Maybe fewer people lost their jobs last month because there are so few jobs left?

The governement intervention made is worse not better.

Next the end of life section of the legislation has very strict requirements. It PREVENTS the hospitals or doctors from making ANY decision. It requires the medical people to recommend various LEGAL resources that the patient can go to in order to have end of life issues explained to them and this includes getting legal counsel on things like living wills, durable power of attorney for a family member or anyone you want to make decisions for you in case you are unable to. In not case does the legislation or amendment give power to the government to decide ANYTHING. It doesn’t even give it to the doctor or hospital. As it stands the legislation under question gives MORE power to the patient than to the doctor, the hospital or any government from local to federal level.

The exact wording of the section of the bill:

H.R. 3200, page 425: Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:

(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.

(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.

(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.

(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning … .

(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.

(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders … .

http://nebraska.statepaper.com/vnews/display.v?TARGET=printable&article_id=4a70f03e2324a

The original 1990 legislation with regard to living wills had some unusual parties to it including the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. Not the most euthanasia friendly bunch of fellows.

The current sections of the Obama legislation also remove some of the problems with legislation created by Republicans between 2000 and 2005 with regard to what to do in case a person has not signed a living will and is not in a`condition to make a decision, The Republican legislation passed was rather vague. It allowed situation such as the one that Terry Sciavo was in to occur. That is to say, it allowed a patient to be kept alive if someone else was going to accept the responsibility to pay the bills as in the Schiavo case. But at the same time the current legislation allows what occurred at the same time the Schiavo case occured. While Terry Sciavo was kept ON life support, in Texas, the state and the hospital were allowed to remove a child from life support, primarily because the mother could NOT afford to pay. The Obama legislation prevents this from happening. It requires the doctors, the hospitals, the insurance companies to follow the mandates of the patient, the patient’s proxy OR in absence of either, the family to have their wishes followed, not the hospital ,the doctors, OR the insurer.

This of course sends Republicans into a fury because of course, it sticks it to the insurance company or the hospital if the patient’s coverage has expired.

The Republicans running around doing the euthanasia fear mongering have not provided a single whit of evidence to show that a single thing in the Obama plan will do any such thing. In fact the thing they are using to assert this is the result of abamendment to the legislation that will simply make it easier for a person get legal advice about living wills. It will require hospitals to provide some form of legal counseling to anyone who wants to sign a living will or does not know what one is. Medicare will pay for the legal counsel if a person want to have it. If they don’t, they don’t.

The government is legislating something that is already common practice in 99.9 percent of not for all hospitals right now. Has been since 1990. But both hospitals and insurance companies have unscrupulously been getting patients to sign them in cases when high risk elderly patients enter the hospital. The legislation is designed to make sure that the elderly are not simply fooled into signing a living will without knowing what they are signing.

Right now. Basically Medicare already pays for end of life hospice care, as well as legislation passed in 1990 that requires hospitals to ask all patients if they have a living will and if they would like to have one. The additional legislation sponsored by

Passed by the Republican majority Congress under Bush 41. Of course this is the basis for the insane Republicans assertion about euthanasia. The new amendment modifies the 1990 law by offering patients legal counsel about living wills so they can better understand what they are signing before they sign it. It requires Medicare to pay for such counseling BEFORE a person signs a living will without knowing what they are signing. This is totally voluntary. The elderly can choose to not be counseled at all and sign the living will or not, with or without legal counsel.

This exposes the sheer evil of the Republicans on this issue. There is no evil depth to which they will not sink to protect vested interests.

So of course and as is usual, Republicans are really engaging in continuing a practice which currently fools patients into not getting end of life care that keeps them alive, but allows insurance companies to pull the plug without the patient ever knowing that is what they agreed to.

I have long since learned that when a Republican starts screaming that the Democrats are trying to kill the elderly, there is usually some hook in their screaming that is protecting big business from the expense of keeping the elderly alive. This is the case. Without the amendment to the current legislation, a hospital or insurance company can simply slip a living will into the general paperwork, not explain what the patient is signing, and pull the plug if it gets too costly.

Those who tout free market economics are the first to expect recovery to be backwards, somehow they expect companies to start magically hiring without investment, or investors being willing to take that “innovative risk” conservatives are always talking about first.

Conservatives want it both ways. They assert that the investor and the innovator and the private sector come first, but expect what everyone knows are “lagging indicators, employment and purchases of homes, to be the first change in the economy.

Its more Republican irrationality and obfuscation at work. If you want to see where the recovery is starting, look at business investment, not new jobs.

The recession ending. When the stock market hits levels they were at at the just the recession is considered to have started, it will be over.

Same thing happened during the Great Depression. By 1938 the markets had regained all of their 1929 -1932 losses. The country started pulling out of depression before the start of WWII and before the government started selling stuff to the Allies.

Facts:

For the first six years of the Reagan presidency (1981-87) The Republicans controlled the Senate, and the Democrats the House of Representatives

In 1986, the Democrats recaptured the Senate (while retaining the House) and thereafter remained in control of both chamber until losing both in 1994.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_controlled_the_house_and_senate_during_the_Reagan_years

B.S. the Reagan debt if 100 percent Republican made and owned.

The raw data from a poll that tried to assert that the public was concerned with the bill on the table found the following:

Here are some of the raw numbers:

The government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans, by 55-38.

The government should “offer[] everyone a government administered health insurance plan,” by 66-27
.
Insurers should have to cover anyone regardless of medical history, by 76-19.

It is true that 68% of people think that health care reform could limit their access to treatment; but 66% are concerned that without reform, they could lose coverage at some point.

Similarly, 76% think that health care reform could increase their taxes; but 75% think that without reform, the cost of their health care will go up.

http://wallstreetpit.com/9298-health-care-what-do-the-people-want

Insider Says Health Insurers Put Profits Over Care

He’s a former insider from the health insurance industry who said he quit because those companies are concerned too much with profit and not about care.

And he said if you think your health insurer is focused on the money, you’re probably right.

Wendell Potter worked as the top public relations executive for CIGNA and was the consummate insider.

Now, as health care reform proposals are debated in Congress, he’s speaking out against insurance companies, who he said aren’t interested in real health care reform.

“The insurance companies want if not the status quo, at least health care reform that will enable them to continue to operate very profitably,” said Potter.

Potter said the industry is dominated by roughly seven for-profit insurance companies that he calls a “cartel.” He said that cartel focuses on controlling costs, or claims, what the industry calls a company’s “medical loss ratio.”

“It is a measure of the percentage of every premium dollar that is paid in premiums. In other words, they consider that a loss,” Potter explained. And he said any claim the company pays is considered a loss.

Potter describes an industry driven by Wall Street to reduce medical loss ratios and reduce the amount and number of valid medical claims paid. And as profits rise, he said, executives and shareholders benefit.

The case the Potter said became “the final straw” for him at CIGNA was that of California patient Nataline Sarkisyan, whose doctors advocated for a liver transplant. Her claim was denied twice by CIGNA.

Her case became the subject of protests from the community and the California Nurses’ Association and the company subsequently reversed course and approved the transplant. The approval came too late, however; Nataline died that same day.

“I just didn’t want to be the spokesperson for an industry that I felt often was not doing the right thing for the American public,” said Potter.

Potter believes the push to reform health care in the U.S. faces an uphill battle

“and warns the public not to believe a common insurance industry argument that setting up a public health care plan will put a government bureaucrat between patients and their doctors.”

“Right now we have a corporate bureaucrat who’s calling the shots, who’s very much between you and your doctor,” Potter said.

http://cbs5.com/investigates/health.insurance.profits.2.1105069.html

The Justice Department has challenged only three of more than 400 mergers of health insurers and managed-care organizations over the past 12 years, according to the AMA.

http://www.thetimesherald.com/article/20090717/NEWS05/90717007/-1/NEWSFRONT2/–Insurance-consolidation-leads-some-to-argue-for-government-intervention-