HR 3200 or should that be HR Puff 'N' Stuff...

I've been reading and listening with great interest to
the debates, statements, comments and blogs on
the subject of the universal health care bill, HR 3200,
that the US are currently grappling with.

I must admit to finding it rather amusing... just like
politics here in Aus... everyone has a line to push
and by golly they'll push it.

Is it any business of mine what the US end up doing? Well
no it's not, but it does spark my ire when people knowingly
misrepresent something for their own political reasons.
And my 'ire' has really been sparked on this subject.

I'll readily concede now that I am not fully informed on
the subject of health care in the US, and so I'm not
arguing the case for or against it for that very reason. But
what I do want to suggest, encourage or persuade the
people of the US to do is...

READ THE BILL
(click)


I've caught a few interviews and 'talk' sessions on
the subject, and I've noticed a common theme emerge.
Often the commentator or interviewee will say something
that includes these words "...one of the few people in the US to
have read this bill." Now that's a worry if it's true.

Even I've read the bill... and it's not my bill. And I would even
venture to say that maybe more non-US people have read it
than US citizens... is that possible?

Anyway, consider this...

On the Fred Thompson Show, click above image to go to his
site, there's an interview with Betsy McCaughey, PhD on
the subject of how this bill is designed to kill the parents
of US citizens, who have the misfortune of being in ill
health. I kid you not. The good Betsy doesn't put it quite
like that, but it is what she's saying.

Have a listen below, and at about the 1:20 mark Betsy starts
talking about pages 425 to 430 in which she says the bill
makes it "mandatory that people in Medicare have a required
counselling session that will tell them how to end their life
sooner..." and she goes on to say "all to do what's in society's
best interest, or your family's best interest, and cut your life
short".

There's a PDF available that numbers the pages, and I have
extracted the pages in question, they're further down in this post.
But here's where you can read the original, just click the link below;

SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION.

Okay, so Betsy says that the Government has written into
legislation the requirement that everybody in Medicare be
counselled on ending their life rather than continue consuming
precious resources in order to stay alive. And at around 4:55 in
the interview she answers a rhetorical question from Thompson,
after he states that it's all about saving money in the long run,
"...where do you think he's (Obama) gonna get those savings?"
asks Thompson. "By shortening your mother or father's life."
says Betsy.

Please tell me she doesn't really believe that.

Common sense tells me that Betsy's being ridiculous, but let's
not use common sense in this argument, after all she's not,
and instead let's take a look at the bill.

Take a look at the extracts below, you can click on the images
to see larger versions;





The first 130 or so lines above address the many aspects
around meanings, terms and who the respective practitioners
are that's covered by this section. And goes on to refer to
life sustaining treatment which could easily be argued is
the thrust of this part of the bill. Then it continues, in the
highlighted section above, and I paraphrase;
The level of treatment indicated under this section may
range from an indication for full treatment to an
indication to limit some or all or specified
interventions. The bill is simply providing for the
individual to indicate either full care or no care or
anything in between. It does NOT provide the go ahead
for the Government to kill your parents, or even encourage
them to reject care.

All this section is doing is making it mandatory to counsel
and record the patients preference should the circumstance
arise that intervention is required. My father had on his file,
'Do Not Resuscitate', that wasn't a Government directive it
was his considered wish.

The other bit that got me was that Betsy suggests that you
won't be able to keep your current insurance. The section she
misquotes is actually saying that any new insurance cover provided
under this bill, if passed, will not be done to the old rules and must
be done under the new ones... makes perfect sense to me.

Anyway, that's my take on the US HR 3200 health bill and the
prevailing uninformed arguments that are getting about.

Oh by the way... the other thing that blows me away is the way
Mr. Thompson accepts without question, or even the smallest
amount of doubt, Betsy's completely unreal take on what
the bill states.

Cheers.