Friday, July 31, 2009
Congress / Politics / Woods Fred Thompson Dons the Clown Shoes as Radio Host
Posted by Jeff Woods on Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 5:47 AM
He hasn't seen that bit, of course, because it doesn't exist. McCaughey misrepresents the content of page 425 of the bill. ... In fact, it requires Medicare to cover counseling sessions for seniors who want to consider their end-of-life choices - including whether they want to refuse or, conversely, require certain types of care. The claim that the bill would "push suicide" is a falsehood.Also see: AARP Responds to Health Reform Scare Tactics Thompson should be proud of himself. He's come a long way since 1996, when he received more votes than any previous candidate for any office in Tennessee history. Now for money and radio ratings, he plays to the far-right crank crowd and helps spread lies to scare old people.
Comments (18)
Showing 1-18 of 18
Thompson and McCaughey deserve each other.
I wonder if they know yet about the 450,000 American doctors from non-partisan physicians' organizations who sent a joint letter to Congress this week "in strong support of the planned health care reform plan" and demanding Congress pass this bill in 2009. These are legitimate health care experts, family doctors in the frontlines of health care, not anti-reform lobbyists and spinmeisters who pose as health experts and patient advocates. Here's some of what they said:
"America’s front-line family doctors want you to know what they think about the current dysfunctional health care system and the benefits that could be realized from a system built on primary care.
"Some people believe that patients are better off in today’s disorganized insurance market. We believe that the health care our patients receive will be better within a reformed system. As
physicians and future physicians, we stand in firm support of the patient-centered changes being outlined in Congress. We are confident that the reforms being proposed will allow us to provide better quality care to our patients, while preserving patient choice of plan and doctor.
Continuation of the status quo is a steep pathway to growing cost of and decreased access to quality health care for all Americans. Our patients cannot wait another year, another term, another day."
450,000 doctors can't be wrong. They'd know if the Obama was plan was to euthanize the over-65's and ration care and medicines to their chosen. So, who is America going to trust? 450,000 US doctors, or Bill Thompson and Betsy McCaughey?
These groups signed Congress' letter - so far neither our senators or mainstream media have let on that this is going on, but CNN spent 30 minutes last night interviewing Obama's former physician on his anti-reform criticism of the President!!
American Academy of Family Physicians
American College of Physicians
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Medical Student Association
American Osteopathic Association
Doctors for America
National Physicians Alliance
The details can be found at www.aafp.org
like
dislike
I'm not surprised this is how the right (mis) interprets the clause on page 425 (and I just read it myself). After all, many of the same people spreading this lie publicly insist that including a waiting period or mandatory explanation for abortion is just innocently giving people more information but really want it to stop abortions.
Wow, the lefty leaders of medical groups claim to represent the views of 450,000 doctors and Annemarie pushes the lie.
If they have a political agenda, they are not "non-partisan". They are just another special interest group that lobbies the government.
There are great ways to reform health care without having bean-counters in Washington D.C. calling the shots. Pelosi and Reid block true reform in favor of government control. The public is not buying it.
To: Education Doctor
Apparently you did not read the section in its entirety. Go back and read it again. It is not a lie. The section specifically refers to Advance Care Planning consultations.
Anyone on Medicare will receive counseling every 5 years on end-of-life services (pp 426)including "palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title."
Further, The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items—
‘‘(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;
‘‘(ii) the individual’s desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting;
‘‘(iii) the use of antibiotics; and
‘‘(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.’’. (pp 430).
Basically counseling the patient on how to reduce nutrition and hydration to end your life sooner.
I'm no surprised this is how the Left (mis)interprets things to suit their agenda.
"Preposterous"? Only someone who hasn't bothered to read the bill could possibly say that with a straight face! This awful bill states striaght up that most of the cuts to save money come from Medicare reimpursment and denying care to the elderly. How much more clear can it be to you. Did you know about the quotion that someone will make that takes your age, cost of treatment, and how long you might live and figures out if you are worth saving or not? I would lve to see more people read the bill before calling people who are telling the truth "preposterous" then you might understand how bad this will be for Americans!
C'mon, all the bill does is offer a regular government paid session with a counselor or doctor to set up a living will. And it's a very smart move. It simply allows elderly people to create their own instructions for care should they become incapacitated. To say it promotes killing them is utter bullshit.
To: Pete Kotz,
That would be all well and good were it not for the appointment of persons who are legally capable of making those "living will" decisions for those persons on Medicare.
‘‘(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement for explanations under clause (i) to consultations furnished in a State— ‘‘(I) in which all legal barriers have been addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining treatment to constitute a set of medical orders respected across all care settings; and
‘‘(II) that has in effect a program for orders for life sustaining treatment described in clause (iii).
‘‘(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a States described in this clause is a program that—
‘‘(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;
‘‘(II) distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law) may sign orders for life sustaining treatment;"
(pp 427)
This becomes problematic when a bureaucrat makes those decisions vice the individual or family.
I assume you meant to use the word "versus" and not vice?! How many of you have been with your very frail and elderly loved ones as they slowly pass away? Some of us have seen the person we knew and loved go and all that's left is a body kept artificially functioning. There must be rightful dignity to the very sick and elderly as they transition from this world and that is not offered by just keeping the heart beating.
I think all of us sympathize with the often drawn out suffering of loved ones. However, giving away the freedom to decide such things to an outside individual is a step closer to having no freedom at all. We don't lose freedom all at once, we give it away in little bits and pieces. This legislation is just the first step down a road I don't think most Americans want to go.
And you don't think it doesn't already happen? I know private insurance bureaucrats are NOT any different from the government ones. It's just the government ones have less discretion in extending or denying care without explanation. The nursing home and in-home sitter industries are a disgrace and private insurers just keep paying or denying payment based on their profit margin. It doesn't have a thing to do with individual freedoms.
To RJ: I did read the whole section. And I still don't see how an honest interpretation says it is encouraging people to die earlier.
On page 430, the order about life sustaining that this section is about can say:
"The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions."
All it's doing is encouraging people to write an order to indicate their preference. People who want "full treatment" can still get it.
To: Education Doctor,
The bill does indicate that people who want full treatment can indeed still get it, unless the bureaucracy decides they are not monetarily worth it. The Health Benefits Advisory Committee (pp 30) has ultimate authority over what care you may receive. There are 9 members appointed by the President and 9 members appointed by the Comptroller General (Presidential appointee) and 8 members more that can be appointed additionally (by the President).
Further, the government can limit services provided by physicians. (pp 239)
They also retain the right to disqualify certain (unidentified) plans. (pp 341)
The most chilling aspect is this on page 429:
‘‘(4) A consultation under this subsection may include the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order."
So yes, the government can order death (or non-treatment).
Excellent dialogue, btw.
-break-
To: Sueyyyy,
I meant 'vice' not 'versus'.
Main Entry: vice
Pronunciation: \ˈvīs also ˈvī-sē\
Function: preposition
Etymology: Latin, abl. of vicis change, alternation, stead — more at week
Date: 1770
: in the place of ; also : rather than
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vice[3]
a) Medicare pays for mammograms, but neither Patient John or Fred Thompson is required to get one.
b) Provisions for appointing someone to make decision for a person who can't already exist. It called conservatorship.
I am shocked any Republican would bring up end of life planning, especially a Tennessee Republican.
End of life decisions are very difficult and very complex, especially for those of us who don't have Bill Frist's ability to diagnose brain activity over the television. Seriously making an individual's choices into a political football is what destroyed Frist's career.
Can we assume Fred Thompson has finally paid his wife's old medical bills?
"In 1996, the Davidson County court in Nashville ordered a $900 judgment against Kehn in a case brought by an anesthesiologist, and garnished her wages at a communications company. In 1997, the court ordered a $1,700 judgment against Kehn for unpaid medical bills at Nashville's Baptist Hospital and again ordered her pay garnished. But Kehn had left for another job, and the debt is still listed in court records as unpaid (Washington Post, 2007."
I believe he has Paul Stanley beat to flinders in the hypocrisy sweepstakes.
You might enjoy Peter Singer's article in last Sunday's NY Times, 'Why We Must Ration Health Care':
"Health care is a scarce resource, and all scarce resources are rationed in one way or another."
"President Obama has said plainly that America’s health care system is broken. It is, he has said, by far the most significant driver of America’s long-term debt and deficits. It is hard to see how the nation as a whole can remain competitive if in 26 years we are spending nearly a third of what we earn on health care, while other industrialized nations are spending far less but achieving health outcomes as good as, or better than, ours."
"Estimates of the number of U.S. deaths caused annually by the absence of universal health insurance go as high as 20,000. One study concluded that in the age group 55 to 64 alone, more than 13,000 extra deaths a year may be attributed to the lack of insurance coverage."
"Will Americans allow their government, either directly or through an independent agency like NICE, to decide which treatments are sufficiently cost-effective to be provided at public expense and which are not? They might, under two conditions: first, that the option of private health insurance remains available, and second, that they are able to see, in their own pocket, the full cost of not rationing health care.
Rationing public health care limits free choice if private health insurance is prohibited. But many countries combine free national health insurance with optional private insurance. Australia, where I’ve spent most of my life and raised a family, is one. The U.S. could do something similar. This would mean extending Medicare to the entire population, irrespective of age, but without Medicare’s current policy that allows doctors wide latitude in prescribing treatments for eligible patients. Instead, Medicare for All, as we might call it, should refuse to pay where the cost per QALY is extremely high. (On the other hand, Medicare for All would not require more than a token copayment for drugs that are cost-effective.) The extension of Medicare could be financed by a small income-tax levy, for those who pay income tax — in Australia the levy is 1.5 percent of taxable income. (There’s an extra 1 percent surcharge for those with high incomes and no private insurance. Those who earn too little to pay income tax would be carried at no cost to themselves.) Those who want to be sure of receiving every treatment that their own privately chosen physicians recommend, regardless of cost, would be free to opt out of Medicare for All as long as they can demonstrate that they have sufficient private health insurance to avoid becoming a burden on the community if they fall ill. Alternatively, they might remain in Medicare for All but take out supplementary insurance for health care that Medicare for All does not cover. Every American will have a right to a good standard of health care, but no one will have a right to unrationed health care. Those who opt for unrationed health care will know exactly how much it costs them."
There is some validity in Thompson's crazy statements and it refers to him. We would all be better off if Thompson was put to sleep. Just relax,Fred.Think of your hot wife. Forget that Richard Nixon commented on how dumb you are. Go toward the light, Fred. We love you. Just be quiet, ok.
Annemarie: I am not sure why you stopped with finding out that 450,000 doctors support the bill. First thing that I thought about when I read your post was, I wonder how many Dr. there are in the U.S.A. After investingating this using the census bureau information I found that there are over 42 MILLION doctors in the US. This does not even include the ones that there was not an address on file available, so I am sure that the number is much higher.
After finding this out, I think that your statement of 450,000 drs can't be wrong must be challenged.
I am not saying that I am personally against free health care, I would love it, but we all know nothing is FREE! It will come at a cost to our freedom. Whether we will admit it or not, ideas are no good for any of us without PRACTICAL APPLICATION.
