one word for Steele: SCHIAVO

Could you please fix this line:
"Steele concedes that reimbursing seniors who voluntarily choose to speak to their doctor about end-of-life care is fine. " to state that it's the DOCTORS who are getting reimbursed?

The fact that we need a payment to get docs to do this is, of course, a reflection on our fee-for-service payment system. Fixing that would REALLY help with costs. That's the next step here in Massachusetts, but it'll need a 5 year phase-in.

Prediction: a lede for a major wire service...

"WASHINGTON (November 10) In a surprise no one could have anticipated during last summer's acrimonious town hall meetings, President Obama today signed sweeping health care reform legislation. A key Congressman said "Moderate Democrats were supposed to be scared off by a lying scare campaign, but when we got back and looked each other in the eye, we realized 'this is what our constituents pay us for.'

Many observers consider the turning point was when health care opponents became the targets of mocking jokes, spurred by..."

If Medicare doesn't cover end-of-life consultations, then doctors won't be part of Medicare patients' conversations.

Wilson beat me to it... I had TWO words...

TERRY SHIAVO.

Amen. That same word should be used to bludgeon every other GOP representative and official who raises the "death panel" silliness.

How on earth does the head of a party which passed an entire bloody law intervening in one family's "conversation about end of life care" and turned that personal tragedy into a media circus have the gall to say something like this?

And in that end-of-life care conversation with the government-reimbursed doctor, it's possible the patient may say, "Use all reasonable means to keep me alive as long as possible."

But for Steele and the goofballs he purports to represent the notion that the government could fund anything but evil and oppressiveness is inconceivable. Their blind ideology keeps them from making good policy. They're just in this to sink Obama.

In August 2009, the chairman of a major American political party understands health care policy about as well as a small child. It says quite a bit about the quality of the debate.

It says a lot about the party which chose him as chairman, as well.

"It says quite a bit about the quality of the debate."

The ignorance of Steve Benen and his ilk becomes irritating at times. We are not having a debate! We are at war! The true enemy of the United States is democrats. Obama and the democrats must be defeated. Obama and the democrats must be destroyed.

When at war, victory is the only objective and any means are acceptable. Therefore, we will continue to pick at sentences and/or phrases and turn them into reasons to destroy ObamaCare. Any sentence or phrase will do!

Sentence A says X!
Because democrats are the enemy, X must really mean Y!
Because democrats are evil, Y must lead to Z and Z is an abomination to the American civilization!

What an honest republican would say about the health care reform ‘debate’
(if you could find one)

This is like the children’s game of Whack-A-Mole!

Someone makes up another lie about The Chosen One or ObamaCare.
Drudge & Fox News make it their headlines.
Republicans repeat it.
Dumbocraps say it is a lie.
Our corporately owned media provide platforms to repeat the lie.
Our corporately owned media perform their ‘He said - He said’ discussions and never say it is a lie.

Rinse-Lather-Repeat-Rinse-Lather-Repeat

We win - you lose…

Our base will believe the lies.
The vast muddle of the American sheeple will be confused.
Distrust of government will increase.
What more could a country dominated by our wealthy and corporate interests want?

We win - you lose…

Of course we lie.
We know that we lie.
There is no penalty for lying.
We will continue to lie.

We win - you lose…

It must be recognized that the true enemy of the United States of America is democrats.
Democrats must be defeated.
Democrats must be destroyed.

Yes Schiavo. And why does no Democrat actually take on this death panel nonsense on its own terms...yes it is a lie and yes it is a scare tactic but more than that, it is reflective of the extreme pro-life base of the Republican party that does not want individuals being able to choose advance directives declining life-sustaining measures under certain conditions. That is the heart of the debate - everytime a John McCain or Sarah Palin talks about death panels, our response should be: "When they say death panels, what they are opposing is your ability to choose, in advance, what steps will be taken to sustain your life. We believe that is an individual choice. They believe it is not. They want to take away your ability to choose what doctors will or will not do to extend your life. They want to do for you what Congress tried to do in the Schiavo case."

Really, why has no one done this, instead of caving out of craven fear of anything that leads to a scare headline on Drudge? Did they learn nothing from that episode?

The republican party should butt the he'll out of end of life dialogue between doctors and patients. Why the he'll should't Medicare cover such consultation? I have dealt with this issue with both my parents before they died. Working with their doctor was needed and gave them comfort. Steele and his party are blowing it big time by pushing this, as rational, educated folks see right through their bullshit to their real motives. By the way Mikey, I was raised a republican, and will never support any of the nonsense you and your Fox News buddies spew.

When it comes to "life issues," Republicans care about 2 issues:

1) How life begins.

2) How life ends.

In between, when you are actually "living," well, that's for the corporations. And actually, they've got that part covered, too.

The party of 'Government hands-off' eh?

I want my health care bill of rights...
I saw the republicans are offering that on Yahoo...
And keep your government off my Medicare...

In the bloggosphere we've been over and over this. Its ridiculous to expect Steele to make sense when he's being paid not to. Its the Democrats fault, in my opinion, for not realizing that every knock is a boost. As soon as the Republicans circled their wagons and went on the attack about this particular part of the bills the Democrats should have said
"thank you very much for highlighting something we are really proud of. Under previous administrations seniors have been left to fend for themselves, unable to pay for needed advice on treatment issues. We didn't want *republicans* like Bill Frist being brought in to tell hospitals what grandma *would have wanted*--we wanted to empower grandma and her doctor to make her own decisions."

The republicans were always going to pick part X of a multi part bill and make some outrageous claim. But each and every claim must be slapped down in its own way. But each one *can* be slapped down. Its not difficult. You just figure out what the original intent of the legislation was and you explain why the republicans, as usual, are dead wrong. Qui s'excuse, s'accuse. Never apologize--go full speed ahead and attack. Its right on policy and its right on optics.

As someone said at the beginning of this thread the entire thing should have been called the Terri Schiavo Memorial Personal Autonomy Health Care Provision Protection Legislation or something equally to the point. Senior's Right to Reimbursement or Senior's right to medical council reimbursement act....etc...etc...etc...

aimai

What a joke.

Steele and the Republican'ts are going to defend old people from those dangerous Democrats with their Social Security and Medicare policies.

Who exactly has been better for the elderly? The Sick? The Poor?

Have these people forgotten that the Republican Party opposed the creation of Social Security and Medicare and much of the GOP opposes its continued existence.

"In August 2009, the chairman of a major American political party understands health care policy about as well as a small child."

Small children are insulted by the comparison. They can tell a mean spirited lie when they see one.

I think the Republican position is in keeping with their overall philosophy.

If a patient wants to meet with their doctor in order to decide for themselves on their terminal care they need to pay for it out of their own pocket.
With the current health for profit system end of life care decisions are made by hospital administrators and insurance claims processors.

Falling ill or becoming frail with age is, according to St Ronnie, a lifestyle choice that people ought not to make if they can't afford to pay for it.

that major American political party may have the policy knowledge of a small child, but what does it say about the Democrats that such an ignorant party is winning the debate?

we, the intelligent and informed, can all make fun of 'death panels' day in and day out. . . while 40% of Americans now think that is a legitimate concern.

Democrats still have no idea how to play this game. There appears to have been no strategy when reform was rolled out to sell it effectively; it still appears that way today.

but we'll sure be proud that we were smarter and better informed than those nutjobs who defeated reform!

This is why the MSM is a) withering and b) savagely defensive about "Teh bloggers."

With a responsible media, the fact-checking done by Steve, MM, Dkos, TPM, etc. would be not only unnecessary, but repetitive and redundant. To the degree that blogger fact-checking is necessary of the corporate media is the degree that corporate media demonstrate themselves without possibility of serious debate to be simply instruments of propaganda rather than "journalists."

Refusal of any media source to edit content for simple veracity (at a minimum identifying known, provable lies as such whenever printed or uttered) in fact identifies that source as simply an unreliable source of propaganda and little else - and identified anyone with more than the most minimal trust in that source as a dupe, a sucker.

"Journalistic integrity" has become the kind of laughable oxymoron that "legal ethics" has long been. In order to get by as a journalist, of course, you have to get along with the boss - who is a billionaire. So well-known pundits are whores - pretty much by definition. Tweety comes to mind as the most naked example, fawning over or derisively attacking the same polititian, depending upon which way the political winds are blowing at the time. His treatment of Delay, Guiliani, etc comes to mind.

The only accountability anywhere is right here on the "internets." It's easier to find an ethical lawyer or politician than an ethical and successful "journalist" these days.

Yes, there are Ed, Rachel and Keith over at MSNBC, but Fox beats the hell out of 'em all and they work for the same folks who axed their #1 guy - Phil Donahue - rather than allow actual facts to enter the debate in the headlong race to war.

It's actually pretty easy: the right wing in this country doesn't think you have the right to decide your own medical care. They think that the government should decide who gets to have birth control, who gets to have an abortion, who gets hooked up to machines and who's allowed to die a natural death. Decisions this important can't be left to the people most closely involved because they'll be all emotional about it and say things like, "But my father always said he didn't want to be hooked up to machines!"

They know better than you, and you'll thank them later when you get the $200,000 bill for medical care your father didn't want.

The really incredible part about this inane discussion is how the Republicans manage to keep their fiscally conservative label while effectively working to stop discussions about end-of-life care. You don't save money by finding $100 consultations "troublesome." The default for every doctor, when those discussions aren't held, is to do whatever you can to preserve life as long as possible, whatever the wishes of the unconcious patient might have been. With no DNR, they must resuscitate, even knowing that the elderly patient will be brought back for a few hours or days, or another resuscitation.

It is the height of moral inquiry to find out what the patient actually wants for their end-of-life care. Yet the full-blown idiocy of our national discussion can describe even the patient-doctor consultation as "troublesome."

Responding to lies with truth is the only way to counter the lies. Every time "death panels" or other totally false allegations are made, counter them with truth. Don't ask for the citation in the proposed legislation, because that gives the impression that there may be something there that talks about death panels. Flatly deny the falsity and state the accurate information. In the face of continued lies, use the Frank response: you are a dining room table and I cannot communicate with you as I don't know your language or your culture. It is foreign and undocumented.

I am committed to Oneness through Justice and Transformation
peace,
st john

End-of-life discussions are critical to the recognition of the finite nature of human life. Until we transcend the fear of death and the accompanying belief that there is nothing afterwards, we will continue on the journey of squandering not only huge amounts of money and other resources on end-of-life care, but prolong the agony of both the "patient" and his/her family and friends. Death is a natural part of life and is inevitible, no matter how much money and technology is applied. Even prayer will not reverse death. If you believe in prayer, pray for wisdom and healing of the mind. The body will complete its course in due time, and we are the wiser to recognize this fact. I believe in counseling for all concerned. Some will reject it and some won't. That the healthcare providers will pay for this service is wonderful. If they won't, I really doubt that they are authentically concerned about life and health. If money is the issue, then healthcare is not.

peace,
st john

Many observers consider the turning point was when health care opponents became the targets of mocking jokes, spurred by..."

The problem is that the mocking jokes appropriate for Steele's antics are off-limits to us by our own version of Godwin's Law.

Take the Bush Admin. An objective analysis of the combination of a program built around an Arbitrary Executive (fueled by a personality cult) unbound by the Bill of Rights by powers inherent in Article II Section II of the Constitution, with a policy to use a politicized justice system to establish a Permanent Majority, all built around a Faith-Based model where the proper role of women was in the Church (but not in control) the Kitchen and tending the Children leads you to one historical conclusion summable up in one word. A word that conventional political discourse says can't be used (unless applied to liberals).

Similarly watching Steele immediately evokes images of a popular mode of entertainment widely enjoyed from say 1880 right thorough the 1930s and in certain forms even after. But as good liberals we have to tread carefully around Stepin Fetchit. That Steele seems unaware that people watch his act with the same kind of wince you get watching Al Joplin singing 'Mammy' is kind of stunning to a liberal of my generation. Has the man no dignity at all? Joplin was an immigrant from Lithuania just trying to make a living. What is Steele's excuse?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jolson_black.jpg

Steele saying he doesn't do policy isn't like a housekeeper not doing windows - policy is a core competency of being a politician. Can anyone tell me what it would even mean to have a national *political* party leader who "doesn't do policy"?

"...jokes appropriate for Steele's antics are off-limits to us by our own version of Godwin's Law"

Nonsense on stilts.

Barney Frank did pretty well -- "like arguing with a dining room table."

Rachel Maddow wasn't bad, either -- trying to figure out how to order a pizza with somebody who doesn't want pepperoni, nor extra cheese, nor, well, cheese ... or sauce... or crust.

Somebody posted in another thread a nice response to Grassley's attempt to walk back his chickenshit about the imaginary threat to Grandma, imagining bedtime at the Grassley farm: "Daddy, I'm afraid of the monster under the bed."

"Well, you should be. Monsters have huge fangs and scary claws and they just wait in the dark for little kids to close their eyes -- well, time to go to sleep, now."

Personally, I'd suggested the coda be the prayer "Now I lay me down to sleep...", but that's just me.

The point is that opposition to health care reform has double-jumped the shark: fercryinoutloud, claiming that a guy like Stephen Hawking would never have a chance under the British Health Care system???

If ya can't mock these guys, face it: you're humor-impaired.

"the confusion is "out there in the grassroots of America."

Sounds like Steele's admitting his head is filled with grass roots.