http://www.larouchepac.com/lpactv?nid=11764
The video is 15 minutes.
A friend wrote this about a mutual friend in response to the video:
a friend's mother was actually 'treated' in this way...
morphine and dehydration... until she died.
my friend didn't understand. i did.
her sister had 'asked' the doctor to make sure that her
mother didn't keep getting sick and bringing her back
to town, since she travels a lot and was being
inconvenienced by her mother's weak health.
the doctor managed to make sure that her mother
never got sick again. she was strong.
she would have lived if simply allowed to regain
consciousness.
she was, for all practical purposes, murdered.
i watched it.
A lot of people support the Obama administration's healthcare reform plan without looking more deeply into it. It's an arduous task. A smidgen of that has been done here for you going on the video. I think it's always important in studying the who's who in governmental and media action. I get at issues most often through the question, "well, who is this guy anyway?" This always leads me into interesting places. I reject the "they" fingerpointing. I want to know specifically who "they" are.
Tony Blair's Minister for Healthcare Reform, Simon Stevens was discussed. This guy:
http://www.aarpinternational.org/bio/bio_show.htm?doc_id=676069
http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/who_we_are/whos_who/board_of_trustees/simon_stevens.html
Stevens became the head of "America's Health Insurance Plans"
From the site on Altman:
Altman has spoken out in favor of a 2006 law requiring Massachusetts citizens to obtain health insurance or face fines, saying the plan’s success comes because it is built upon existing health insurance structures “rather than disrupting the private insurance system.”Cohn, Kenneth H., “An Interview with Stuart H. Altman,” healthcarecollaboration.com , December 10, 2008 (7)Cohn, Kenneth H., “An Interview with Stuart H. Altman,” healthcarecollaboration.com, December 10, 2008
I thought this statement from a Simon Stevens search was interesting:
http://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/newsroom/news.aspx?id=94bf6736-1629-4fdf-83e5-f08db6bb073a
For example, the report projects that over the next 10 years approximately $55 billion could be saved by reducing seniors’ avoidable readmissions to hospitals partly by providing ‘transitional care’ support. Also, $37 billion could be saved through voluntary programs that help seniors choose to receive care from high quality and efficient care providers. And, $166 billion could be saved by reducing the need for people living in nursing homes to be admitted to a hospital. How the cost containment options are employed could range along a spectrum from voluntary uptake to the use of financial or non-financial incentives for beneficiaries and care providers.
My mother was in nursing homes for many years. She went to the hospital numerous times. The only way I can see that they could have reduced her admissions to the hospital was either to allow her to suffer or allow her to die. She never went to hospitals superficially. The next generation for the kind of "care" proposed for the elderly is the baby boomer generation. That means many of you, and I don't want to see any of you go in any way but on your own terms.
This reminds me of how there was a movement in the early 1990's to unload and shut down long term psychiatric wards for chronically mentally ill people who ended up living in them for many years. The idea was to give them their freedom and get them into community residential programs. That first bunch of patients worked out pretty well--they came from a structured environment into a less structured one. But no more. The people today who would have been in long term hospitalization now live in homeless shelters and are on the streets and in the woods--and they are almost impossible to place (they usually don't stay) into community residential programs--because without the structure of hospitalizations, they are now feral human beings.
What was believed to be a savings to taxpayers, and a fulfillment of rhetoric on human rights, has caused untold human suffering and a hidden rise in taxpayer burdens.
Just because something sounds like a good idea doesn't mean it would be good practice. Communist governments killed over 100 million of their own people in less than a century. Fact check me. People still think communism under other name changes is a good idea. For the life of me, I can't understand why people would, except that they don't know history--and they watch TV instead.
No comments:
Post a Comment