notorious." According to Isakson:

In the health-care debate mark-up, one of the things I talked about was that the most money spent on anyone is spent usually in the last 60 days of life and that's because an individual is not in a capacity to make decisions for themselves. So rather than getting into a situation where the government makes those decisions, if everyone had an end-of-life directive or what we call in Georgia "durable power of attorney," you could instruct at a time of sound mind and body what you want to happen in an event where you were in difficult circumstances where you're unable to make those decisions.

This has been an issue for 35 years. All 50 states now have either durable powers of attorney or end-of-life directives and it's to protect children or a spouse from being put into a situation where they have to make a terrible decision as well as physicians from being put into a position where they have to practice defensive medicine because of the trial lawyers. It's just better for an individual to be able to clearly delineate what they want done in various sets of circumstances at the end of their life.

Turns out ignorance is widespread.

[The Real Bingo]

I'd like to see living wills mandated by insurance companies. How many people are laying on their deathbed, unwillingly tied to life-support machines when they'd rather just leave the world peacefully and quickly? The family doesn't want to make such a decision based on money, and a living will would alleviate that problem.

[Chuckiechan]

The difference is being mandated by the government who also controls the doctors paycheck. What could possibly go wrong.

Basically with Obamacare as "the insurance company" a living will will become a DNR unless the doctor treats you on his own dime.

The "living will" problem is doctors withholding life saving drugs and treatments because Obamacare determines that your "end of life" has come, not your doctor.

The government has no place in the doctor - patient relationship.

[The Real Bingo]

The government has no place in the doctor - patient relationship.

Well, that's the rub, isn't it? The government has inserted itself into the medical arena, just as it has done in every other aspect of our lives. The bureaucrats will argue that, as long as the taxpayer is footing the bill for some - or all - of the medical care, then the taxpayer (the government) should have a say in how it's spent.

We supposedly want the government to help us out in paying the medical bills, so we should have no problem with them interfering in the care itself.

Just like with the bank bailouts. We are supposed to believe that the banks needed that money, or else. Then we're supposed to be mad at the banks for paying their employees, and then we're supposed to ignore the government nationalizing the banks (if only temporarily).

All this control is passed under the guise of "help". We get help, but we're supposed to accept the creeping influence of government in exchange. No thanks.

[tony_j15]

I can't believe this mis-leading horse-crap is being continually perpetuated. Shame on you, Chuckie. Shame on Krauthammer. And shame on Sarah Palin for starting this whole exercise in ignorance and fear. On a related note, PolitiFact gave Ms. Palin their Lie of the Year award. There is no(zero, none zilch) evidence that end-of-life discussions will create "death panels." From your own link, Chuck, the best that Krauthammer can say is that its a "possible first slippery step."
Possible? Sure. And it's possible that genetic engineering will allow to create flying pigs. Likely? No. Hell no.
Having end of life discussions are extremely valuable for everyone involved. It ensures that a person's wishes are carried out, and that they are speaking to a medical professional about the risks and benefits of end-of-life treatments. If someone wants to undergo a dangerous, expensive therapy that will extend their life an additional 6 months, they should be allowed to do so. But they must be made aware of the risks and pain associated with these treatments.
Are you saying end-of-life discussions are a bad idea, Chuck?

And while you moan and complain about the possibility of something bad happening somewhere in the future, Arizona has gone ahead and actually put the death panel into practice. While you are vilifying democrats based on nothing other than fear and ignorance, Arizona's republican controlled bureaucracy has handed death sentences to over one hundred people to save a few million dollars out of a state budget of 8.5 billion.

Basically with Obamacare as "the insurance company" a living will will become a DNR unless the doctor treats you on his own dime.

The "living will" problem is doctors withholding life saving drugs and treatments because Obamacare determines that your "end of life" has come, not your doctor.

This is entirely ignorance and speculation. If situations like this were true, then I'd expect to see no old people alive in Canada or western Europe because their socialized medical programs would deem them unfit to live. Care to show me where that is happening? Care to dig up the links showing millions of seniors being denied treatment because they are no longer worth the money?

The government has no place in the doctor - patient relationship.

The entire medical services sector is regulated by a variety of federal and state laws. To claim the government has "no place" is extremely, naively stupid. Unless you want unregulated equipment and unlicensed doctors operating on you, of course. I know at least one member here gets off about thinking about that.

[MTAtech]

Another fallacious thread bites the dust at the sword of facts.

[tony_j15]

If that is a joke, it's not funny. If it is attempt at arguing my position, it is a failure. Try again.

[MTAtech]

As it was said, calling end-of-life counseling Death Panels is the lie of the year. Nuf said.