“The zeal which begins with hypocrisy must conclude in treachery; at first it deceives, at last it betrays."
Francis Bacon
English Lawyer and Philosopher
1561-1626
“The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity."
Andre Gide
French writer, humanist and moralist,
1947 nobel prize for literature,
1869-1951
This was an instance where I felt it appropriate to say less, and to let the document say it more eloquently in my place.
www.gov.state.ak.us/proclamations.php?id=1094
Health Care Decisions Day
WHEREAS, Healthcare Decisions Day is designed to raise public awareness of the need to plan ahead for healthcare decisions, related to the end of life care and medical decision-making whenever patients are unable to speak for themselves and to encourage the specific use advance directives to communicate these important health care decisions.
WHEREAS, in Alaska, Alaska Statute 13.52 provides the specifics of the advance directives law and provides a model form for patient use.
WHEREAS, it is estimated that only about 20% of the people in Alaska have executed an advance directive. Moreover it is estimated that less than 50% of severely or terminally ill patients have an advance directive.
WHEREAS, it is likely that a significant reason for these low percentages is that there is both a lack of knowledge and considerable confusion in the public about Advance Directives.
WHEREAS, one of the principal goals of Healthcare Decisions Day is to encourage Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Assisted Living facilities, continuing care retirement communities, and hospices to participate in a statewide effort to provide clear and consistent information to the public about advance directives, as well as to encourage medical professionals and lawyers to provide their time and efforts to improve public knowledge and increase the number of Alaskan citizens with advance directives.
WHEREAS. the Foundation for End of Life Care in Juneau, Alaska and other organizations throughout the United States have endorsed this event and are committed to educating the public about the importance of discussing healthcare choices and executing advance directives.
WHEREAS, as a result of April 16, 2008 being recognized as Healthcare Decisions Day in Alaska, more citizens will have conversations about their healthcare decisions; more citizens will execute advance directives to make their wishes known; and fewer families and healthcare providers will have to struggle with making difficult healthcare decisions in the absence of guidance from the patient.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sarah Palin, Governor of the state of Alaska, do hereby proclaim April 16, 2008, as: Healthcare Decisions Day in Alaska, and I call this observance to the attention of all our citizens.
Dated: April 16, 2008
Your assumptions about an end of life social worker whose job it is to end your life because of prohibitive expense is ludicrous KR. (Although I do think you are correct about it being appropriate for the feds to regulate immigration - under another topic.)
ReplyDeleteThe end of life provisions shouldn't be dropped from the bill, and I would not be surprised if they get put back in before a vote.
KR, I would refer you to the article by conservative / republican Newt Gingrich praising the benefits of advance directives and managed end of life care:
ReplyDeletewww.news.washingtonpost.com/helathcarex/panelists/2009/07/right-gingrich
In any case, this is about the hypocrisy of Palin and others who support her 'death panel' claims making contradictory statements.
KR, you don't address those contradictions or the hypocrisy.... why not?
I think there is a big difference between encouraging people to make end of life decisions on their own, while they are healthy, and having a panel of people from the government help you make them when your health is starting to fail. The problem is not with the end of life decisions, it is with who makes them. You or your family will have your best interests in mind, the government employee will be looking to save money. And by the way I would apply the same arguement to an insurance company helping you make those decisions.
ReplyDeleteTtucker, the problem is, there was no provision in the bill for any panel of people, government or otherwise, to help people make end of life decisions. That's a complete lie. Its not that Sarah Palin is uninformed on this issue. I don't believe she's that stupid. She has chosen to lie about it, for whatever gains it will give her political masters.
ReplyDeleteThe bill DID allow for medicare to pay for a physician to have a talk with their patient, IF the patient wanted, about health care proxxies, (i.e. power of attorney), living wills, and other such things.) They were/are not allowed to be paid for those talks by current medicare law, because those talks aren't considered health treatment. Under the bill, once every five years a physician would be able to have a conversation with a patient and be reimbursed for it by medicare.
Hospitals and other health care providers already provide this service to patients, both perfectly healthy ones and those with a terminal illness. It includes, offering them an advanced care directive (living will), do not resuscitate orders, and the like. Living wills, health care proxxies, and other types of directives are legal in all 50 states. While I would MUCH prefer that this counseling be performed by a lawyer to make sure the documents are legally valid, its also true that physicians are the people who will be in touch with their patients and are perhaps best suited to have these discussions.
Regardless of the claims by liars such as Sarah Palin, any attempt to withhold care or to terminate the life of a person (healthy of not) against their will is murder and should be punished as such. I also don't think Sarah Palin or 90% of the people who are telling us about these alleged "death committees" believe it.. its such a ludicrous idea that it belongs in the tin-foil hat crowd.
tt wrote:
ReplyDelete"The problem is not with the end of life decisions, it is with who makes them. You or your family will have your best interests in mind, the government employee will be looking to save money. And by the way I would apply the same arguement to an insurance company helping you make those decisions."
As ToE already explained tt, there is no government employee who is trying to cut costs. There are doctors, there are in some instances lawyers or paralegals who work under the direction of doctors.
It is so ludicrous to imagine that someone, much less a large group of people, would try to enact legislation for 'death panels', or any other kind of government entity that would hasten death. Just the issues of being unconstitutional alone are impossible obstacles.
But in case you are still dubious - the language used in the health care reform bill is essentially identical with the same provisions in private commercial health care now - NOT different. The language in the 2009 health care reform bill provisions are essentially IDENTICAL with those that were included in the last medicaid bill, sponsored and passed by republicans - many of them like Boehner, who voted for and are fully aware that these proposals are no different than what they have voted for before.
The provisions of Palin's proclamation in April 2008 and Bush's similar proclamations in fall of 2007 and 2008 -- again, IDENTICAL proposal and essentialy identical wording as in the 2009 health care reform bill.
THERE ARE NO differences that are being claimed. NONE whatsoever, NADA, RIEN. Go look at the actual language, and then go look at the earlier language.
I am sad to say that I have had more experience with end of life issues in my immediate and extended family than many people have. And I worked in the insurance industry for 15 years, so I have been on the opposite side of the desk in private insurance, including this aspect of private insurance.
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE --- READ IT FOR YOURSELF. What you are objecting to is NOT anything like what has been proposed. It is a red herring, a distraction, a DISHONEST one.
KR wrote:"Sorry, DG, you have been shown to be very much in error, once again."
ReplyDeleteNot perhaps as much in error as you thought KR. While it has been announced that the provision is dropped from the finance committee version, the senate is in recess, so how dropped it is is up in the air. Further, the House Bill continues to have those provisions, and it is through the reconciliation with the house bill that those provisions could remain.
We won't really know how finally dropped it is for awhile yet. I would have addressed this earlier, but I wanted to double check first.
K-Rod said...
ReplyDelete"those contradictions"
*cue X-Files music*
KR, with your providing musical contributions to Penigma, I think we ought to make you our Penigma blog DJ...LOL.
ttucker said...
ReplyDelete"I think there is a big difference between encouraging people to make end of life decisions on their own, while they are healthy, and having a panel of people from the government help you make them when your health is starting to fail. "
tt, I spent some time this past weekend going back to look at the specific language in a series of previously passed, conservative / republican sponsored legislation, most particularly in the 2003 Medicare act, as part of researching my answer to a query over on another blog about alleged death panels.
There are two different sets of language that I think everyone should read for themselves in original source material. The proposals on end of life services, and the proposals on trying to manage costs by looking at ways to evaluate the effectiveness - NOT just cost effectiveness, but rather the MEDICAL effectiveness - of procedures, treatments and medications. This includes evaluating how useful certain testing is for diagnosis and for follow up to evaluate how successfully something has been.
The best condensing and consolidation of this information that I have found so far, after having read most of it in the original, has been by the AARP, the American Association of Retired Persons, one of the most politically active, but NOT politically partisan advocacy and information NGOs around. This is one very savy bunch of old people, they do their homework better than almost anyone, and they inform their membership admirably.
They do NOT emphatically support the mischaracterization advanced by Palin, Limbaugh or Gingrich of the proposed legislation labeled 'obamacare'. Check it out and see what they do support, and why.