Skip to content

The ‘fierce moral urgency’ of ObamaCare was… what, exactly?

2011/01/03

“Social justice.”  It simply wasn’t fair that some people didn’t have access to other people’s money to solve their health issues.  We needed a radically centralized system that TOOK CARE OF EVERYONE.

Berwick’s Orwellian Wellness Visit
By Robert M. Goldberg on 1.3.11 @ 6:07AM

As reported in this publication, Democrats have been quick to defend Donald Berwick’s dead of night inclusion of advanced directive and end of life planning into what is called the Annual Wellness Visit (what most of us call a checkup). They claim it’s purely voluntary and that Medicare already covers advanced directive discussions.

But the inclusion of the advanced directive and end of life planning is not voluntary, only the patient’s discussion is. Doctors are required to bring it up year after year. What’s more, noting that Medicare added the discussion of advance directives to the initial physical exam begs the question: why every year?

ObamaCare – and the way it is being “regulated” – is so damnably corrupt on so many levels one hardly knows where to begin.  I recall Superman comics as a kid.  The evil perp was always some angry-looking monster with a clear agenda of dominance and destruction.  Wasn’t until I met Lefties that I realized evil came in drag:  Smarmy condescention and talk of altruism hiding the power freak within.

. . .

This vampire must be slain with a sharp oak stake through it’s heart.  One does not “reform” such a creature.

Advertisements
8 Comments leave one →
  1. Matt S permalink
    2011/01/04 02:34

    Do you have the actual text making it mandatory?

  2. 2011/01/04 03:12

    Not yet, Matt. Thanks.
    I’m not sure when the actual regulations get published and voted in committee. The point is, “end of life” planning processes were specifically pulled from the Congressional Bill so that there is NO SUCH LANGUAGE in the Bill that was “deemed” to have passed blah blah blah. Obama’s solution? Have Berwick reinstate the provisions via regulatory fiat. Why even freaking bother with a Congress?

    • Matt S permalink
      2011/01/04 04:09

      Regulations are done by the executive branch. The regulations in question have already been published. And I wonder what you thought about Bush’s use of “signing statements”. But the fact is Congress writes laws in a way that requires the administration to make regulations, they have done this for about as long as we have had a country. If the regulation conflicts with the law it is invalid, but I doubt this conflicts at all.

      That said, you have changed your objection. Your made this big claim about “mandatory” end-of-life discussions. You were trying to keep the “death panel” lie going. In fact these regulations are a great thing. I don’t know if you have any elderly or sick relatives or friends, but I have. And it is comforting to be able to sit down with a doctor and understand what happens and what your options are at the end of life. I’ve taken my wife to surgery and had to face the question of what to do if the surgery goes wrong. I would rather think about this when healthy then in a emergency situation. Maybe someday you should go spend a few hours in a hospice: they are humane situations, not death mills.

      • 2011/01/04 13:14

        Regulations are done by the executive branch.

        Civ 101. Yes, and they must conform blah blah blah. We know.

        The regulations in question have already been published. And I wonder what you thought about Bush’s use of “signing statements”.

        Bush was too much of a statist “moderate”. Note his trouncing in ’06 as Conservatives had been offended a thousand times too often.

        But the fact is Congress writes laws in a way that requires the administration to make regulations, they have done this for about as long as we have had a country.

        But nothing – Civ 101 again. Thanks.

        If the regulation conflicts with the law it is invalid, but I doubt this conflicts at all.

        Probably not, but you’ve completely missed the point: This specific provision was taken out of the legislation. That it has been reinstated via regulation where it had been specifically denied by the legislative process is gross over-reach of the most tyrannical sort. There is no excuse for this sort of regulatory over-reach. It may not conflict with the written legislation but it does specifically conflict with the expressed Will of the People.

        Let me clear-up a confusion for you: ‘Death Panel’ is a moniker for the government’s intrusion into patient and family responsibilities to work with health care providers to make on-going care and life-and-death decisions – at taxpayer expense and with the force of Government. It refers to bureaucratic decisions made on behalf of the patient beyond the control of the patient and family.

        ‘Death Panel’ is not purely the simplistic ‘life and death’ committee making decisions as to which patient lives and dies that the New York Times pretended Conservatives and Libertarians had objected to. I repeat: ‘Death Panel’ is a moniker for the government’s intrusion into patient and family responsibilities to work with health care providers to make on-going care and life-and-death decisions – at taxpayer expense and with the force of Government.

        That said, you have changed your objection. Your made this big claim about “mandatory” end-of-life discussions. You were trying to keep the “death panel” lie going.

        No. You are confusing issues. The point made to sell ObamaCare is universal coverage – that no-one should be “unfairly” denied access to other peoples’ money to solve personal health issues. The simple but brutal fact is that no system – private or public – is capable of universal “fairness”. It is a fact of economic reality.

        A subsequence is that someone in the government makes decisions about treatment and coverage on behalf of the patient and the provider.

        Berwick’s inclusion of the “discussion” language is an admission that universality is impossible. It’s a classically hideous example of an action that is simultaneously repugnant from a legislative & regulatory viewpoint AND an admission that the premise of the underlying legislation is false. It just boggles the mind.

        In fact these regulations are a great thing. I don’t know if you have any elderly or sick relatives or friends, but I have. And it is comforting to be able to sit down with a doctor and understand what happens and what your options are at the end of life. I’ve taken my wife to surgery and had to face the question of what to do if the surgery goes wrong. I would rather think about this when healthy then in a emergency situation.

        NO. We have a MORAL RESPONSIBILITY to make the decision to have such a discussion – or to not – PRIOR to any external, governmental interference. That is the only great thing here.

        Now the government will pay doctors to initiate that discussion… removing that responsibility FROM US. That interference is a “great thing”, really? Why? Were people going to dodge the discussion until the government intervened?

        Maybe someday you should go spend a few hours in a hospice: they are humane situations, not death mills.

        Death panels? How did this segue into hospice care? I shudder to think.

        Since you raised the issue, I did indeed spend a few hours last April – over night, in fact – at a hospice as my dad passed away. It was actually a beautiful, serene, humane… death mill.

        . . .

        Matt, I will say this once: The next time you post here accusing me of propagating lies, of switching arguments and doing so in a condescending manner I will erase your post.

    • Matt S permalink
      2011/01/04 04:57

      The regulations can be found here. It is false that the doctors are required to bring this up. Sorry.

  3. 2011/01/04 05:17

    Hey Ran, looks like you must be feeling much better. Physcians will now be paid to have these end of life discussions. Think about it., it the doctor can check the box that the discussion was had, cha ching, cha ching!

    So far no word about at what age a senior is encouraged to have this little talk. I am semi-caretaker for three seniors. All three are quite elderly. Each doctor does at least a portion of this little chat, depending on the condition of the patient at the time. It hasn’t been anything the doctor expected to get paid for.

    $500 BILLION cut FROM Medicare, now additional being paid out for unneeded services. It’s about selection: Selecting the weak.

    I shudder to think about my loved ones being in the care of some select doctors, and me not being in the room with them.

    The Palm Beach Post said this on December 29th:

    “Furthermore, they’re asked to sign off on their willingness to abide by their patient’s wishes, whether it’s “do not resuscitate,” do everything possible, or something in between.”

    It is mandatory for the doctor to try to have the “chat.”

    Democrats knew this wouldn’t pass. They wrote it in. Wait till we hear that the “wellness check” is not free UNLESS AND UNTIL the “chat” happens. Oh, and by the way, I’m the first to say that these doctors do not get paid enough to put up with this crap federal government.

    • 2011/01/04 13:26

      Thanks Maggie.
      Mark Steyn, years ago, clarified the simple fact that government force, used to administer health care, changes the relationship between the citizen and the government to a relationship between the government and the subject, and that it makes slaves of doctors, healthcare workers and patients. Steyn was absolutely right.

      That GuvCare has never once been tried and worked anywhere seems beyond the point to it’s supporters.

      You raise a chilling point, too: $500 BILLION cut FROM Medicare, now additional being paid out for unneeded services. It’s about selection: Selecting the weak. Exactly… the weak don’t vote.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s