Re: Rationing

[Guest guest]

Chuck,

Can you point me to where in the bill it refers to " Death Panels "   I have heard

this before and got into a discussion with a friend that I had heard this.  I

would like to point it out to her.  Now isn't that scary.

  Also if the UK waits until patients get to a TSH of 10, don't they understand

that they are probably going to be paying for a lot more than just thyroid

issues when they let people get to that point?  I fear it will be this way in

the US before long.

Venizia

>

>

> On another hypothyroid list [in the UK] it was stated that the TSH level

> had to be 7 or 8 there before the health care system would provide

> treatment... .

>

The official guidelines recommended by the British Thyroid Association

hold that a TSH below 10 is considered subclinical. If they see a 7 or

8, they are supposed to wait until it gets higher. That policy probably

saves the NHS several months of prescriptions on every new hypoT

patient. Every little bit helps.

Even though NHS doctors will not normally prescribe Armour, it is much

cheaper there than in the U.S., even though it must be imported from

here. And, people can buy it by mail (out of pocket) without a

prescription. So, if a UK citizen buys Armour on their own, they will

presumably stop using the NHS prescription, again saving the system money.

But no one wants to call it " rationing. " OTOH, the " death panels " are

clearly still in the US House bill.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32364264

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

> 

>

> On another hypothyroid list [in the UK] it was stated that the TSH level

> had to be 7 or 8 there before the health care system would provide

> treatment... .

>

The official guidelines recommended by the British Thyroid Association

hold that a TSH below 10 is considered subclinical. If they see a 7 or

8, they are supposed to wait until it gets higher. That policy probably

saves the NHS several months of prescriptions on every new hypoT

patient. Every little bit helps.

Even though NHS doctors will not normally prescribe Armour, it is much

cheaper there than in the U.S., even though it must be imported from

here. And, people can buy it by mail (out of pocket) without a

prescription. So, if a UK citizen buys Armour on their own, they will

presumably stop using the NHS prescription, again saving the system money.

But no one wants to call it " rationing. " OTOH, the " death panels " are

clearly still in the US House bill.

Chuck

   

     

   

   

 

[Guest guest]

Carol,

You wrote:

>

> Can you point me to where in the bill it refers to " Death Panels " I

> have heard this before and got into a discussion with a friend that I

> had heard this. I would like to point it out to her. Now isn't that scary.

The usual argument is over Sec. 1233, which requires end of life

counseling, because that was under discussion when Palin used the

phrase. My real problem is with Sec. 122, p. 29, which specifies

rationing. Sec. 123, p. 30 describes a government-appointed committee to

determine treatments and benefits. To the extent that such rationing and

treatments selected for cost are not optimal, given the available

technology, that is a panel empowered to make decisions that will

shorten life for some people. To me, that meets the definition.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

Roni,

You cited:

>

> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32364264 <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32364264>

This is an example of the propaganda technique of attacking a paper

target. No one I have talked to has confused end of life counseling with

death panels. Palin explained her use of the term in the context

of fear that the elderly would feel pressured by such counseling to give

up life preserving treatments. She also cited several supporters who

admitted that part of the purpose of such counseling was to reduce the

high costs incurred by the system during the last days of life.

However, as I said before, the real concern is over other provisions for

a committee that would ration care in the face of the almost inevitable

shortages.

There is a reason why MSNBC news has the lowest ratings of any national

news organization.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

Yes, it sure sounds that way to me also.  Very scary.

Venizia

>

> Can you point me to where in the bill it refers to " Death Panels " I

> have heard this before and got into a discussion with a friend that I

> had heard this. I would like to point it out to her. Now isn't that scary.

The usual argument is over Sec. 1233, which requires end of life

counseling, because that was under discussion when Palin used the

phrase. My real problem is with Sec. 122, p. 29, which specifies

rationing. Sec. 123, p. 30 describes a government-appointe d committee to

determine treatments and benefits. To the extent that such rationing and

treatments selected for cost are not optimal, given the available

technology, that is a panel empowered to make decisions that will

shorten life for some people. To me, that meets the definition.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

Care is already rationed by whether any given insurance company will cover

any given person for any given incidence of ill-health, assuming that

person even has insurance at all. Except right now it is completely random

and arbitrary and profit-driven, instead of health-outcome driven, and I

find it hard to believe anyone on this list could disagree with my

statement. While I agree that a TSH of 10 is not subclinical, I don't

actually believe the reason for structuring their care that way is for

rationing-- I think it has to do with education of the medical mainstream

there. In any case, the standard for TSH in the USA is much lower and

wouldn't change because it is accepted by the medical mainstream.

The paragraph you're referring to isn't about rationing care it is about

applying evidence-based medicine, which is what my MD who is a integrated

care physician subscribes to. She is all about nutritional supplementing

and adequate testing, along with homeopathy and other modalities.

Evidence-based medicine means that treatments that work, like LDN, get

accepted because they work cheaply and harmlessly, instead of requiring

people to go through all kinds of other drug and surgical hurdles before

they are allowed to try LDN. Evidence-based medicine is why some insurance

companies finally started to cover chiropractic for repetitive stress

disabilities, because the outcomes were far superior, noninvasive and

conservative, and cost far less money.

Big Pharma and Big Industrial Medicine prefer expensive, invasive

treatments and the system is set up to force people into those treatment

modalities. Evidence-based medicine is about developing the best outcomes

based on the science of positive health and privileging those, not just

what is newest and costs the most, put out by for-profit companies.

Whenever I've had health insurance, they haven't covered the treatments or

medicines I needed, including NatureThroid. And I think for most people

seeking health through nutrition etc this is true.

with best wishes,

--

~~~ There is no way to peace; peace is the way ~~~~

--A.J. Muste

[Guest guest]

I don't know if you have ever seen a terminal patient in hospice, but I have.

What they do is withhold food and give them high doses of opiates. They

effectively starve the person to death and the opiates are to keep them sedated

so that they cannot complain. I don't consider this kind of treatment anything

to hold onto. I would rather have the opportunity to decide if I want to be

starved to death or not.

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

From: Chuck B <gumboyaya@...>

Subject: Re: Rationing

hypothyroidism

Date: Friday, January 8, 2010, 12:00 PM

Roni,

You cited:

> 

> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32364264 <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32364264>

This is an example of the propaganda technique of attacking a paper

target. No one I have talked to has confused end of life counseling with

death panels. Palin explained her use of the term in the context

of fear that the elderly would feel pressured by such counseling to give

up life preserving treatments. She also cited several supporters who

admitted that part of the purpose of such counseling was to reduce the

high costs incurred by the system during the last days of life.

However, as I said before, the real concern is over other provisions for

a committee that would ration care in the face of the almost inevitable

shortages.

There is a reason why MSNBC news has the lowest ratings of any national

news organization.

Chuck

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

I've done a lot of volunteer hospice work and the whole point of hospice is

that people have chosen to not have invasive medical technology and actions

done to them. They have accepted that they are going to die (no small

feat), and have made the decision that since they are going to die, they'd

rather die with peace and dignity on their own terms. This is usually a

choice for quality of life in the last few weeks/months of life vs. still

trying to survive through invasive, painful, uncomfortable medical

intervention in the hospital which are inevitably going to fail. You don't

go into hospice care (whether inpatient or at home) unless you are of sound

mind and able to sign the papers for consent. People who have lost the

power of their own consent, and have given durable power of medical

decisions to someone else, are generally not given hospice care; those

people are given end of life care in a hospital, just have a " do not

resuscitate " order.

People who choose to die in peace and quiet usually stop eating on their

own at a certain point. No one in hospice who wants to eat is denied

food. In fact, if you're on Medicare and get hospice care, it is your

right to choose to go back into regular Medicare services at any time

should you improve or simply change your mind, and you still have the right

to choose hospice services again. Part of hospice is to be given palliative

care, which means you're allowed to have as much morphine as you want. Part

of hospice is that if you don't want to eat, no one forces you to, like

they do in the hospital.

The hospice option is so that people who want to stop having Western

medicine interventions and go for quality of life, have a legal way to

instate that decision, with structural support (in-patient care or

home-nursing care) to provide palliative care and help with daily

activities when that is necessary.

If a particular in-patient hospice facility violates the ethics of care,

they should be dealt with accordingly.

--

At 06:37 PM 1/8/2010, you wrote:

>I don't know if you have ever seen a terminal patient in hospice, but I

>have. What they do is withhold food and give them high doses of opiates.

>They effectively starve the person to death and the opiates are to keep

>them sedated so that they cannot complain. I don't consider this kind of

>treatment anything to hold onto. I would rather have the opportunity to

>decide if I want to be starved to death or not.

>

>

>Roni

><>Just because something

>isn't seen doesn't mean it's

>not there<>

~~~ There is no way to peace; peace is the way ~~~~

--A.J. Muste

[Guest guest]

My grandmother was in hospice and was not starved to death. She ate until

she was too sick to eat. She was in severe pain from cancer taking over

her body. I bet she was thankful for the medicine. She was also given the

option to start chemo and radiation, but she chose not to. This type of

choice will go away if the govt controls it.

CW

-- Re: Rationing

hypothyroidism

Date: Friday, January 8, 2010, 12:00 PM

Roni,

You cited:

>

> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32364264 <http://www.msnbc.msn

com/id/32364264>

This is an example of the propaganda technique of attacking a paper

target. No one I have talked to has confused end of life counseling with

death panels. Palin explained her use of the term in the context

of fear that the elderly would feel pressured by such counseling to give

up life preserving treatments. She also cited several supporters who

admitted that part of the purpose of such counseling was to reduce the

high costs incurred by the system during the last days of life.

However, as I said before, the real concern is over other provisions for

a committee that would ration care in the face of the almost inevitable

shortages.

There is a reason why MSNBC news has the lowest ratings of any national

news organization.

Chuck

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

At 07:40 PM 1/9/2010, you wrote:

>My grandmother was in hospice and was not starved to death. She ate until

>she was too sick to eat. She was in severe pain from cancer taking over

>her body. I bet she was thankful for the medicine. She was also given the

>option to start chemo and radiation, but she chose not to. This type of

>choice will go away if the govt controls it.

I strongly disagree about the issue of choice. This argument about death

panels is disinformation to turn people against health care reform. I

personally wish the bill had stronger cost control measures, but one thing

it is not going to do end choice in end of life treatment decisions. Also

the current bill retains all power in the hands of the insurance industry,

the gov't is not at all in control of it, so that's another piece of the

disinformation.

As things stand now, way too many people get shunted into chemo and

radiation without even being given an assessment of their chances and their

choices, and many people say at the end of their lives that if they'd had a

choice they'd have chosen not to get treatment and have better quality of

life in their last months. Many people with cancer will live the same

amount of time with or without chemo/radiation treatment, but BigMedicine

likes to keep people in treatment because it increases their profits and it

provides them with data. So one thing the health reform bill was trying to

do (and this provision has been removed), was to make it standard that

people are given a chance to talk over their real situation and make

informed choices, to make sure that this end-of-life counseling, as it is

called, was paid for by insurance so that people would have the opportunity

to have it without paying out of pocket.

To me, the choice to die with dignity in the place of one's own choosing is

the choice that is withheld from most people, not the other way

around. The right to die with dignity has been a long and important

movement, to take the right to make decisions back from the medical

establishment.

I've done a lot of hospice and caregiving as a volunteer, and have known a

number of people who had wanted in advance to choose hospice but never did

and wound up dying in the hospital. What people usually regret is not

having had the courage to accept that they are dying and to take control

over the last time they have.

--

>CW

>

>-- Re: Rationing

>hypothyroidism

>Date: Friday, January 8, 2010, 12:00 PM

>

>Roni,

>

>You cited:

> >

> > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32364264 <http://www.msnbc.msn

>com/id/32364264>

>

>This is an example of the propaganda technique of attacking a paper

>target. No one I have talked to has confused end of life counseling with

>death panels. Palin explained her use of the term in the context

>of fear that the elderly would feel pressured by such counseling to give

>up life preserving treatments. She also cited several supporters who

>admitted that part of the purpose of such counseling was to reduce the

>high costs incurred by the system during the last days of life.

>

>However, as I said before, the real concern is over other provisions for

>a committee that would ration care in the face of the almost inevitable

>shortages.

>

>There is a reason why MSNBC news has the lowest ratings of any national

>news organization.

>

>Chuck

>

>------------------------------------

>

>

[Guest guest]

Crystal, why would you think anyone controlling healthcare would want to pay

more for expensive chemo instead of hospice palliative care? The insurance

companies make decisions every day about patients and their care, and most of

the time they don't even know what they're talking about.

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

From: Chuck B <gumboyaya@...>

Subject: Re: Rationing

hypothyroidism

Date: Friday, January 8, 2010, 12:00 PM

Roni,

You cited:

> 

> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32364264 <http://www.msnbc.msn

com/id/32364264>

This is an example of the propaganda technique of attacking a paper

target. No one I have talked to has confused end of life counseling with

death panels. Palin explained her use of the term in the context

of fear that the elderly would feel pressured by such counseling to give

up life preserving treatments. She also cited several supporters who

admitted that part of the purpose of such counseling was to reduce the

high costs incurred by the system during the last days of life.

However, as I said before, the real concern is over other provisions for

a committee that would ration care in the face of the almost inevitable

shortages.

There is a reason why MSNBC news has the lowest ratings of any national

news organization.

Chuck

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

It's a bit more complex than that. My mother died of congestive heart

failure under hospice care less than a day after the hospice nurse

arrived and the opiates were a godsend. They allowed her to quite

literally drown in her own bodily fluids in perfect comfort; as a matter

of fact she slept right up to the moment of death. Without the opiates

those who die of congestive heart failure drown, and often are at least

semi-conscious to the point that they are [literally] trying to swim to

the surface of some hallucinated body of water as they die. NOT

something you want to see a loved one experience. A friend of mine was

with his mother at her death bed and the doctors told him that's what

she would do and it's exactly what she did. Opiates would have given

her a peaceful transition.

Further, I had the responsibility of making end of life decisions for my

brother who died just over 4 years ago, so I have a somewhat painful

experience with it [to put it mildly].

In both of these cases the end of life decisions were made by family and

loved ones with the help of the doctors; not some bureaucratic panel

whose purpose at some point will become more aimed at saving money than

in providing a peaceful end of life experience. I've seen multiple

references to reports [i don't know how accurate they are] that the

actual costs of Medicare and Medicaid in 1990 in constant dollars were

well over 20 times the costs projected in the mid '60's. If that's

valid then the actual cost of Obamacare will probably be one or two

trillion dollars PER YEAR in a few years; not the one trillion dollars

per 10 years projected by the present supporters.

Regards,

..

..

>

>

> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

> <mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Rationing>

> matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

>

> Fri Jan 8, 2010 4:37 pm (PST)

>

>

>

> I don't know if you have ever seen a terminal patient in hospice, but

> I have. What they do is withhold food and give them high doses of

> opiates. They effectively starve the person to death and the opiates

> are to keep them sedated so that they cannot complain. I don't

> consider this kind of treatment anything to hold onto. I would rather

> have the opportunity to decide if I want to be starved to death or not.

>

> Roni

[Guest guest]

And you honestly think that a vast government bureaucracy is going to be

more health-outcome driven??? Exactly how many government bureaucracies

have you ever had to deal with??? Can you name even one large

government bureaucracy that is not driven more by increasing its budget

and the benefits of its upper echelon managers than in customer

service? Our present system needs some reforms; but many of its

problems are caused by such bureaucracies as those of Medicaid and

Medicare. Which, incidentally are going broke, despite spending ever

increasing billions of dollars. More below...

..

..

>

> Posted by: " Baker " vbaker@...

> <mailto:vbaker@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Rationing> vbaker555

> <vbaker555>

>

>

> Fri Jan 8, 2010 10:10 pm (PST)

>

>

>

> Care is already rationed by whether any given insurance company will

> cover

> any given person for any given incidence of ill-health, assuming that

> person even has insurance at all. Except right now it is completely

> random

> and arbitrary and profit-driven,

..

..

Liberals, socialists and communists always disparage the free market

profit driven economy; which incidentally has provided more benefits

over all to more common people than any other system in history. ALL

goods are " rationed " in a free market system based upon ability or

willingness to pay. Cadillacs and health care are just two examples.

But we have never had a 100% " profit driven " health care system, because

the poor can go to the emergency room and pay nothing if they can't

afford it. And none profits and similar provide additional care.

..

..

> instead of health-outcome driven, and I

> find it hard to believe anyone on this list could disagree with my

> statement. While I agree that a TSH of 10 is not subclinical, I don't

> actually believe the reason for structuring their care that way is for

> rationing-- I think it has to do with education of the medical mainstream

> there. In any case, the standard for TSH in the USA is much lower and

> wouldn't change because it is accepted by the medical mainstream.

..

..

Never say never. If as I suspect the cost of Obamacare runs at least 10

times the projected cost then you're going to see either drastic

rationing or drastic [catastrophic] increases in taxes.

..

..

>

> The paragraph you're referring to isn't about rationing care it is about

> applying evidence-based medicine, which is what my MD who is a integrated

> care physician subscribes to. She is all about nutritional supplementing

> and adequate testing, along with homeopathy and other modalities.

..

..

That's not what a government bureaucracy means by " evidence based

medicine " . As Chuck and I were recently discussing Armour is not

prescribed in the UK for most hypo patients because the credible peer

reviewed research do not support it as being more effective than T4

alone. And likely homeopathy will go the same way, as there is no

credible research results better than chance or placebo. It's likely

most all alternative procedures will suffer the same fate; although they

may at least in come cases provide relief.

..

..

> Evidence-based medicine means that treatments that work, like LDN, get

> accepted because they work cheaply and harmlessly, instead of requiring

> people to go through all kinds of other drug and surgical hurdles before

> they are allowed to try LDN.

..

..

I don't know much about LDN but what I've seen indicates there's only

preliminary research to support it and that no credible peer reviewed

studies have been done. If that's the case [and I don't know if it is]

then the evidenced based medicine panel WILL NOT approve it because the

evidence they will accept will most likely be peer reviewed research.

Anecdotal evidence and preliminary studies don't make the cut. It

really sounds like most of what your doctor does also will not have the

proper evidence backing it.

..

..

> Evidence-based medicine is why some insurance

> companies finally started to cover chiropractic for repetitive stress

> disabilities, because the outcomes were far superior, noninvasive and

> conservative, and cost far less money.

..

..

If a government bureaucracy [whether Medicare or Obamacare or any other

" ...care " can pay for a cheap placebo and get the patient off their

backs for weeks, months or years they may well do so. OTOH if they base

their decisions only evidence [credible peer reviewed research] it's

unlikely chiropractic and acupuncture will be provided.

..

..

>

> Big Pharma and Big Industrial Medicine prefer expensive, invasive

> treatments and the system is set up to force people into those treatment

> modalities.

..

..

Then perhaps you can explain why " Big Pharma " and " Big Industrial

Medicine [AMA] " support Obamacare??? They're going to make out like

bandits; it's you and me who will be royally shafted.

..

..

> Evidence-based medicine is about developing the best outcomes

> based on the science of positive health and privileging those, not just

> what is newest and costs the most, put out by for-profit companies.

..

..

If you will note what the National Health Care system [whatever it is

called] in the UK considers " evidence " you will find exactly the

opposite of what you are describing.

..

..

>

> Whenever I've had health insurance, they haven't covered the

> treatments or

> medicines I needed, including NatureThroid. And I think for most people

> seeking health through nutrition etc this is true.

>

> with best wishes,

> --

..

..

And in the UK as I keep telling you such things as Armour IS NOT

approved by the panels that determine what is effective and what is

not. And I think Nature Thyroid is similar to Armour; there's no

credible evidence that it's more effective than placebo or chance above

T4 alone.

Look, if you understand economics 101 then you know that if you decrease

the cost then you increase demand. IOW reduce the price of Cadillacs to

$100 each [or free] then the demand will go up. Everyone will want a

" free " Cadillac; especially those who will not be paying the tax tab the

government would have to levy to pay for the " free " Cadillacs. It's the

same with health care. Reduce the cost and the demand will skyrocket.

Government cost projections are in far too many cases still based upon

static analysis, which assumes everything remains the same. Which never

happens. And if Obamacare costs a factor of 10 higher than projections

I see no possibilities other than vastly increased taxes or rationing

[although it won't be called that]. The Chinese aren't stupid enough to

loan us enough money to get out of debt.

[Guest guest]

actually you are incorrect, because I worked in palliative medicine aka hospice

and I had Medicare patients all the time and if they were eligible for chemo and

radiation, then they were given that option and it was Paid for BY the

Government. Most of the time it was the PRIVATE insurance companies that denied

the chemo and radiation because some insurx exec. deemed it too costly and

DENIED the request.

From: Crystal

Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 5:40 PM

hypothyroidism

Subject: Re: Rationing

My grandmother was in hospice and was not starved to death. She ate until

she was too sick to eat. She was in severe pain from cancer taking over

her body. I bet she was thankful for the medicine. She was also given the

option to start chemo and radiation, but she chose not to. This type of

choice will go away if the govt controls it.

CW

-- Re: Rationing

hypothyroidism

Date: Friday, January 8, 2010, 12:00 PM

Roni,

You cited:

>

> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32364264 <http://www.msnbc.msn

com/id/32364264>

This is an example of the propaganda technique of attacking a paper

target. No one I have talked to has confused end of life counseling with

death panels. Palin explained her use of the term in the context

of fear that the elderly would feel pressured by such counseling to give

up life preserving treatments. She also cited several supporters who

admitted that part of the purpose of such counseling was to reduce the

high costs incurred by the system during the last days of life.

However, as I said before, the real concern is over other provisions for

a committee that would ration care in the face of the almost inevitable

shortages.

There is a reason why MSNBC news has the lowest ratings of any national

news organization.

Chuck

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

>That's not what a government bureaucracy means by " evidence based

>medicine " . As Chuck and I were recently discussing Armour is not

>prescribed in the UK for most hypo patients because the credible peer

>reviewed research do not support it as being more effective than T4

>alone. And likely homeopathy will go the same way, as there is no

>credible research results better than chance or placebo. It's likely

>most all alternative procedures will suffer the same fate; although they

>may at least in come cases provide relief.

What fate? Currently health insurance in the US does not cover homeopathy,

and none I had would pay for Armour, or most of the rest of the modalities

I use. You're talking as if the government is trying to outlaw alternative

medicine, which is simply not going to happen. As my

naturopath/acupuncturist said when NatureThroid went off the market briefly

due to a temporary legal issue, they can't outlaw it because too many

powerful people depend on it. The insurance companies don't pay for such

things now, and they won't pay for them after. Except that evidence-based

medicine is what I said it is, and does look for cheaper treatments that

work better, which is why, as I said, chiropractic is now paid for by

Worker's Comp for repetitive stress injuries, which I know because I had

RSI disabilities until chiro brought me back, in the early 90s when the

transition to chiropractic recognition was being made.

I'm not interested in arguing about the health care bill. You're assuming

an awful lot about me based on what I've written, and I am offended by the

outlook that health care should not be available to everyone in our society

because someone else might not get what they want. I offered some

information about what I know, however, I'm new here, and what I'm looking

for is treatment information about hypothyroidism.

--

~~~ There is no way to peace; peace is the way ~~~~

--A.J. Muste

[Guest guest]

As I have a specialty in Palliative Medicine aka Hospice and pain Management,

Giving food toward the end is NOT helpful because the stomach and intestines

stop working and the food literally rots inside causing Severe pain, bloating.

It is also for the same reason we withhold fluids and IV's as the body begins to

go into the dying process because the fluid is not utilized as it would be if

the person was not dying and the fluid just goes to the lungs and the person

ends up drowning in the excess fluids.

Most likely roni, the person was skinny from the dz process, especially if it is

cancer. the cancer literally speeds up the metabolism and the person loses

tremendous amts of weight. We Never starve a patient, they are allowed and

Encouraged to eat until the dying process starts. Actually, it is the patient

who will stop eating on their own. Hospice Never forces a patient to eat and it

Never withholds food from a patient.

the opiates are used for pain management. When given properly opiates ease pain

suffering; especially toward the end. We also use ativan to help the body

transition thru the dying process.

I worked in Hospice for 6 years exclusively and had 100's of patients.

Nancie

From:

Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 10:31 PM

hypothyroidism

Subject: Re: Rationing

It's a bit more complex than that. My mother died of congestive heart

failure under hospice care less than a day after the hospice nurse

arrived and the opiates were a godsend. They allowed her to quite

literally drown in her own bodily fluids in perfect comfort; as a matter

of fact she slept right up to the moment of death. Without the opiates

those who die of congestive heart failure drown, and often are at least

semi-conscious to the point that they are [literally] trying to swim to

the surface of some hallucinated body of water as they die. NOT

something you want to see a loved one experience. A friend of mine was

with his mother at her death bed and the doctors told him that's what

she would do and it's exactly what she did. Opiates would have given

her a peaceful transition.

Further, I had the responsibility of making end of life decisions for my

brother who died just over 4 years ago, so I have a somewhat painful

experience with it [to put it mildly].

In both of these cases the end of life decisions were made by family and

loved ones with the help of the doctors; not some bureaucratic panel

whose purpose at some point will become more aimed at saving money than

in providing a peaceful end of life experience. I've seen multiple

references to reports [i don't know how accurate they are] that the

actual costs of Medicare and Medicaid in 1990 in constant dollars were

well over 20 times the costs projected in the mid '60's. If that's

valid then the actual cost of Obamacare will probably be one or two

trillion dollars PER YEAR in a few years; not the one trillion dollars

per 10 years projected by the present supporters.

Regards,

..

..

>

>

> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

> <mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Rationing>

> matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

>

> Fri Jan 8, 2010 4:37 pm (PST)

>

>

>

> I don't know if you have ever seen a terminal patient in hospice, but

> I have. What they do is withhold food and give them high doses of

> opiates. They effectively starve the person to death and the opiates

> are to keep them sedated so that they cannot complain. I don't

> consider this kind of treatment anything to hold onto. I would rather

> have the opportunity to decide if I want to be starved to death or not.

>

> Roni

[Guest guest]

The bottom line is you're going to face massive rationing IN SOME MANNER

or massive increases in taxes; whether you call it a " death panel " or

something else won't really matter to the person suffering or dying due

to lack of treatment.

..

..

>

> Posted by: " nancie barnett " deifspirit@...

> <mailto:deifspirit@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Rationing>

> aspenfairy1 <aspenfairy1>

>

>

> Sun Jan 10, 2010 12:38 am (PST)

>

>

>

> -

> there are NO " death panels in the bill and there wasn't ever any death

> panels in the bill. that is just another republican LIE .

[Guest guest]

, it is good to have positions on issues, but look at the realities before

you close your mind. Right now, today, (you can look this up) the medical

profession refuses to acknowledge

the presence of high RT3. They accommodate their position by refusing to test

for it. That way they don't have to acknowledge it's existence because the only

way to see it is to test for RT3.

Therefore, patients like myself, who only found out about it from these boards,

would have gone on and actually died because my body was not getting the T3 that

supposedly the Armour (or for that matter Thyrolar) was supposed to be

providing. When the new doctor wanted to add a little

levoxyl and I thought that maybe it would be all right, but I immediately

started feeling terrible. I reported that and he said to cut it in half. I did,

but that still made me feel terrible, so I stopped it.

 

Now, do you call these things rationing? Do you call them stupidity? Do you call

them callous disregard for a patient's welfare? No matter what you call it, it

certainly doesn't in any regard rise to the level of " Do no harm " or " quality

healthcare " . Oh, and by the way, " Obamacare " as you so love to put it, hasn't

anything to do with how the insurance companies, doctors and hospitals are

treating people now.

 

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

From: <res075oh@...>

Subject: Re: Rationing

hypothyroidism

Date: Sunday, January 10, 2010, 9:17 AM

The bottom line is you're going to face massive rationing IN SOME MANNER

or massive increases in taxes; whether you call it a " death panel " or

something else won't really matter to the person suffering or dying due

to lack of treatment.

..

..

>

>       Posted by: " nancie barnett " deifspirit@...

>       <mailto:deifspirit@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Rationing>

>       aspenfairy1 <aspenfairy1>

>

>

>         Sun Jan 10, 2010 12:38 am (PST)

>

>

>

> -

> there are NO " death panels in the bill and there wasn't ever any death

> panels in the bill. that is just another republican LIE .

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

>That's not what a government bureaucracy means by " evidence based

>medicine " . As Chuck and I were recently discussing Armour is not

>prescribed in the UK for most hypo patients because the credible peer

>reviewed research do not support it as being more effective than T4

>alone. And likely homeopathy will go the same way, as there is no

>credible research results better than chance or placebo. It's likely

>most all alternative procedures will suffer the same fate; although they

>may at least in come cases provide relief.

What fate? Currently health insurance in the US does not cover homeopathy,

and none I had would pay for Armour, or most of the rest of the modalities

I use. You're talking as if the government is trying to outlaw alternative

medicine, which is simply not going to happen. As my

naturopath/acupuncturist said when NatureThroid went off the market briefly

due to a temporary legal issue, they can't outlaw it because too many

powerful people depend on it. The insurance companies don't pay for such

things now, and they won't pay for them after. Except that evidence-based

medicine is what I said it is, and does look for cheaper treatments that

work better, which is why, as I said, chiropractic is now paid for by

Worker's Comp for repetitive stress injuries, which I know because I had

RSI disabilities until chiro brought me back, in the early 90s when the

transition to chiropractic recognition was being made.

I'm not interested in arguing about the health care bill. You're assuming

an awful lot about me based on what I've written, and I am offended by the

outlook that health care should not be available to everyone in our society

because someone else might not get what they want. I offered some

information about what I know, however, I'm new here, and what I'm looking

for is treatment information about hypothyroidism.

--

~~~ There is no way to peace; peace is the way ~~~~

--A.J. Muste

[Guest guest]

that is YOUR OPINION. NOT MINE at all. I have professional colleagues who have

personally worked on the bills in both houses and thus I know what is REALLY

going on. Since they are medical providers with political connections they were

asked to help create the Bills. To do nothing is stupid and incomprehensible and

amoral and unethical. 1000's of people die every year from lack of health

insurance. how can you deny them the RIGHT to have health insurance and the

RIGHT to be able to get medical care when they are sick.

The insurance companies have to be reigned in on their daily abuses to people

who have coverage and to those who can't get coverage.

If you don't Governmental health care then you better not use any Medicare

benefits otherwise you would be a hypocrite.

From:

Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 9:17 AM

hypothyroidism

Subject: Re: Rationing

The bottom line is you're going to face massive rationing IN SOME MANNER

or massive increases in taxes; whether you call it a " death panel " or

something else won't really matter to the person suffering or dying due

to lack of treatment.

..

..

>

> Posted by: " nancie barnett " deifspirit@...

> <mailto:deifspirit@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Rationing>

> aspenfairy1 <aspenfairy1>

>

>

> Sun Jan 10, 2010 12:38 am (PST)

>

>

>

> -

> there are NO " death panels in the bill and there wasn't ever any death

> panels in the bill. that is just another republican LIE .

[Guest guest]

So the AMA is convinced doctors will be paid MORE under Obamacare while

the liberal politicians and their naive supporters think they will be

paid less. Who do you suspect may be right??? [ggg]

Regards,

..

..

> Posted by: " Chuck B " gumboyaya@...

> <mailto:gumboyaya@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Rationing>

> gumbo482001 <gumbo482001>

>

>

> Sun Jan 10, 2010 7:53 am (PST)

>

>

>

> ,

>

> You wrote:

> >

> > I can't understand the AMA supporting Obamacare. My doctors with whom

> > I've discussed it say it will be an utterly total disaster.

>

> The AMA today only has about 15% of practicing physicians as members.

> About 20% of their membership is medical students. Historically their

> focus has tended to be on maintaining physician income by limiting the

> supply of doctors and attempting to restrict alternative approaches.

> This is similar to the function of a trade guild. Although they

> staunchly opposed Medicare through the 1960s, they now lobby for

> increasing Medicare payments and extended coverage. The equation is

> simple; which choice will increase physician incomes?

>

> They do oppose a single-payer system, which is consistent with their

> opposition to the Clinton plans in the 1990s. However, the latest

> version(s) promises to simply add government funding for uninsured

> patients, while leaving conventional insurance mostly intact,

> particularly keeping fees that are paid to doctors. This is more or less

> consistent with their historical positions.

>

> Chuck

[Guest guest]

Hi, Roni. I must confess I've missed part of your logic. We do

presently have less than stellar treatment for some medical conditions

because of many factors. Doctors are human, and make errors. There are

gaps, sometimes horrendous in our medical knowledge. When one has a

condition that apparently effects only a very small percentage of

patients [or possibly even a small part of one percent of patients] then

the level of knowledge about that condition and the resources applied to

it are going to be much smaller than to conditions that affect vastly

larger numbers of patients. At least part of that has nothing to do

with insurance or whatever kind of medical system we have. That will of

course be of little satisfaction to patients effected by such condition.

Any activity widely in use will have consequences and costs; and some

of those costs are more valuable than money. We " spend " over a hundred

innocent lives EVERY DAY for the convenience and benefits of utilizing

motor vehicles. Is that a reasonable expenditure? Apparently we think

it is because I will get in my car soon and leave with little if any

thought to the possible cost. Errors in medical care cost many tens of

thousands of lives every year, but we think the cost of NOT having

medical care would be much higher.

Medical care will continue to be limited regardless of whether it

becomes a socialist system or something else. My argument mostly [well,

one major contention] is that we're being lied to about the cost. We

simply cannot provide the promised benefits for anything like the

" projected " costs; which virtually are off by vast numbers. Once the

real costs start to become so obvious that no one can ignore them we

will have to limit expenditures or [vastly] increase taxes. I suspect a

goodly serving of both. Limiting expenditures will take some form of

rationing, by whatever name it happens to be called.

Best,

..

..

>

> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

> <mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Rationing>

> matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

>

> Sun Jan 10, 2010 9:49 am (PST)

>

>

>

> , it is good to have positions on issues, but look at the

> realities before you close your mind. Right now, today, (you can look

> this up) the medical profession refuses to acknowledge

> the presence of high RT3. They accommodate their position by refusing

> to test for it. That way they don't have to acknowledge it's existence

> because the only way to see it is to test for RT3.

> Therefore, patients like myself, who only found out about it from

> these boards, would have gone on and actually died because my body was

> not getting the T3 that supposedly the Armour (or for that matter

> Thyrolar) was supposed to be providing. When the new doctor wanted to

> add a little

> levoxyl and I thought that maybe it would be all right, but I

> immediately started feeling terrible. I reported that and he said to

> cut it in half. I did, but that still made me feel terrible, so I

> stopped it.

>

> Now, do you call these things rationing? Do you call them stupidity?

> Do you call them callous disregard for a patient's welfare? No matter

> what you call it, it certainly doesn't in any regard rise to the level

> of " Do no harm " or " quality healthcare " . Oh, and by the way,

> " Obamacare " as you so love to put it, hasn't anything to do with how

> the insurance companies, doctors and hospitals are treating people now.

>

> Roni

> <>Just because something

> isn't seen doesn't mean it's

> not there<>

>

>

>

> From: <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>>

> Subject: Re: Rationing

> hypothyroidism

> <mailto:hypothyroidism%40>

> Date: Sunday, January 10, 2010, 9:17 AM

>

> The bottom line is you're going to face massive rationing IN SOME MANNER

> or massive increases in taxes; whether you call it a " death panel " or

> something else won't really matter to the person suffering or dying due

> to lack of treatment.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Nancie, your argument is flawed. Medicare and social security benefit

me greatly. I seriously question whether either of them are good FOR

THE COUNTRY long term. And it is FOR THE GOOD OF ALL CITIZENS OF THE

COUNTRY that I present my arguments; _not_ for what I think will benefit

me or some other individual. I paid into those systems for 37 years to

whatever extent that was required to earn the benefits I receive. No

hypocrisy here.

Where is the " RIGHT " to have medical insurance written??? What other

RIGHTS do we have to access the results of the work of others? Food?

Clothing? Shelter? A new car every year? What is the basis of the

RIGHTS you quote??? If I choose to sit on my @$$ while you spend your

life in productive labor what RIGHT do I have to demand that you provide

me what I would like to have?

Okay; so you're a liberal which means you will have a different answer

to that question that I will give. As a conservative I suggest I have

NO RIGHTS to the results of your labor. If I am destitute and in need

your efforts to help me are not because I have some RIGHT to your

resources/money/help; but rather because you see it as

moral/religious/other imperative. But NEVER because I have the RIGHT to

demand such from you.

..

..

>

> Posted by: " nancie barnett " deifspirit@...

> <mailto:deifspirit@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Rationing>

> aspenfairy1 <aspenfairy1>

>

>

> Sun Jan 10, 2010 1:04 pm (PST)

>

>

>

> that is YOUR OPINION. NOT MINE at all. I have professional colleagues

> who have personally worked on the bills in both houses and thus I know

> what is REALLY going on. Since they are medical providers with

> political connections they were asked to help create the Bills. To do

> nothing is stupid and incomprehensible and amoral and unethical.

> 1000's of people die every year from lack of health insurance. how can

> you deny them the RIGHT to have health insurance and the RIGHT to be

> able to get medical care when they are sick.

> The insurance companies have to be reigned in on their daily abuses to

> people who have coverage and to those who can't get coverage.

> If you don't Governmental health care then you better not use any

> Medicare benefits otherwise you would be a hypocrite.

>

> From:

> Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 9:17 AM

> hypothyroidism

> <mailto:hypothyroidism%40>

> Subject: Re: Rationing

>

> The bottom line is you're going to face massive rationing IN SOME MANNER

> or massive increases in taxes; whether you call it a " death panel " or

> something else won't really matter to the person suffering or dying due

> to lack of treatment.

>

>

[Guest guest]

,

You wrote:

>

> So the AMA is convinced doctors will be paid MORE under Obamacare while

> the liberal politicians and their naive supporters think they will be

> paid less. Who do you suspect may be right??? [ggg]

The AMA is probably calculating a trade off: less per patient for those

on commercial insurance, because many will be forced to switch to a

medicaid level, but many more patients. This will create shortages,

allowing doctors to demand more, and will expand employment at medical

schools. I suspect it will also encourage the production of physician

assistants and nurse practitioners. It may eventually push more

medications to otc, although that is another part of the AMA control of

the market, which they will not give up easily.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

Yet, this bill creates " WAGE SLAVES " for the " COMMON GOOD " . Slavery by

any other name is slavery still. Anyone who must provide the output of

their daily labor, in part or in full, to benefit another is a slave in

that forced service. Anyone who didn't personally agree to that is

enslaved to another by force. Just because the majority vote to enslave

a minority doesn't make it moral or ethical.

As a Federicak Bastiat wrote in his book " The Law " many years ago; Any

law that takes from one person and gives to a second person something

that the second person could not have otherwise obtained except by the

commission of a criminal act is government plunder. Such is immoral or

unethical by any rational standard.

The bill is FULL of special deals concocted in private. I am certain

that the only way such a bill can be ethically created is to create it

in the full light of day with open debate and in full public view and to

require everyone to OPT-IN for both it benefits and it's taxes. This

law is immoral by all rational definitions. Having OPT-IN preserves

personal choice and natural rights when one may choose to participate in

a collective plan controlled by those who call themselves the " elite " ,

elite who think they have a right to play chess by force with average

people who would, if the were TRULY FREE, make different choices.

Slavery is as slavery does. This is not a process a true republic

engages it. No matter how worded, there is no such thing as " natural

benefits " that can be taken by any means from another. That is called

theft no matter how one Orwellianly redefines words.

I suggest reading " The Law " by Frederick Bastiat. It is out of print

since the gentleman died in 1850 (which means one can download it from

places on the net for free), is not large, but the book is spectacularly

applicable today. In his day, in France, the same socialist groups

forced their control over the population which was also a serious

problem enslaving the people, playing chess with their lives, engaging

in forced social experiments, and causing the strong mis-allocation of

personal resources to less productive means (approved by the elite)

lowering the standard of living for everyone but benefiting the elite

bank accounts.

Seniors in today's regulatory environment cannot buy drugs that cost

pennies a day in other countries BECAUSE of the corporate control of

regulation and laws. This problem will get worse as the government

will, with influence from special interests and lobbies, limit what

medical services will be allow and which will be marginalized and limited.

Your argument that forced slavery is the best choice for the common good

is immoral at best, completely evil at worst. Addtionally, insurance

companies have a 3% profit margin, not high by many standards. The laws

that limit interstate commerce and allow one who sue another for medical

issues to have no consequences if they lose is a bastard law. The

losing party should ALWAYS pay the full legal expenses of both sides.

This would eliminate the majority of legal cases, most of which are get

rich schemes that fail, but it will lower the profits of lawyers

dramatically, lawyers who's special interest is keep the law the way it

is and they influence is all over this bill to their benefit. Fixing

the law this way would also allow the cost of medical malpractice

insurance to plummet lowing medical prices in a landslide way.

Steve

On 1/10/2010 2:04 PM, nancie barnett wrote:

> that is YOUR OPINION. NOT MINE at all. I have professional colleagues who have

personally worked on the bills in both houses and thus I know what is REALLY

going on. Since they are medical providers with political connections they were

asked to help create the Bills. To do nothing is stupid and incomprehensible and

amoral and unethical. 1000's of people die every year from lack of health

insurance. how can you deny them the RIGHT to have health insurance and the

RIGHT to be able to get medical care when they are sick.

> The insurance companies have to be reigned in on their daily abuses to people

who have coverage and to those who can't get coverage.

> If you don't Governmental health care then you better not use any Medicare

benefits otherwise you would be a hypocrite.

>

>

> From:

> Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 9:17 AM

> hypothyroidism

> Subject: Re: Rationing

>

>

>

> The bottom line is you're going to face massive rationing IN SOME MANNER

> or massive increases in taxes; whether you call it a " death panel " or

> something else won't really matter to the person suffering or dying due

> to lack of treatment.

>

>

> .

> .

>

>>

>> Posted by: " nancie barnett " deifspirit@...

>> <mailto:deifspirit@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Rationing>

>> aspenfairy1<aspenfairy1>

>>

>>

>> Sun Jan 10, 2010 12:38 am (PST)

>>

>>

>>

>> -

>> there are NO " death panels in the bill and there wasn't ever any death

>> panels in the bill. that is just another republican LIE .

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

" The Problem with Socialism is that eventually you

run out of Other People's Money. " --Margaret Thatcher

" Mistrust of Government is the Bedrock of American Patriotism "

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html