Siegel bends over backwards to make the Republican attacks against health care reform and the widely debunked "death panel" claim seem legitimate. This piece is rife with errors and distortions. Not recommended at all.
Betsy McCaughey, who singlehandedly killed the Clintons’ health-care initiative 15 years ago with her infamous and infamously inaccurate cover story in The New Republic, ...
Highly opinionated rant against a proposed end-of-life counseling service being debated in Congress. The author stretches the facts to support his controversial argument that Obama's health care reform plan would encourage euthanasia as a cost-cutting measure. This strikes me as irresponsible, poorly-researched misinformation, I'm sorry to say.
For a more reasonable perspective on this issue, read the WashPo's informative interview with Republican Senator Johnny Isakson on why he supports end-of-life counseling as a preventive measure to spare patients and their families from having to make traumatic last-minute decisions (see link). That's exactly why my wife and I have set up a living trust to address these issues well in advance.
No. This is another example of fanning the flames of conservative opposition based on misinformation. This plan isn't about end-of-life TREATMENT, it's about end-of-life planning; i.e., living wills, giving thoughtful consideration to the use of "extreme measures" in hopeless situations, and all of us face a situation that ultimately becomes hopeless. Siegel either errs in ignorance or misleads by design when he argues that the Obama plan is about euthanasia. It's not. There's a difference between rational end-of-life planning and end-of-life killing. This isn't about killing. It's time that we move on from handwringing appeals to hysteria.
Siegel has conflated two separate provisions in the bill and turned them into a complete fabrication. One is an efficacy review of commonly used procedures. This could be valuable information to physicians as they make recommendations to their patients. The other is payment for a counseling session. That's it. Really.
I have a living will. My friend the hospice administrator recommended it, and I did it. My son, who will administer mine, discussed my wishes with me to make sure he understood what I want. That's all this is about.
As for the efficacy review, it turns out that studies show many very expensive procedures have pretty poor returns. For example, statistics show you'd extend your life more by changing your diet than by open heart surgery. And the diet would hurt a lot less. For some ... More »
the writer here, in placing the arguments in the new health care plan of the administration does that a great disservice, because the sitings he uses are not spelling out what he claims are his concerns. using eugenics is completely inflammatory here so i don't give this credence in any objectivity or fairness. nevertheless, those same interpretations of the bill's passages need to be discussed in our society. not as individual senior citizens but as a culture which places so much emphasis on death in old age as not to be given in to, or to be prolonged no matter what. we SHOULD be made aware of what options we may have and why we might want to consider them. this is not about euthanasia. it's about the PROCESS of ... More »
This author is taking comments out of context and making things up without a clear understanding of the facts or details. It's easy to extrapolate from one theoretical argument to another but when one speaks about saving money and best practices, for example, that doesn't mean that decisions will be made that are any different with respect to treatment. The decisions that the insurance execs make daily, on the other hand, are made on the basis of keeping the money coming their way and frequently cost people of all ages their lives.
I am a senior citizen and I worry much, much more about the phenomenal waste of resources and the criminal control that corporations and insurance companies have over people's lives than any plan the "government" might have to trim costs. I'd rather take a chance with a bureaucrat than a self-serving corporate fat cat any day. At least Big Brother is my brother and not a greedy slimeball profiting from my misfortune or trying to put more cash into the pockets of Wall St. execs and stockholders.