Steele does it again

[leftysergeant]

Well, it looks as if Michael Steele has not given up quite yet on making himself look like the greatest moron ever to run a national party headquarters. He is now claiming that the Department of Veterans' Affairs is urging veterans to commit suicide.

http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/08/vets-group-assails-fox/

Seems that little whackaddodle got this information from one of the Shrub's hencemen from the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives..

Steele and the truth have never been in the same room together, as far as I can see. I hope it stays that way. Sooner or later, he will run the GOP right into the ditch and total it out, and America will be the better for it, as former Republicans look for a new vehicle, like the Greens or Libertarians or form the Frothing At The Mouth Lunatic Party.

(On second thought, they could just re-name what is left of the GOP the FATMLP. Truth in advertising and all that.

 

[Ohmer]

Your life, Your choices

I double dare any of the "death book" douche bags to point to the section in the above book that advocates suicide. I'll listen. I wonder if Michael Steele even read it. It's not hard to find. Just put "Your Life, Your Choices" into google. It's the top link. Of course, one needs to be concerned with facts to do something like that.

Let not forget the douche bag that started this, Jim Towney. He will be happy to sell you his end of life counseling book for $5. He likes his better and thinks the VA should use it. I would link to it to do a comparison, but I can't. Jim needs to make a profit here.

 

[theprestige]

First, I don't think there are any "death panels".

Second, I don't really have a problem with "death panels" in principle.

I mean, if the goal of government health care reform is to cut costs, then let's be honest about it. At some point, you're going to have to sit down with a patient and tell them "look, the procedure is really expensive, and you're about to die of other conditions anyway, and we really don't think it's the best use of our limited budget to invest in it; we hope you understand".

 

[leftysergeant]

I mean, if the goal of government health care reform is to cut costs, then let's be honest about it. At some point, you're going to have to sit down with a patient and tell them "look, the procedure is really expensive, and you're about to die of other conditions anyway, and we really don't think it's the best use of our limited budget to invest in it; we hope you understand".

Not really. When the patient decides it is not worth putting up with it, it is time to move them to hospice. This is especially true in the Veterans' Affairs system.

The objective is not just cutting costs, it is about delivering the services to people who are now being thrown in the street by for-profit insurers.

 

[theprestige]

The objective is not just cutting costs, it is about delivering the services to people who are now being thrown in the street by for-profit insurers.

This plan, by definition, would be unprofitable. I think it's safe to say that the objective as you see it isn't to cut costs at all, but to actually incur more costs. Am I correct in understanding your objective?

 

[Ohmer]

I think that if people are allowed to make their own end of life choices ahead of time, costs will go down. Even left wing wackjob Newt Gingrich agrees:

http://views.washingtonpost.com/healthcarerx/panelists/2009/07/right-gingrich.html

More than 20 percent of all Medicare spending occurs in the last two months of life. Gundersen Lutheran Health System in La Crosse, Wisconsin has developed a successful end-of-life, best practice that combines: 1) community-wide advance care planning, where 90 percent of patients have advance directives; 2) hospice and palliative care; and 3) coordination of services through an electronic medical record. The Gundersen approach empowers patients and families to control and direct their care. The Dartmouth Health Atlas has documented that Gundersen delivers care at a 30 percent lower rate than the national average ($18,359 versus $25,860). If Gundersen's approach was used to care for the approximately 4.5 million Medicare beneficiaries who die every year, Medicare could save more than $33 billion a year.

Of course, this was before he completely abandoned reality and started screaming "DEATH PANELS".

 

[pgwenthold]

Hey, Gunderson Lutheran is in charge of medicine in the area I grew up! My old family doctor is part of GL.

It is, interestingly, also the area where Newt Gringich's current wife (I think she is still his current) went to college.

 

[Magyar]

I mean, if the goal of government health care reform is to cut costs, then let's be honest about it. At some point, you're going to have to sit down with a patient and tell them "look, the procedure is really expensive, and you're about to die of other conditions anyway, and we really don't think it's the best use of our limited budget to invest in it; we hope you understand".

All Completely accurate as far as it goes. We can't save every one and there are limits to what is possible. Yet, I just got back from Hungary, a little tiny beat up of a country barely out of the grips of the iron curtain, not yet strong enough to even be part of the EU. And surprise surprise they can manage to cover everyone and you know what - they pay less/or about the same taxes and NO, ZERO, NADA property taxes!

And, maybe on planet X people don't get denied health care because the insurance company decides that it's too expensive, but here in the US of A it happens every day, RIGHT NOW to people through private insurance companies! The evidence is all over the web, hell it's all over this board, all you have to do is read it. And the ONLY people who don't actually recognize it as a fact are simply spewing rhetoric.


So if I have my choice in putting my faith in, and I know it's unpopular to the point of a psychosis in this country, Govt. official in whom at least I have some chance in believing that he is trying to do the greatest good with the limited and admittedly flawed system as opposed to the private health care insurance wanker who i KNOW is first and foremost interested in only increasing profit margins at any cost. I'll go with the Govt. and twice on Sunday, because I can always vote the govt official out or change policy.

All I can do with the insurance company is bend over, go broke and die.


FYI- Because it's worth saying OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN

The amount of money the US govt spends RIGHT now on govt funded health care medicaid, medicare, VA per ca pita is as MUCH as 40% then most Europeans spend to cover EVERYBODY from birth to death.


Perhaps what we need to be making clear of all the people on the right who are so opposed to the idea of UHC (in whatever flavour you pick it) is that they are simple and openly saying that the glory days of the US are simply over, that not only can we no longer lead the world in innovation but we can't even keep up anymore despite all the flag waving and jingoism.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think that if people are allowed to make their own end of life choices ahead of time, costs will go down. Even left wing wackjob Newt Gingrich agrees:

http://views.washingtonpost.com/healthcarerx/panelists/2009/07/right-gingrich.html



Of course, this was before he completely abandoned reality and started screaming "DEATH PANELS".

I wonder how much of this is because medicare does not cover long term care. If you need long term care you get something like 60 days of medicare in your whole life, then you are responcible yourself for it, when you run out of money you then qualify for medicaid.

This was always something that got me years ago when home ownership was being pushed for everyone so that they could leave something to their kids, if health care devouers everything you own, how can you leave something to your kids?