That link is to a little oped in the Washington Post, you know that bastion of conservative thinkers? Anyway, that particular editor is a bit concerned about the end-of-life "counseling" sessions outlined in the house bill. It seems that monetary incentives will be offered to doctors to "initiate" these fun little sessions with the elderly, whether they are terminal or not. (Not that that should matter, but I digress.) According to the house bill, these little friendly chats are encouraged as a way to bend the cost curve; in other words, as a way to save some money. In other words, Rick, if old people sign a fun little paper that says DNR, even if they are under some pressure by the well-paid (with federal dollars) doctors, that can save the feds some dough. Are you getting it yet, Rick? How about a scenario: Your mother is 85 years old and it turns out that her kidneys are failing, requiring her to receive dialysis two to four times daily for the rest of her life. Your mom, by the way, has no POA or living will, for the sake of this discussion, since nearly 2/3 of people DO NOT have one. Anyway, while receiving this wonderful news from her doc, she is then steered into a "counseling" session to discuss her "care." The doctor, who is PAID to promote the cost savings, informs your Mom that shit happens, and she could slip into a coma, snap, and then what? Does she really want to suffer so? Wouldn't she feel better if she could just make that decision RIGHT NOW and save you and your family the heartache??? So, under emotional duress, she signs bunches of forms, namely DNRs and maybe even a waiver of treatment entirely, because, as the nice doctor explained, dialysis is SO HARD on a person, especially at such an advanced age.
Or, we could go the more extreme route, which is a distinct possiblity if "containing costs" is so fucking important. In the name of cost containment I (insert bureaucratic title from whatever office here) have decided that your 85 year-old mother is too old to be worth all these many thousands of dollars in treatment. Therefore, we will make her as comfortable as possible in hospice or somewhere *yawn* and that is that. Woo-hoo, look at all that money saved.
Now, you and I both know that if the federal government is put in charge of health care decision making, and that if the goal of the fed is to contain costs, then A leads directly to B and 2 + 2 = 4. Obviously, I don't think what she (Palin) said is soooo over the top. And neither should you.Comment Posted By Sarah On 8.08.2009 @ 20:50
It always amazes me how quickly people want to believe the worst in other human beings. I do not believe that Michael Jackson molested any child. I believe that he was a victim of grifters like Janet Arvizo and her "terminally" ill son, Gavin, who is still very much alive in Atlanta, GA, with his mother,(whose name is Janet Jackson now and who was recently charged with Welfare Fraud) and others that wanted his money and got it by instructing and coaching their children to tell the worst kind of lie. There is abundant information on the web about these 2 families. There are also multitudes of children that experienced Neverland and have said that Michael Jackson never did anything that made them feel uncomfortable. He was quite a philanthropist with children and their causes. He gave millions of dollars to different organizations. He was found not guilty on each and every count because he was innocent. I believe that he was very strange and child like but maybe that's because he didn't ever get to experience a childhood.Comment Posted By sarah On 26.06.2009 @ 16:51
Is it possible that he felt more comfortable in the company of children because he lived vicariously through their innocence? I watched the Mashir piece and it made me uncomfortable because he was so different but not scared for the children. He was very odd but what a talented individual.
RIP Michael. I hope whatever is on the Other Side will bring you the Peace you never found here on Earth.
I wonder how long it took the author of this trash piece to find his, oh, so selective (and out of context) text.
Give it up. Beck is a good man, speaking from his heart.
Why are you people so afraid of free speech? Why are so, so, very afraid?
Perhaps, because you'll be caught in all of your lies and deceit.Comment Posted By sarah On 8.04.2009 @ 12:01
Pages (1) :