Actually both.

You're going to want to talk with your Doctor about your options and what they mean for your future & health. If you doctor gives you a craptasitc prognosis then be sure your lawyer, or at the very least, your family knows your wishes should you become incapacitated or unable to speak.

With that said, EVERYONE, should have at least a living will that states what their wishes are given a certain state of health so that it is clear. I've let my wife know, that if I'm like Terry Shiavo, then let me go. She's agreed & wants the same.

My grandmother was deathly ill and my grandparents signed power of attorney to one of my uncles without letting my mother and her other brother know. When my grandmother was at a stage that she was only living off machines, the uncle with power of attorney stated to let her go. That didn't go so well for my other uncle even though his brother was also her doctor. The two don't speak very much because of this.

Death is a crappy subject, but approaching it when you have a clear head and trying not to let emotions get to you is the best way. To fear death is irrational, it's going to happen. Fearing how you die, that's another matter.

A lawyer can't tell you what your medical options are for treatment at the end of life.

The lawyer can give your durable medical power of attorney to a trusted family member or friend however.

This country already has Death Panels. They're called insurance companies.

for Eric, yes a lawyer can tell you exactly what your options are, and can assist you in naming a person to carry out those wishes if you are unable to do that for yourself. Maybe Obama can pay lawyers to talk over these issues as well?

Lawyers are an unnecessary expense in this discussion, all you're doing is filling their pockets. End of Life treatment, and planning are simply ways to ensure that you choose how you go. Not the Doctor, and not some politician. Did the Terri Schiavo incident happen so long ago nobody remembers what happens when your desires/wishes are not written in stone?

There are websites now, and other notaries available to ensure that these desires are followed. Hell, the very first people you should talk to are your immediate family (spouses, children), who better to stick up for you if you're incapacitated. I know certainly, that if my choice was to die, my brother and father would stop at nothing to ensure my wishes were carried out. Period.

What Eric is saying is that a lawyer generally won't be able to tell you all your treatment options MEDICALLY! Doctors will. They can tell you not only your options, but also about the pain and what they can do for that, etc.

People specialize in careers for a reason. You don't take legal advice from a doctor and you don't take medical advice from a lawyer. Twit.

"This country already has Death Panels. They're called insurance companies."

I'm with OhMy999999 on this one.

Janstince - what you are talking about is when a patient is diagnosed with a terminal illness. They are trained and expected to discuss all the options with their patients. It's different than just going to your Primary Care doctor and saying that you want to discuss "end of life" issues. That's what a lawyer could help you do just as well.

Not every patient can communicate by the time this discussion is necessary. Funny thing about preventive care - the earlier it's taken care of, the better it works. Lawyers are great for living wills or powers of attorney. For discussing intubators? Not so much.

So for those of you in the "discuss this with your lawyer only" camp, would you ask your lawyer whether you should prolong your life with treatment? Will your lawyer know what kind of quality of life you will have? Can your lawyer provide pain control? Of course not. Discuss with your lawyer and your doctor.

Sandy --

Attorneys can help you understand how the instrument in your particular state would work, and perhaps weigh-in on the selection of a designee and alternate -- but a physician should explain alternatives to care and "heroic measures" as you say.

States vary in their approach to these instruments. Some states don't recognize living wills, some have "proxies", and others DPAs.

Most forms for this purpose can be found on-line, and if you feel you understand what it is you want for yourself in the way of healthcare when you can't make those decisions -- take the forms to your physician and work with him/her to get them completed.

Sandy, in the case of a person facing a terminal illness, no - the lawyer will not know the details. But the question at hand is whether the government needs to pay your doctor to do what he already does: explain the diagnosis, your prognosis, the options for treatment, the percentages of success, the pain involved, etc. and then listen to your wishes. I would say any specialist who isn't trained or willing to do that with their patient needs more than a government incentive to do so.

lmao How fitting that someone with the user name kstarr as in Kenneth Starr would push for a lawyer.

Seriously though a lawyer could be a great help if there is already trouble in the family with a spouse that would rather see you dead than alive. He may be able to help remove the medical decisions from a spouse you don't trust to make those decisions in your best interest. It certainly could help resolve the difference of opinion between a spouse and doctor.

My father made it known to us that he did not want to live under constant care and probably told the doctor because he never lived long after going into the hospital for test. That doctor gave him a wrong diagnosis once, what if the diagnosis was wrong again and he died needlessly?

RABInd

"This country already has Death Panels. They're called insurance companies."

I'm with OhMy999999 on this one.

Me too.

I agree that talking to your doctor about end of life treatment options is a good thing.

To those that fear that health care will be rationed, it already is. Watch the movie "As Good as it Gets" to see a great portrayal of how health care is rationed in this country.

It's being rationed whenever you have to wait a week or more to get an appointment with your doctor for routine matters, it's rationed when you get triaged at the emergency room and have to wait hours for treatment, and it's rationed when the elderly can't afford proper care even with Medicare, supplemental insurance and the prescription drug plan.

The Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas don't have these problems and never will.

kstarr,

With all due respect, although payment for end-of-life counseling was addressed in the article, it was not the only issue addressed, and is therefore not the only question at hand. It does seem to be the issue on which you have fixated. I responded to a comment stating that one should discuss such issues with one's lawyer, excluding one's doctor. I stated my disagreement with that statement, and my reasons for doing so.

those of you who insist on having this discussion with only your doctor are assuming that the average person has a "doctor" that he sees regularly enough to have this discussion with. ---- there are many people, including myself, who do not have a regular physician --- i have not seen a doctor since 1070. ---- i have, however, had legal papers drafted, that i carry a copy of, that deal with my wishes in the event of an end-of-life situation.

Sandy - my comments directed at your post addressed the fact that the questions you asked were not relevant in every case. Of course a lawyer cannot discuss pain management, but a lawyer can address what your personal wishes are in regard to end of life wishes in general. The basic idea of this regulation is for patients to address their end of life wishes. A lawyer can facilitate that. A doctor can facilitate that and they shouldn't charge you to discuss this during a regular visit. The only reason they want Medicare to pay for this is because they are cutting so much as it is they know a doctor may not take the time with a Medicare patient if the government doesn't pay them to do it.

kstarr,

What about patients who have not been diagnosed with a terminal illness, but merely wish to seek counseling with their doctor regarding the possibility, not during a regular visit? Should the doctor provide counseling without compensation? Does their lawyer? No.

I never claimed that my questions were relevant to every case. You have decided that we are only discussing patients with a diagnosed terminal illness, and they certainly apply to that situation. If you are going to limit the discussion to a particular circumstance, then you cannot dismiss someone's comments because they do not apply to all situations.

In my state, all EMTs and ER personnel want to see a living will form, printed on orange paper and signed by you and your doctor. You can show them a living will drawn up by a lawyer, witnessed and notarized, but unless it's a one page form printed on orange paper, the EMTs and ER personnel are going to try to revive you. You can download this form from the the state's website, or get it from your doctor, who also signs the document. So -- where I live, at any rate -- it's far more productive to discuss this issue with your doctor than your lawyer.

susan ---- but what about those individuals, such as myself, who do not have a doctor ?? ----- i don't believe that it comes under the perview of a physician to draft an end-of-life request ---- that's what lawyers are for. ----- talking with your doctor about this subject is fine, but only given two assumptions ---- #1, that you have a regular physician, and #2, you seldom travel very far from home.

the whole point of having a living will, is because the odds are too great that by the time you are hospitalized with a life-threatening situation, you might not be sufficiently coherent to make any choice. ----- the whole idea is to have this discussion with yourself way ahead of time, and then have a lawyer put your wishes into a living will.---- and then, make certain there are more than one copy, just in case a relative, or someone else, gets strange ideas about what THEY think is best.

doctors are pretty smart, but i think lawyers are better at devising strategy for a multitude of scenarios.

Actually, ronpal, there is a pretty good chance that you will have time to discuss your end-of-life care with a doctor, if you choose to do so. Most people don't die suddenly and without a diagnosed chronic condition. Yes, by all means, discuss your wishes with a lawyer and your family, and put them in writing in accordance with the laws of your state. But those with chronic or terminal conditions would do well to discuss treatment options ahead of time with a personal physician, as well. Perhaps a patient has a chronic condition which goes through periods of exacerbation from which recovery is possible, at least to some extent. A lawyer would not know this.

ah ---- but that's the trick ---- i, and many people like me, do not have personal physicians ---- i have not seen a doctor since 1970. ---- based on the type of end of life situations common to my family, the odds are pretty good i'll never have that experience. ---- so.... barring being in an accident or something, it's not an issue i keep in mind daily, but i did do the living will with a couple of scenarios in mind, just in case. ----- i travel too much to have what most people would call a personal physician.

Well, ronpal, that's your choice, and I believe it is an unwise one. Just because YOU choose not to seek routine medical care, does not mean such a course of action is wise for everyone. That seems to be your only reason for advising against discussion with a physician - the fact that you do not have one. Well, that, and your conviction that your death will be sudden, which is not the case for most people, regardless of family medical history.

how would i have a regular physician when i'm constantly traveling ??? ---- what do you expect a person to do --- have a doctor in every area he/she happens to be in ??

You mean you have no home at all? Then I could see the difficulty. However, the fact that you don't have a physician doesn't make it advisable for everyone, nor does it make it advisable to exclude their physicians from discussions regarding end-of-life care.

Hi,

First Google "The Five Wishes." The information is very educational and easy to understand.

As a hospice nurse, who is certified in hospice and palliative care, I have been involved in several situations, where the patient has not expressed their wishes, when and if they cannot speak for themselves. The patients were considered terminal and their prognosis is as follows: Life expectancy, to be six months or less. This prognosis is given by the patients doctor but, he/she is not involved, in the patients Living Will. The doctor is responsible for following, your written wishes.

First you do not need a doctor or an attorney to make out a Living Will. You can declare your end-of-life wishes, by yourself.

Everyone can and should,put their end-of-life, wishes, in writing, as soon as you are considered an adult or capable , of making your own decisions. There is no need for a doctor to be involved because, you may be perfectly healthy but involved in an accident or have a "Sentinel Event" that would incapacitate you mentally or physically.

You want to educate yourself on possible treatment, therapies and procedures, that are preformed, to prolong your life.

Do you want a feeding tube?This is a tube place surgically into your stomach, to provide nutrition and fluids.

Do you want to be placed on a ventilator, if you cannot breath on your own? This would eventually be made permanent by a surgical procedure called a tracheotomy.

There are several other options to be considered by your doctors will need to educate you loves ones or Durable Power Of Attorney, (DPOA). This is a person of your choosing, who will be responsible in making sure, your wishes are followed.

Most importantly, you must reiterate your wishes, for end-of-life care, to everyone! Family and friends alike. Make sure your loved ones are well versed on you wishes.

Your doctor is responsible for explaining your prognosis and the quality of life, you could experience, if you were to remain in a vegetative state.

Hospice is care is provided, when a patient is not expected to live longer than six months, according to the doctors prognosis.

I cannot stress enough, educate yourself and your family on what you want done, if you are mentally or physically unable to convey yuor wishes, for end-of-life.

Your doctor is responsible for explaining your prognosis and the quality of life, you could experience, if you were to remain in a vegetative state.

That is what I've been saying. You're saying that you don't need a doctor. I agree, you can make an Advanced Directive without a doctor to direct your care in case of an accident or sudden illness which leaves you incapacitated. But in the case of a terminal disease or chronic disease which is not now but may become terminal, you should be talking to your doctor.

Hi Sandy:

My point was to educate people about Living Wills. Of course, one needs a doctor, if/when a person cannot act, in their own behalf. But you do not need a doctor, to create a living will. Look up The Five Wishes. I admit, I have not read them myself, for awhile but basically, a living will is meant, to explain your what care you want, when you are critically injured or terminally ill.

Your doctors responsibility enters, when the family needs, to know the patients prognosis. For example, a person becomes comatose, after a head injury. Your doctor, then explains the patients medical status and recommends treatments. So, if the patient cannot breath, without the need, of a ventilator and has no brain activity; the MD could recommend, keeping the patient alive, by using a ventilator or, starting a tube feeding or Perinteral feedings, (TPN/IV), etc. When one writes their living will, they need to state, "if I in a vegetative state or cannot speak for myself," I do not want, whatever..... Or I do want whatever.

A doctor is needed to educate the family, friends re: when a medical condition occurs, where the patient is unable to speak, for themselves. Family are given options such as, to continue the patients care or not. The living will literally, takes the responsibility away from the family or DPOA, if they choose, to follow your wishes. I realize it is confusing that is where doctors and nurses need to provide education regarding all options, for end-of-life care.

Take,

Again, this discussion includes, but is not limited to, sudden incapacitation. A living will does not address whether terminally ill cancer patients receive chemo to prolong life, or whether those with end-stage renal disease should receive dialysis when there is no hope of recovery via transplantation. The patient's medical doctor is better able to determine what quality of life the patient will have. Some cancer patients receive palliative chemo or radiation treatment, knowing they will not ultimately be cured but can be given more time with their loved ones. Most patients with chronic or terminal diseases are not mentally incapacitated, at least when initially diagnosed. The living will is only in effect when the patient is unable to make decisions on their own behalf.

I agree, everyone should have a living will, and should name a medical power of attorney. This saves heartache for the family should the need arise to decide whether to maintain heroic measures to prolong life. But a living will does not address all end-of-life medical decisions, nor was it intended to do so.

note the republican governor of AZ started her own death panel by stopping transplant surgery And every for profit health provider has an office full of lawyers whose only purpose is to deny paying out any money for claims

Steve, this allows payment for this service once per year. People won't talk about end of life decisions until they are at the end of their life. If they do want to talk prior, fine, then things are arranged and they don't stay on aggressive medical treatment which costs more money.

In truth, they have been getting paid for it, as you have to have an office visit anyway.

Steve you make a great point, the Dr's article claimed some doctors are afraid to have this discussion? I highly doubt that. Sure if you offer to pay them they will be happy to do it, but I've never heard of a doctor charging a patient to talk about their options in end of life circumstances. This is simply a way to grease the wheels for doctors to make this a priority so Obamacare can save some money on caring for the terminally ill.

For once can we drop the rhetoric crap, its smart to plan ahead who wants to have low quality of life when you can no longer enjoy it. This is not left versus right this is about human dignity and the right to decide ones life. A doctor should be consulted ahead of time to discuss all your options then a lawyer ratify it in your will. Its time to move on to the 21st century and drop all this religious crap once and for all.

What an idiotic post! any time you are at the doctor's office, no matter what the reason, you pay for it. "Dumocrats?" Typical Right Wing name calling.......never facts, just trash talk. Go back and watch Glenn Beck........

Judi, I noted the 'typical left wing name calling" of anyone you disagree with. Anyone you disagree with must watch Glenn Beck huh?

Beck believes in a religion, founded by a man, who was run out of every town, he ever lived in and finally killed by a mob. He believed Jesus spoke to him and wrote down a newer testament on special stones, which he could decipher by looking into a special box. He would them, dictate these to his personal assistant. To be born again, into this religion, takes a real nut job. To each his own but Beck is a cry baby, conspiracy theorist and self-aggrandizing buffoon. Anyone, who believes the wacko crap, he is espousing has no one to thank but themselves.

@kstarr1: I'd say that saying things like "Dumocrats" and "Obamacare" trigger that response in everyone. Bad karma begets bad karma

This is a great idea. A doctor explaining what will happen next and what the realistic options are when someone is terminally ill is not guaranteed -- my father didn't get that conversation when he was dying of lung cancer, and he wanted it. Instead, he got a doctor who was "too busy" to explain things to him. If paying the doctor for that 10 minute talk is what it takes to get it, then go for it -- the money saved by not fighting the inevitable with expensive treatments that are guaranteed to fail stays in the pockets of the patient instead of being consumed by our wasteful medical system.

Actually, kstarr, suggesting a conservative might listen to a conservative talking head is not name calling. It may be unfair stereo-typing, but it is not name calling. The term "Dumocrats" is, actually, name calling. Had Judi called them "Glenn Beck-er Heads" or some such, now that would be name calling. Does that clear things up for you?

saddened - nope - same thing either way. An intended insult is an intended insult.

Phoneuser - why would you send your poor father to a doctor who wouldn't give him the time of day? Maybe you do need the government to hold your hand.

What this provision actually does is allow Medicaid to pay for the line item on your bill that reads "end of life counseling." This has always been offered, but rarely covered by insurance. If more patients knew that this was covered then more patients would use it and potentially save billions in unnecessary and unwanted treatments.

Holy @!$%#, people - some of you need to get a @!$%#ing grip.

This debate over "death panels" has been so ridiculous, unnecessary, toxic, and wasteful, and all because some cry babies needed a political football to kick around. Then they cried that Washington never focused on jobs. Well perhaps if these whiners had simply allowed reasonable legislation to be quickly passed, we could have come to the economy a lot sooner. You can't throw a monkey wrench into the gears and then cry that the machine works too slowly!

I am not one hundred percent for paying them. I think requiring the conversation is great, perhaps in conjunction with an annual check up. I do believe the intent is to get more people to complete advance directives. By oath, doctors will do everything they can to preserve life unless directed otherwise by your desires. That is where the cost savings comes in to play. It costs a lot to keep a person on life support for extended periods of time. Not to mention saving your family the agony of having to guess what you may have wanted and having nightmares about their decision afterwards.

I don't know about your doctor, Steve, but none of the doctors that I have ever met will work for free. Nor do people want to pay for something truly painful to talk about, as radagast notes. However, this was not designed to get people to talk; I believe that it provides an incentive for doctors to encourage the conversation with patients who are hesitant to talk about it. I wish that my father had had this talk with his doctor; when I was 32, I had to make the decision and sign the form to pull the plug on him. It didn't matter that he was comatose and, clinically, brain dead (or so, the doctors said), it was that it took 20 minutes after the machine was turned off for my father to die; and, living with the memory that I was the one who ultimately killed him.

...I was the one who ultimately killed him.

Or saved him.

kstarr1: "Phoneuser - why would you send your poor father to a doctor who wouldn't give him the time of day? Maybe you do need the government to hold your hand."

What a stupid thing to say. You know absolutely nothing about the situation, yet you seem to think you're making a comment worth reading. It wasn't. Move along, you're wasting our time here.

Phone - it didn't seem to waste your time at all, you even took the time to reply.

the problem isn't the idea, but the way our president has decided to ignore the law he pushed through and accomplish by regulatory fiat what he wanted. And this is just the beginning. Now that there is a divided congress, expect our illustrious prez to push his agenda through executive order and regulations. The sooner he's gone, the better.

Steve--

"What this really amounts to is the dumocrats buying votes".

Name calling aside, if democrats wanted to "buy votes" they sure are picking a grim method of doing so, and the fact that some of these folks might be planning for their own death could mean they would not be voting at all.

I can hear the chorus of democrats now -- "yeah, I'm definitely voting democrat in the next election now that I have end-of-life planning".

Please....

You must have a hell of an insurance policy that your Doctor sits and talks with you, the rest of us don't make two payments on our doctors yacht each time we visit. we get ten minutes and then its on to the next patient, and as for cost Obama care (as the Right Nuts like to call it) will save money so says GAO

For the most part, doctors weren't doing it. For that matter, they still probably won't. One of their office staff will do it.

From under what rock did you crawl? Forty percent of Medicare currently pays for folks in their last year of life, and in many cases that last year is pure, unmitigated hell. The point to talking to a physician is to explore the options open to you that meet your own requirements. For many physicians, death is NOT an option on their watch, and they will spend gobs of resources to extend the life of someone who is terminal just to add more time to the calendar.

The other problem is that, like Terry Schiavo, I might have family who want me kept alive when I, in my comatose state and with no hope of any recovery, would rather die and save what financial resources I might have left for my spouse and children.

And I'm a conservative, which is the whole point. I'm trying to conserve what I have.

kstarr1

Phone - it didn't seem to waste your time at all, you even took the time to reply.

I for one keep reading with the hope you'll say something intelligent.

Seriously though, this is a discussion about whether to pay a doctor to have a conversation about your options if you're diagnosed with a terminal illness. Anyone that has ever went to a doctor knows they try to get as many patience into his office in a day as possible and will not spend any "unnecessary time" with a patient when he has three others waiting for his service. If setting up an appointment just to "talk" about your options in medical care is required then it needs to be done and paid for by Medicare if the patient has that coverage. Most people that understands their situation and have their life in order will choose to let nature run it's course. That would save more money in the long run by not having unwanted medical treatment. Compare $100 for a doctor consultation to $100,000 for unwanted treatment.

The doctors making 250K aren't the problem, the multibillion dollar companies they work for are. Most doc's with their own practice make a lot more but pay most of it in malpractice insurance premiums because of all the lawyers and greedy patients playing the lawsuit lottery.

If only these doctors could have gotten the basketball through the hoop consistently, they could have made much, much more.

cele2000

the problem isn't the idea, but the way our president has decided to ignore the law he pushed through and accomplish by regulatory fiat what he wanted. And this is just the beginning. Now that there is a divided congress, expect our illustrious prez to push his agenda through executive order and regulations. The sooner he's gone, the better.

I believe your opinion of the present president is much better than my opinion of the last president that said the Constitution was just a goddamn piece of paper and going into Iraq to break the bank of the U.S. Now the "conservatives" are worried about spending. What a misnomer the word conservative is when used with GOP.

oh larry - reading your posts it's obviously not intelligence you are looking for here. You just want someone to agree with you.

If that was your experience, RetiredRN, then I have to say that it's outrageous that anyone other than the doctor would talk with a patient about end-of-life planning. Certainly I have only discussed my needs -- and my mother's (for whom I have Medical Power of Attorney) -- with our doctor. I wouldn't dream of discussing it with office staff, or even the nurse or physician's assistant. My doctor is the one who knows me and can advise me, not the office staff.

@dan42day

I laughed when I read "If only these doctors could have gotten the basketball through the hoop consistently, they could have made much, much more."

So true. Thanks for the chuckle. People are mad at doctors for making "so much money" for working 18hour days and helping people. I don't understand.

Regarding end-of-life care, my doctor has taken the time to discuss this with his patients regardless of whether or not he has been able to receive payment. He is a family practice doctor because he cares about people and wants to serve. I am glad to see that he will be reimbursed for the time it takes to have this very important discussion. It makes sense that the patient's insurance would pay for the discussion instead of the doctor paying for it with his time. I also know that he would never pass this very personal important dialogue off onto his nurse or other staff. What Susan1647008 said is very true.

Wake up Steve doctors have not been discussing this with their patient this conversation is usually addressed by the nursing staff asking the question to either the patient or family. The reason for this is that they need to know if go down do they run with paddles or not. If you are in the end stage of any terminal illness I would bet my last dollar that the doctor is not talking to you but to a family member say there really isn't much we can do. This converation should have taken place long before this.

Doctors getting paid for this service is another issue and I'm not sure how I feel about that at this point. But, if you believed that you were already being provided this service you were mistaken.

It's not socialism, its prevention, so you don't get care that you don't want.

The system as it stands now treats you at the "gold standard" unless you say differently.

Nothing got crammed down anyone's throat. If you don't want to talk to your doctor about the end of your life...don't.

Its not socialist its modernist its the future. Americans have no clue what socialism is you call anything that is not outright capitalism socialism. When did you ever see dr mckoy on star trek ask for insurance before he treated a person or alien for that fact lol.

Jim from Dallas, huh? Well, that explains the stupid post.

Blah! Blah! Blah! We have heard all of your belly-aching before. And that's all it is. Death panels exist in private industry today. Your insurance company can (and should at times) deny treatment. If you have terminal lung cancer should you then have heart bypass surgery that might extend your life a few days? Shouldwe extend everyone's life as far as medically possible while ignoring quality of life? Of course the answer is no.

But because of your anti-government bias you will allow private insurance to make such determinations but not anyone related to governments. But of course if the Tea Party/GOP ever ruled you would once again love your government. A fair weather citizen is what that makes you. I accepted the fact that Bush was my President, didn't like it, worked for eight years to remove him. But those on the Left who called him a dictator were just as foolish as you are with your views on Obama. He was a poor leader in the end. No more needs to be said.

You and so many others have developed such a hatred of this President you can't view any discussion with impartiality. Then you make irrational arguments and false charges based on insinuations. What a ridiculous statement to say that no one is in favor of end of life counseling. Ask Sarah Palin, she supported the very same in her brief tenure as Gov. of Alaska. The same Sarah Palin who snuck across the border to obtain socialized medicine. A hypocrite by definition.

Personally I have a living will that should clear up any misconceptions about my desires. No ventilator, no stomach pump, no artificial means of life support. Took me about a half hour. Cannot understand why anyone would fail to do this easy task?

Ah, Judi - more name calling I see? "Typical".

Again, kstarr, you don't seem to understand what the term "name calling" actually means. She used the name the poster used for himself, so, no name calling there. She did call it a stupid post. Had she called the poster stupid, that would be name calling. Identifying a post as stupid is a judgement of the quality of the comment. Was it "nice" to deem the post stupid... perhaps not. But again, NOT name calling.

again, saddened - same difference.

kstarr1,

I'm sorry that some people enjoy precision and accuracy more than you. It is comforting that some people still like the simplicity of broad generalities and 'same differences'.

MNW, no - it's more like people tend to nit-pick when they disagree with your opinion, that's all it is.

Saddened --

Valiant effort above with kstarr. Alas, wasted.

Judi's post was unnecessary though (and I could not help thinking of a similar comment--she beat me to it).

kstarr1 - your entire opinion since your initial comment is winning about name calling- then you go around and tone-police everyone. If people are making valid points in a 'mean' way then more power to them. Name-calling (actual name calling like Steve did with "dumocrats" and "idiots") is not an argument (though it may accompany one) and thus should be discouraged. To name call de-rails discussion and fundamentally different then disagreeing with someone, even while being disagreeable.

kstarr1

MNW, no - it's more like people tend to nit-pick when they disagree with your opinion, that's all it is.

Will you read your own comment and tell me what you're doing different? Aren't you nit-picking because you disagree with the opinion of someone else?

Larry - no, just pointing out Judi's hypocrisy .... or is it her double standard. Someone who disagrees with my opinion will surely correct me.

Emily, that was some funny stuff. Did you make that up all by yourself?

Jim:

I'm fine with doctors discussing the situation facing the patient, but once government steps in to foot the bill, then you can't trust the doctor. Are there kickbacks for talking someone in to pulling the plug? Why can't this socialist admin stay out of our lives. It was pulled from the healthcare bill originally becuase no one was in favor of this and the congress opened their eyes, for once, to the voices of the people, and now he is trying to sneak it in under the radar. Amazing the lengths he will go to to cram what he wants down the throats fo the american people.

If you can't trust your doctor when the government is paying him, then why can you trust your doctor when an insurance company is paying him? Remember that the insurance companies make their profits by NOT paying for medical care - and they have literally let their customers die by refusing to pay for their treatment. It's not just something that "might" happen, it's something that HAS happened, over and over again.

No, there aren't kickbacks for talking someone into pulling the plug.

And actually, there were lots of people in favor of having Medicare pay for end of life counseling. It wasn't until Sarah Palin LIED about "death panels" that people were against it, and most of those people never understood what it was for in the first place.

The right wing started the lie "government take over of health care".

There is no government involvement other than payment. It's you and your doctor.

"no government involvement... but" thanks Eric.

Right. Let's just keep the subject all hush hush and leave the burden to family members to try to make decisons for us with no prior knowlege of what we would like.

kstarr1 -

You know what? I find it hi-larious that so many of these people hold up signs saying "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!" I mean, do you get the disconnect? Do you see what you're saying? Or is this just another one of those delusions? Are you delusional?

Tom, who said anything about "keeping the subject all hush hush"? Do you need the government's permission to have this conversation with your doctor? I don't. Nor do I need them to pay my doctor. Nobody does. Just ask, they will answer - it's their job.

Jan, I find it hi-larious that nobody has said any such thing, yet you have imagined they did. Are you claiming that because a person is in the Medicare program that all of their decisions must be cleared through the government? Even when they die?

"What many of us object to is just this: Government involved in our health decisions."

I'll tell you what I object to: People who complain about strawman arguments and then go ahead and make them themselves.

Where does it say that a person's end of life decisions have to be cleared thru the government?

kstarr1,

Again, your doctor must be a wonderful person who works for free. That's great for you. Unfortunately, others are required to pay for counseling from their doctors, and cannot afford it. Since it saves us all a fortune in court costs and lawyer fees and hospital administration to cover it under Medicare, that makes pretty clear sense to most of us.

blueunicorn, Jan posted some babble about people on Medicare griping about the government staying out of their business. I'm just saying that when someone is in the Medicare system they don't give up their rights. I wasn't sure she knew that.

kstarr1,

Thanks to conservatives, aside from ER care and Medicare participation within the guidelines, Americans don't HAVE rights in regards to medical care. I'm not sure you know that.

MNW - what rights are you referring to, if you accept that ER care and Medicare exist?

You said that people don't 'give up their rights' - I was pointing out that, when it comes to health care, people have far fewer rights than you might be aware. You should also be aware that millions of your fellow Americans consider health care to be a right that everyone should have access to, and should have many more rights on besides that. I hope you're not like many conservatives, who believe that you're always on the side of people's 'rights' - many of us liberals actually want to give people MORE rights on health care, if so many conservatives wouldn't insist that health care should be a product and too bad for anyone who can't afford whatever people choose to charge for it.

kstarr1 -

Firstly, it's HE. Thank you very much.

Secondly, what signs have you been reading? I've seen old people with signs saying that crap on television and in person.

And who is "clearing" the end-of-life decisions in the government? Medicare already determines what is and is not covered, just like private insurance. The counseling isn't going to do anything but inform the patient of what their options are for medical treatment.

Calling this a "death panel" is tantamount to calling homeopathy "medicine."

radagast - what part of this Government Regulation did you miss?

ok MNW you went from "don't have rights" to " have fewer rights than you think". Fact is you have the right to be treated if the facility is equipped to provide you the care you need. What's your beef?

Janstince- lolz about homeopathy- burn

No, kstarr1, I said that we don't have rights aside from ER care and Medicare, and then you went on to talk about "other rights" we supposedly had that you didn't bother specifying (as is normally the case with you, as far as I've seen on here). My beef is that we don't have nearly enough rights on health care as we should, and it's people like you that are the reason for that. A capitalist for-profit health system has failed, and all we're doing now is wasting time waiting for people like you to catch up with that simple truth.

@kstarr1, you're living in a fantasy world if you believe " Fact is you have the right to be treated if the facility is equipped to provide you the care you need." You evidently haven't had the need for a test only to have your insurance company to tell you that "it's not a covered service". Oh yeah, if you want to spend the money out of your own pocket for a heart transplant then you have the right but ordinary people don't have the money for expensive services that the insurance provider says "is not a covered service" so if I were you I would think twice before talking out the wrong orifice.

kstar1 I have been reading your post and wonder what world you are from."Sarcasm"

The only death panels are in corporate offices where rooms full of health care lawyers are busy finding new ways to deny payment to their customers

When I called 9-1-1 for my child last year, I didn't get to specify which ambulance showed up. I did get to pay the $650 out-of-pocket fees that the insurance company wouldn't pay, because the "type" of ambulance used was "not a covered service". I guess we should have just loaded her blue and stiff from a non-stop seizure into the minivan.

Yes, the strategy is to keep hospitals, mostly corporations, in the GREEN !

cost-cutting measures by way of getting granny to kick the bucket - nice!

I hope you are just speaking out of cynicism and ignorance. when end-of-life conversations fail to happen, then your life, and your death, become nothing more than a doomed-to-failure science experiment. anything that will get doctors and patients and families having discussions about how they want the end of their life to play out is a good thing. because the sad truth is, once you are sitting in a hospital, with specialist after specialist coming in trying to figure out how to keep you alive, very few doctors are going to tell you honestly that it's time to give in and accept that your time is nearly over. very few doctors are willing to brave the wrath or other rush of emotions that greet them, from patients and families who are unready or unwilling to face the truth.

hospitals and doctors make money from you being in the hospital receiving treatment. they don't make jack off of you going home on hospice to die in peace. so quit trying to bully people into NOT having a conversation they are afraid to have anyway, by making it into an issue of money for the evil corporations. is that(money) really all that is important in this issue?

Allie, who is bullying anyone out of having a conversation with their doctor? The only objection is government thinking it needs to be involved, that's all. You crack me up with your "evil corporation" schtick.

kstarr1-do you not understand what is being said by folks you don't agree with? Because you don't agree with them, they must be Democrats, socialists, blah, blah.

The fact is that hospitals and doctors make more money by keeping people on life support, as long as the insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid pay.

If you don't want to have the discussion with your doctor, don't. Nobody, the government included, can force anyone to do it.

The law is just to make sure that it can happen if you want it to.

Nixon approved of the early HMOs, which did decline to pay treatment for many people, especially cancers. There are all kinds of cases where women with breast cancer were cancelled on their insurance for minor errors on their applications, or minor errors on forms submitted by their doctors. People DIED so that the insurance companies could protect their bottom line, and the CEOs could get their fat bonuses.

We have to have someone to protect us from the greed of big business, and unfortunatley, that leaves it to the government. Perhaps you are aware of some other agency who will do this?

And the government isn't paying for it.

blueunicorn, I haven't called anyone a socialist, or even a blueunicorn. I have only been trying to make it clear that those of us who oppose this regulation are only opposed to the government paying a doctor a special fee to do this. Any good doctor in this country will do this as part of any annual visit and most specialists are trained to discuss with terminal patients all of their options. Please stop putting words in my mouth that I do not say. Get your facts straight.

kstarr1,

Counseling sessions are not free from many doctors. If you are going to require others to have their fact straight, it would be advisable to do the same. Whether doctors should offer this service for free or not is not an issue that the government can act on (and conservatives would oppose it if they tried). I've seen 'counseling' charges on my grandparents' medical bills many, many times.

MNW - probably not end of life counseling if it's "on your grandparents' medical bills many, many times"

kstarr1,

It's all kinds of counseling - everything from end of life (which yes, they've had to pay for) to counseling regarding the results of their tests (yes, the doctor charged them to find out what their tests said), to counseling regarding what tests they should have (yes, the same tests he charged them to get the results of). There are very few regulations about what doctors have to give for free, and that's thanks to conservatives.

Now you are just b.s.ing. We need to design a special government program for you and your grandparents so that they can decide to look for a new doctor.

kstarr1,

I'm not saying this applies to you, but I've noticed that many conservatives have tunnel vision on this issue. "I have health insurance and a great doctor and access to all the doctors I could want that do things exactly the way I think they should, so everyone else must too." That's not you, I hope. You'd be terribly wrong if you thought that, so I'm sure that it's not the case.

kstarr1

Allie, who is bullying anyone out of having a conversation with their doctor? The only objection is government thinking it needs to be involved, that's all. You crack me up with your "evil corporation" schtick.

Who the hell is saying the government is getting involved? It appears to me that you're so far to the right that you think the government is demanding that people have a consultation with the doctor whether they want to or not. That is not the case or the issue. The issue is whether a consultation with a doctor should be a covered service.

You argue that the doctor does this all the time but you're wrong. Most doctors don't take the time and will try to end the visit as soon as possible. If you ask them a question they get aggravated with you. Been there many times with the spouse and don't make an idiotic statement about changing doctors because in the real world that's a limited option since many won't take new patients.

why does the government need to pay for it, haven't heard a good reason for this yet.

Because it costs money, the program needs specially trained doctors, nurses, and lawyers with the time to handle the personal nature of the program. In the perfect world this would be done out of respect and care for the patient. But when a hospital is looking for places to cut costs, guess which service doesn't currently bring any money in.

Gunderson Lutheran piloted this program and saw costs go down and patient satisfaction go up. The program costs millions a year to maintain. The hospital doesn't see a dime of the savings they produce for medicare whiling costing them millions.

kstarr: Medicare will cover this counseling service as part of the preventive care benefit. This is important because the medical profession is facing even more cuts in what Medicare will allow for services rendered. End of life care discussions shouldn't be held as a 2-minute addendum to some other visit. The topic is something that deserves time and careful thought. Why should doctors be expected to, in effect, donate their time in order to have these medically appropriate discussions with their patients?

In many ways, having a clear end of life directive may actually lessen government involvement. What happens when Grandpa is in a coma at the end of a long life and Grandchild A says Gramps wanted to die a peaceful, natural death, but Grandchild B says no, do everything to keep Gramps breathing on a tube. Without a clear statement from Gramps, that's where courts often get involved. With more education, including a preventive care visit where options may be discussed, maybe more people will leave clear instructions and save family members such agonizing decisions.

I'd say that would be money well spend paying for that visit.

Jared, it costs money for a doctor to talk to you? Do they get paid by the word?

CJ - yes I know Medicare will cover it, last I checked, that's a government program.

Believe it or not kstarr1, people's time is worth money. Every die hard republican should agree with that

Jared, I noticed you didn't quite answer the question, you must be a diehard democrat.

Doctors don't get paid by the word, but they do get paid for their time and services. Why should this be any different? Because the topic of end-of-life realities makes you uncomfortable, doctors should not be compensated for sharing their time and expertise with patients? Why should this discussion be any different than time spent talking cholesterol counts and the value of weight loss? Or are you suggesting doctors shouldn't be paid for that, either? Some capitalist you've turned out to be! You want services from professionals for nothing.

And, as someone pointed out above, this is a serious discussion that deserves its own time and place to be had. It is not something that should be tacked on to the end of the diagnosis visit or check up. How much worse would that be? "Sorry, Mr Smith. Your cancer is inoperable and you have maybe 6 months to live. Now... before you go home to deal with that, let's talk about your end-of-life decisions..." That's why there needs to be a separate appointment for this discussion -- and, yes, doctors ought to be paid for their time and services -- time taken out of their schedule that could be spent performing procedures that they would otherwise be paid for.

saddened - they already do this - a patient goes for their annual check up and they talk about it or if they become terminally ill they ask their specialist what their options are and then let them know their wishes. No extra charge to do that.

kstarr1,

Many doctors do not offer unlimited consultation for free - and if they do, the most they will do is refer people to a lawyer on this question. You have to get information from them during an office visit, which is not free, and they will not give you unlimited time, because they have to get to other appointments.

If your doctor will answer an unlimited number of questions for you at any time for free, then lucky you - you have a wonderful doctor. Others are not so fortunate.

I've never met or heard of a doctor who would not talk to a patient about their concerns. Where is the outcry from people who can't get a discussion from their doctor?

Conservatives and Republicans can't hear it - it comes from poor people.

kstarr, pilot it in a few different hospitals around the country, I guarantee increased patient satisfaction and lower medical costs

Jared, I want a pilot program to see if paying teachers a special fee to teach a child to read will improve literacy. Can you help me out with that too?

kstarr1,

So...your argument is...if we pay doctors to inform their patients, they'll do it, like paying teachers to teach children to read..and these things are a...problem?

I'm saying that as a typical liberal your answer to everything is a government program. And that fact is not open for debate.

And you were the one talking about name calling? Interesting. My answer to everything isn't a government program. In case you didn't notice there isn't a new government program, and I haven't advocated a new government program. I've advocated changing one that already exists.

As for the rest, you don't get to decide what are facts (you've shown no qualifications to do so with your comments that fail on basic vocabulary), and you certainly don't get to decide what "facts" are open to debate. When we feel like giving the conservative minority in this country that power, we'll let you know. Thanks, though.

kstarr1

Jared, I noticed you didn't quite answer the question, you must be a diehard democrat

This from a person that called others out for name calling.

I've read many of your comment kstarr1 and you remind me of the statement of the person that has a mind like a steel trap. Closed with nothing else getting in or out.

KStarr1 your hatred of our government has clouded your ability to reason and your compassion for your fellow human.

I agree, end of life decisions are a must and will bring costs down.

Since when does these "death panels" be an effect of Democratic policy? Since the insurance industry started THEY have been approving OR DISAPPROVING EVERY PROCEDURE KNOWN TO MEDICAL SCIENCE. Anything they deem "experimental " is not approved, any expensive procedure is deemed "out of customary" cost, ANY THING THEY WANT THEY GET. YOU HAVE TO ENDURE THEIR DEATH PANEL DECISIONS, NOT A GOVERNMENT PAYMENT FOR A DOCTORS OPINION. What fools you people are. If you don't want to know what your options are just DON'T ASK!

To echo JUDI-1282075, I too have a 91 yr old Mom in the end-stage of Alzheimer's Disease. My Mom also had her wishes written down for us to follow. No feeding tubes or heroic measures as we wait for her time to come. There is absolutely no sense in touting cost cutting measures when it is prudent to have your affairs in place when your on the downhill slide of life especially!

With Alzheimer's disease increasing every year and no effective treatment or cure in the immediate future, it makes sense for your doctor to initiate the discussion with the patient and family/friend and/or caretaker to help get the appropriate paperwork filed. Seriously, did not Terri Schiavo's case teach you anything about a road you don't want to go down?

andthebeatgoeson - you will probably find most agree with you on that, where the problem occurs is when Obama wants taxpayers to pay a doctor to do it.

KStarr1......

The doctors are not the problem, nor is Mr. Obama. The few dollars this will cost is out weighed by the amount it will cost the tax payer. You

My wife is a private care giver. She works with a lot of Alzheimer's patients and has worked in end of life hospice. There is a way to die that provides dignity to the patient. The patient should have that right to decide how they want to go and the right wing nut jobs that vilified this as a "death Panel" (I'm talking to you Sarah Palin) are doing a disservice to the people of the United State in order to preserve their own best interests.

The Raven - what a ridiculous bunch of garbage. This is not socialism - it is rational thinking. The only evil here is what you are spouting.

Raven,

"Nazism is another form of socialism."

Here are a few reasons Nazism is not considered socialism

Reasons Nazism is not considered socialist

Throughout its rise to power and rule, the Nazis were strongly opposed by left-wing and socialist parties, and Nazi rhetoric was virulently anti-Marxist, attacking both communists and social democrats.

• Nazis proposed that only people who were considered "racially pure" or Aryan would benefit from their policies. This is contrary to the socialist notion of a society for the benefit of all.

• In his rise to power, Hitler reassured German industrialists that he would respect private property and fight labor unions.

• Hitler received strong support from the conservatives for the "Enabling Act." This legislation was opposed by left wing social democrats.

• After coming to power, Hitler sent thousand of communists, social democrats and unionists to concentration camps and killed the communist leaders in Germany. He outlawed labor unions and guaranteed corporate profits for Krupp & Co.

• The profits of large corporations soared under the Nazis.

• Ultimately, Hitler was interested in absolute power and is thus correctly classified a fascist.

Nazism is considered FAR RIGHT! So are you saying Obama is so Left he's turned right?

This is a perfect moment to name call!!!

RAVEN IS AN IDIOT!!!!!!!!

Raven - you need help. Study some true history and stop listening to Glenn Beck!!

regarding the posts by kstarr1:

I am a US citizen who has lived most of the last 25 years in Canada. Having experienced both systems, I honestly believe the Canadian system is far better. I had congestive heart failure a few years ago and was in the operating room for an angiogram within 2 hours of the diagnosis. Didn't seem like a long wait to me!. I went by ambulance from the doctor's office to the hospital in spite of having driven myself to the doctor. Everything except drugs was covered by the provincial health plan.

Yes, the article he cites from one province in 2005 does indicate problems (no system is perfect) but those problems have since been corrected. Many Canadians do top up their medical coverage with private insurance. I do as well, but the truth is that all my cardiac procedures, tests and hospitalization were paid by the universal coverage. My private insurance was only needed to pay for drugs.

I am amazed, truly amazed, at the bunk that Americans believe about the Canadian health care system. The stats are that Canadians live longer and are healthier. And my long experience (and that of my family) is that the Canadian system is superior. I believe one reason is that money is not being made by a private system which focuses first and foremost on the bottom line. That is not to say that politicians in Canada are any more honest than those in the US, but the middle level health bureaucracy is not nearly as bloated. A second reason is that everyone in Canada is eligible for a high level of very good (albeit not perfect) care, whereas in the US the spread in quality of care is extreme partly because careproviders are encouraged by the system itself to provide very uneven levels of care. In a private system if wealthy family are willing to pay any amount to keep a terminal patient for a few days longer, then the system acquiesces and makes certain that any available money will be spent. The overall well-being of the country is better served, however, by providing more cost effective procedures for the majority of its citizens.

Congestive heart failure a few years ago? And you no longer have it?

Yes, this is the honest truth. I no longer have it. It was from viral induced ventricular hypertrophy. The cardiologist said afterwards that I had had only a 50% chance of recovery vs a 50% chance of going on the transplant list. I now have an echocardiogram every year (courtesy of provincial health) and my cardiac function is back to normal although I continue to take a lot of meds.

For information for my kid's epilepsy, I have often turned to Canadian, Australian, UK and New Zealand government web sites. The info is current, and more in depth than almost anything else that we've found. As far as waiting goes, it took six years to get her into an epilepsy monitoring unit, I can't believe that it would have taken that long in any of the countries with the good info sites.

As soon as she dropped the Nazi bomb I knew she must be a Glen Beck disciple. What a bunch of garbage.

ryan, so many Canadians were dying on waiting lists for treatment that your Supreme Court had to rule that doctors could start accepting private insurance, your "system" failed.

Do you have a link to a real source for this or is this just more bloviating from the Faux News crowd?

@kstarr1: An anecdote doesn't prove that a system failed. Because the engine in your Ford blew up, does it mean that all Fords are bad and you should buy Chevies from now on? It makes more sense to first check their service histories.

I find it amusing how many people are deathly afraid of universal health care in the US. They quote anecdotes about how it's "failed" somewhere else, while all the statistics point out that the average person in most of those places will outlive the average American by years. Are you really just afraid that YOU won't get the care you "deserve" because someone less valuable got it? That's the best explanation I can come up with to explain your posts -- do you have a better one?

Rick, if your snarky comment was directed at me, yes. CBC June 9, 2005 Knock yourself out.

I quote from the article "

"As a result of delays in receiving tests and surgeries, patients have suffered and even died in some cases"

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/09/newscoc-health050609.html#ixzz19XG6HTJz

well, phoneuser - if Canadians have a healthcare system based on the idea that the government system is the best answer so private insurance is prohibited and then because people are DYING due to THE SYSTEM itself the Supreme Court has to step in - that my friend is major failure.

kstarr1,

Thank goodness then that people aren't dying due to flaws in our health care system - that would make it a failure.

MNW that's an entirely different subject. My comment was regarding some Canadian named Ryan who supposedly is laughing at Americans because he thinks the Canadians have all the answers. Some do find answers - they travel to the US.

kstarr1,

You didn't respond at all to the fact (look it up -- no, I'll save you the trouble: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy) that Canada, Japan, and lots of other countries with universal health care outlive us. In the case of Canada, by about 2 years. All you're offering is anecdotes that neither prove nor disprove your point. What are you really trying to say?

PhoneUser - yes, I have seen the statistics on that, but no studies have found a way to relate the life expectancy of a country with either a. their health care system or b. a healthier lifestyle in general. So unless you have some new evidence in that area, you haven't offered anything more than more "anecdotes" yourself.

kstarr1,

There's a common conservative talking point that I hope you're not subscribing to that the American health care system is the best and that all others fail horribly. You're not that stupid, I'm sure, so I'm sure that your objection to the Canadian health care system being imperfect isn't just another broad generality of shooting down any alternative to our health care system - which costs dramatically more than any other in the world, and yet doesn't provide the best care.

MNW, please see my response to PhoneUser above.

kstarr

"so many Canadians were dying on waiting lists for treatment that your Supreme Court had to rule that doctors could start accepting private insurance, your "system" failed."

Wow, exaggerate much?

From the article you liniked this is the only anecdotal evidence

" As a result of delays in receiving tests and surgeries, patients have suffered and even died in some cases"

"some cases" does not imply "so many' to the point the system had to be revamped or that it failed.

The article also didn't list the number of patients that have suffered or died, but I'll guess it's fairly low compared to the number of people receiving treatment.

How many people die or suffer in the ER because of the health-care system in Amercia? How many die because they were dropped from their private insurance on any number of their arbitrary reasons?

And sadly the universal coverages being proposed in the U.S. aren't even CLOSE to the Canadian or UK system.

We may have the best Health Care once you get sick, but we have the worst preventative care and no one is doing a damned thing to stop that.

Ever hear of "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?". In free market terms that means, "we won't be able to bilk you for as much"

B-223 - so the Canadian Supreme Court overreacted? Is that your argument?

kstarr1,

You acted as though a single court decision means something broad about an entire system - should we list all the court decisions against private insurers?

pretty funny right there. Go to B.C. and see how many Canadians lile the system, they don't

The waiting times are not that bad to see a gp is a week to see a specialist 3 months. The point is we get to see them eventually. You have some of the best doctors in the world but what good is it if you cant see them. Preventative care is the only solution if your so scared of universal health care have both if you want it. It will stop your insurance companies from robbing you blind and letting you die. Yes we had problems with waiting lines but its because of a shortage of doctors they dont grow on trees and were not going to start letting more in graduating with 60 percent averages. And by the way read your article that is quebec they are almost a seperate country anyway with totaly different rules than rest of canada. I had a M.R.I took 2 weeks to get it.

In America, we just laugh at Canadians.

Americans laugh at us your right because your economy is doing so much better than ours. My 1000sf rentals home built in 1950 are worth more than your mansions. Our dollar is higher than yours, could not get a trades person to work if your life depended on it. Sixty pecent of all americans are overweight and 29 percent obese. 70 percent think the world is 6000 years old and that dinosaurs bones were placed by satan to test your faith. No the worlds laughing at you my friend every where i travel they like me just fine. Americans thats a different story.

so vino, your family handled this well and the government didn't need to pay your doctor to discuss it. Thanks for your help.

My parents have had everything set up since 1999 - well before they thought they would need it. They had their personal lawyer draw up all the papers & were signed and I was told where they were just in case. In 05 my father was struck by a vehicle due to sun glare in the drivers eyes. He wasn't brain dead but he was never going to wake up either. We knew what he would want and the advanced care directive proved it. We let Dad go after we knew he wasn't waking up. People need to take the responsibility upon themselves to make their wishes known. Paying Dr's extra from the govt is not the way to go. The govt needs to be kept out of our personal lives and we need to be responsible for ourselves.

I agree whole hearted. I am sorry for your loss but I think that was awsome. My mom was in a terrible car accident and I am greatful that she has recovered after a long road although her prognosis wasn't as grim. The whole incident made me stay on her about "getting her affairs in order". I think not to is selfish for the people you leave behind.

Obama Free,

Are you under the impression that everyone can afford the time of a personal lawyer? Having people who cannot afford lawyers end up in terminal situations without being able to communicate decisions leads to court battles, expensive unnecessary care and stress for hospitals, doctors, patients, and families. What harm does it do to make sure that people who can't afford to get this advice otherwise can get it?

This was freak accident due to sun glare. The driver was the Grand daughter of my Dad's best friend. I am glad your mother survived and is recovering. My wife's sisters husband had a heart attack at 47 and we got our advanced care directives taken care of at that time - because you never know. That was before my father passed but there isn't any question about things in our family. My dad had 9 siblings - all still alive and we thought we might have an issue with them but 1 smart older brother agreed with my Mom, sister and I on what my father wanted done. We obviously talked to the neuro-surgeons but with knowledge of what dad would want & the paper work in order there were no issues from that standpoint. Just dealing with the grief was what we had to do. Just keep the govt out of it!!!!!

Obama Free,

Some families do not agree with each other about their relatives' care - this leads to court battles unless the arrangements are made in exactly the right way. To make sure this happens, counseling is necessary. It is usually not free. If it does not happen, it will almost always end in costing the system more money in the long run, either through court or the medical care itself - and (stay with me, this is the key) if it involves Medicare, it involves the government, since Medicare is a government program.

MNWriter - the amount to get my wife and mine done was $200 from a very good law office. They have every thing in a MS Word template and fill in your answers to questions.

I don't trust the govt and especially this admin to do the right things. They had to take this out of the bill to get it passed with massive Dem majorities. They then hid it in a regulation that we found out about the week between Christmas and New Years. This admin was trying to hide it. I won't trust this admin to be involved in any decisions that are personal "End of Life" ones.

Obama Free,

Look up a poll about whether Americans support this. Your ideas aren't as popular as you think they are. A Republican wrote the original section in the bill. If you want to argue that a few moderate Democrats were cowards that buckled with no good reason to, I'll completely agree.

MNW - since Obama Free has shot down all of your excuses you turn to a poll? Really, quite a weak move on your part.

kstarr1,

Since you're watching a different discussion than me, make up whatever answer you want. His arguments were "I don't trust the govt", which isn't an argument, just a personal reaction - and an interesting one from people who claim to love democracy. He was arguing that this provision is unpopular or against the will of the people, so I suggested that he check what it is popular and what isn't before he make broad statements regarding the majority opinions in this country.

Please, pull your head out of the sand and stop just attacking people. You're making yourself look bad.

Vino, excellently said.

KStarr1, please go back to school and pay attention this time.

baby, who says you can't?

last time I checked ...it was against the law to take your own life, or be assisted in doing so.

Baby - yes, so you take your life - what's the worst punishment they can serve you with? Huh?

kstarr1,

A singularly self-centered and selfish response, thank you. You think suicide only penalizes the person who actually commits it? People's families face a number of problems when their loved ones commit suicide, including legal and financial ones. The law sees to that. Don't make snide comments about suicide when you know very well what their point was. Especially when you've been whining about tone and nit-picking earlier on this forum.

Making suicide illegal also, for many, precludes the use of less frightening methods of committing it. Who wouldn't rather die from a fairly painess drug cocktail administered by knowledgeable caretakers than by, for instance, hanging themselves, with the possibility of botching the job? That's why most states with the death penalty carry it out by means of lethal injection. Dr. Kevorkian helped terminally ill patients to a gentle, dignified end, and was imprisoned for doing so.

Sandy, your point is valid and useful to this board. It pains me that assisted suicide is illegal. I believe it should be every human beings right to die with dignity and if in their ability die the way they want. Unfortunately our legal system and special interest groups have pushed the laws so they (Ins co's) call the shots, reap the benefits and we the people do not.

mercha - I agree, I'm glad not to read - "and the government needs to pay for this" in your comments as well.

regor49 - thanks for the wisdom of your words. The problem with outside entities, ie government involvement in these issues is that everyone has a different idea about what "being a burden" is.

Making 0bummer a 1 term Prez is the best solution we have for a number of issues facing the country.

Dream on - he's hear for the full 8 years - thank heaven!

It's always nice to see Patriots like Obama Free who protect this wonderful country of ours by standing by the Republicans in their hopes and actions to make this President fail.

TRUE PATRIOTS, THE WHOLE LOT OF YOU!!!!

/s (in case you couldn't see that implied)

how can our hopes and actions make the guy fail? He's in over his head which is filled with a lot of socialist theory - if anything makes him fail it's his only failed ideas.

I think Palin would agree they are humane and moral - all she objects to I believe is government getting their foot in the door as a way to cut costs. It's not all that wacky to think the government would be capable of that.

wilburn - some prefer the government cradle to grave program. It's sad.

go obama, just keep making everything more expensive so we can all pay more, thats brilliant

Bernie - Have you ever seen an advance directive? There is nothing here that is encouraging death! Get a grip. All an advance directive does is spell out what YOUR wishes are should you be unable to make decisions. Whether you are 80 or 20 years old, it is only that. And guess what, you can change your mind and wishes any time you want!

Not to mention that advance directives in most cases are not legally binding - families and lawyers overturn them in court all the time. Counseling helps people figure out exactly how to ensure that their wishes are followed. A few words on a piece of paper doesn't do it in many cases.

Dr's aren't trained to be legal advisers on "Advanced Care Directives." Attorneys are - they generally have them in a Word Template where you answer some questions about what you want and discuss with them what it means. This is a bribe to get Dr's to see new Medicare patients so they can bill the govt for another thing that may or may not have occurred in the Dr's office. Many Drs are turning away new Medicare patients because they can't make any money on them. Keep the govt out of the discussion.

It's Medicare, Obama Free. You can't keep the government out of it.

I will still put my question to a doctor and rely on them. An attorney can't answer your questions about the pros and cons of items on an Advance Care Directive. I completed one with my wife present, had it notorized and filed. As far as law suits go, anyone can try that route. Happens all the time when someone thinks they didn't get their share.

Actually if you file your living will with your primary care physician he is responsible for following those instructions. Yes, people can sue but rarely do when a person has a well thought out plan for their final care.

W. Goin

Thanks. I agree. My doctor asked if I had one years ago and helped us fill them out. I took the extra step of having one notorized.

W Goin,

Many people do not remain in the care of their PCP throughout the end of their lives, and a living will often fails when challenged in court, since it is only a statement of intention. They are challenged all the time by family members who disagree.

MNW - then we surely need a Government Regulation to provide payment to a lawyer to sue the family, right?

kstarr1,

Do you have a point? You've whined about tone and people's nit-picking. What's your point? I stated a fact, you answered with a stereotypical right-wing response. Can't you summon more creativity (or at least a fact)?