Trying to find out what Obamacare really says about end of life issues

There has been a lot of discussion about “end of life” provisions in Obamacare.  One side says there will be a mandatory consultation by some government bureaucrat for seniors to discuss end of life issues.

The other side says, no, no, no, it’s not mandatory, it just says medicare will pay for it, if you choose to consult with your own physician about end of life issues.  Which is why I don’t believe what I hear on the so-called news.  It’s just one side against the other, each trying to push their own ideas about it.

It’s almost impossible for the average person to know because we have no credible information.  And even if we did have a copy of the bill to read, we would need “two lawyers” to interpret it for us, as Mr. Rangel says  It wasn’t Mr. Rangel but Conyers.

In addition to that, I think there are about 5 different bills going around, 3 in the house and 2 in the senate.  Lord knows which one they are even talking about.

I have been looking for something that would give me the exact wording of this section or at least an honest assessment of what it says.  I tried to download the over 1000-page bill, and it shut my computer down.  I finally found somewhat of an explanation.  This is from a post made by

They say:

Buried halfway through the current version of “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act,” the House version of ObamaCare, is a set of proposals pertaining to end-of-life care.

Which has language going back to another bill:

The end-of-life language originates from a different bill, called the Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act, introduced earlier this year by Sens. Jay Rocefeller, D-W.Va., and Susan Collins, R-Maine. In addition to the consultation, which Medicare will pay for every five years, the bill also says that patients will be informed about the benefits of hospice and palliative care. Hospices are facility or home-based services for terminally ill patients to receive pain medicine and other comforts before they die.

[“”Palliative care is any form of medical care or treatment that concentrates on reducing the severity of disease symptoms, rather than striving to halt, delay, or reverse progression of the disease itself or provide a cure.””]

Thus the “take a pain pill” analogy.

I don’t see anything here that says the consultation is mandatory but:

It also would create a tracking system to see if doctors are promoting advanced care directives and following them.

Could this be where the idea is coming from that the government will be involved in it.  The “tracking system” would monitor the doctors to see if they are following “directives” which would come from where?  Probably the government. AHRQ? HHS?

President Obama has made statements that make you think that cost will be a determining factor, even using his grandmother as an example of questioning whether or not she should have a hip replacement at her age, and so hospice and pain pills will be sort of pushed or advocated to elders as a choice they should make.  And, of course, hospice care companies are all for it.  Funny trivia – one of the major hospice companies also owns Roto Rooter.  🙂

The Bush administration put forth something that encourages living wills, and they say they are just reiterating this as an option.

I don’t know.  But there are some things that would make a person disagree with this on principle.  When you add to it that the Obama administration has at least two czars with questionable beliefs, one who elevates animals to the status of human beings  and one who has advocated population control and sterlization.  Plus we have an advocate of Obamacare, Peter Singer, who sets forth equations that measure the value or lack of value of old people.  A third is Dr. Ezekial Emanual, presidential advisor and brother of Rahm, who holds views that place values on human life with regard to their age and ability to contribute to society.  It does matter what people believe because from those beliefs come their actions.  (I just read this last paragraph back to myself and it sounds like scare tactics of some wild-eyed

wild eyes

radical, but don’t go by me, just check it out.  I did not make it up.)

Of course, if you’re young, it’s probably not an issue but everybody will be old, if they live long enough.  🙂

See previous post and Here.

Posted:  07.31.09


Filed under Barack Obama, health care, Human Interest, life, Uncategorized

5 responses to “Trying to find out what Obamacare really says about end of life issues

  1. Suzy

    “End-of-life” counseling is not a new idea but, rather, necessary in the view of many in health care, alredy. When it becomes obvious that there is no treatment that will change a terminal outcome, patients and their families have been advised to talk things over, make arrangements for the patient’s comfort, and carry out any final wishes; and deal with funeral and burial arrangements. It makes the end so much more tolerable for all concerned. I have found NOTHING in HR 3200 that even addresses this subject.


  2. Bella

    My Dad had a living will, the minute he decided to stop invasive care hospice took over, there is already something in place for folks who are terminally ill.

    So why do they need to write it into the legislation? If it is so controversial they need to remove it. Why are they not talking about taking it out if it is so innocuous?

    And that still doesn’t address RATIONING CARE you can’t add 47 million people to health insurance rolls when you don’t have the doctors nurses and medical staff to care for them all so decisions will have to be made and we already heard about how the President felt about his Grandmother her fight with cancer her hip replacement and her age….He didn’t think it would be fair for the Government to pick up the expense given her age.

    People believe what they want to believe. There is NOTHING in our founding documents that ENTITLE anyone to government health care.

    The tax revenue that is raised by the Federal Government is supposed to go to our defense, that means to keep a robust military to protect us in case we are attacked, that is it. We are a Republic not an Oligarchy well not yet.

    There is a segment of society that believes it is ENTITLED to their neighbor’s taxes to pay for their quality of life. That’s false: Life, Liberty and “the Pursuit of Happiness” not the Guarantee of Happiness.

    The Free Market works when it is allowed to, the Government doesn’t know how to run business except into the ground 🙂

    People seem to have forgotten the lessons of the Katrina Aftermath already, put your life in the hands of bureaucrats, go ahead but don’t whine when what you get back from them is CRAP CARE. They don’t care as long as they keep living off of other people’s taxes.

    I believe in a safety net NOT a welfare state.


  3. And Monica Crowley

    Our Founding Documents, 2.0

    If our founding documents were being written today by Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank and other assorted liberal maniacs, they would say the following:

    The Declaration of Independence:

    “WE hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness, and oh yeah, health insurance…”

    The Constitution:

    “WE the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and sell health insurance….”

    Our Founding Fathers simply lacked imagination. Thank goodness we’ve got this current crowd to fix their gross oversight.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s