There are no death panels?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And that will not be happening in regards to ObamaCare. You will have government officials making the determination. And for those that want to bring up insurance companies, it was not the insurance company denying a transplant in this case.

You seem very confident about this. Can you point to the part of the ACA that would give government officials additional powers this regard?

From Klein's article:


In 2010, shortly after President Obama's health care legislation was signed into law, I dubbed Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius the "Empress of Obamacare" for the vast new powers she inherited. Reading through the text of the law, I counted more than 2,500 references to the secretary of HHS, of which more than 700 referred to instances in which she "shall" do something and more than 200 cases in which she "may" take regulatory action.


http://washingtonexaminer.com/philip-klein-obamacares-empress-strikes-again/article/2529742


And Politifact reversed it's position re: Mich McConnell saying that HHS put a gag order about the impact of ObamaCare:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/may/28/mitch-mcconnell/mitch-mcconnell-says-hhs-put-gag-order-insurers-ab/


So I'm to trust HHS?

Where is the part dealing with the Secretary's additional organ donor authority that you see to believe exists? Sure, the law requires that the Secretary do a lot. But, you don't say what a single one of those things is, let alone document you original claim.

[Anonymous]

Why then did she have the authority to refuse this little girl?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why then did she have the authority to refuse this little girl?

Why don't you explain that to us, since you're the one who seems upset about it? Or do you just not know what you're talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why then did she have the authority to refuse this little girl?

Reagan gave it to her in 1984.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Why then did she have the authority to refuse this little girl?


Reagan gave it to her in 1984.

If policy has not been updated since Reagan then you need to blame every president after Reagan, not Reagan. Good grief, you would think from your statement that medical advances have not been made since the Reagan presidency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why then did she have the authority to refuse this little girl?

The way I understand it - Sebilius did not act. She did not refuse the girl. The organ transplant board refused the girl and Sebilius did not do anything to alter their authority.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Why then did she have the authority to refuse this little girl?

I don't think that is what happened. Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the organ donor policy is not something the Secretary of Health controls. In this instance, she was asked to make an exception to the existing policy. She apparently has that legal power, but that is not the power to "refuse" but the power to "grant". However, this turns the "death panel" accusation on its head. The current policy was decided through a public process involving medical professionals and public input. If Sebelius stepped in, she would be using her sole discretion to give a lung that would normally go to another person to this young girl. So, Sebelius would be a one-person death panel. Instead, she decided to adhere to existing policy. Obviously, all of our hearts go out to this girl. But, let's not forget that there are other people also waiting for a lung and one of those wouldn't get one if Sebelius put this girl ahead of them. The problem is not enough donors.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why then did she have the authority to refuse this little girl?

I don't think that is what happened. Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the organ donor policy is not something the Secretary of Health controls. In this instance, she was asked to make an exception to the existing policy. She apparently has that legal power, but that is not the power to "refuse" but the power to "grant". However, this turns the "death panel" accusation on its head. The current policy was decided through a public process involving medical professionals and public input. If Sebelius stepped in, she would be using her sole discretion to give a lung that would normally go to another person to this young girl. So, Sebelius would be a one-person death panel. Instead, she decided to adhere to existing policy. Obviously, all of our hearts go out to this girl. But, let's not forget that there are other people also waiting for a lung and one of those wouldn't get one if Sebelius put this girl ahead of them. The problem is not enough donors.

Yes that is the way I understand it. I actually feel bad Sebilius was put in that position at all. And of course, I feel horribly for this family.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why then did she have the authority to refuse this little girl?

I don't think that is what happened. Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the organ donor policy is not something the Secretary of Health controls. In this instance, she was asked to make an exception to the existing policy. She apparently has that legal power, but that is not the power to "refuse" but the power to "grant". However, this turns the "death panel" accusation on its head. The current policy was decided through a public process involving medical professionals and public input. If Sebelius stepped in, she would be using her sole discretion to give a lung that would normally go to another person to this young girl. So, Sebelius would be a one-person death panel. Instead, she decided to adhere to existing policy. Obviously, all of our hearts go out to this girl. But, let's not forget that there are other people also waiting for a lung and one of those wouldn't get one if Sebelius put this girl ahead of them. The problem is not enough donors.

Which she refused to grant. Which means the Feds had the ultimate decisive power.

By the way, the only way this girl would be ahead of others is if her condition were more critical. So Sebilius would not be putting her ahead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why then did she have the authority to refuse this little girl?

I don't think that is what happened. Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the organ donor policy is not something the Secretary of Health controls. In this instance, she was asked to make an exception to the existing policy. She apparently has that legal power, but that is not the power to "refuse" but the power to "grant". However, this turns the "death panel" accusation on its head. The current policy was decided through a public process involving medical professionals and public input. If Sebelius stepped in, she would be using her sole discretion to give a lung that would normally go to another person to this young girl. So, Sebelius would be a one-person death panel. Instead, she decided to adhere to existing policy. Obviously, all of our hearts go out to this girl. But, let's not forget that there are other people also waiting for a lung and one of those wouldn't get one if Sebelius put this girl ahead of them. The problem is not enough donors.

Yes that is the way I understand it. I actually feel bad Sebilius was put in that position at all. And of course, I feel horribly for this family.

It's part of her job. If she doesn't like it, she should step down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why then did she have the authority to refuse this little girl?


Reagan gave it to her in 1984.

If policy has not been updated since Reagan then you need to blame every president after Reagan, not Reagan. Good grief, you would think from your statement that medical advances have not been made since the Reagan presidency.

That doesn't make it right. Reagan was not right about everything. I also disagree with his amnesty bullshit.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why then did she have the authority to refuse this little girl?

I don't think that is what happened. Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the organ donor policy is not something the Secretary of Health controls. In this instance, she was asked to make an exception to the existing policy. She apparently has that legal power, but that is not the power to "refuse" but the power to "grant". However, this turns the "death panel" accusation on its head. The current policy was decided through a public process involving medical professionals and public input. If Sebelius stepped in, she would be using her sole discretion to give a lung that would normally go to another person to this young girl. So, Sebelius would be a one-person death panel. Instead, she decided to adhere to existing policy. Obviously, all of our hearts go out to this girl. But, let's not forget that there are other people also waiting for a lung and one of those wouldn't get one if Sebelius put this girl ahead of them. The problem is not enough donors.

Which she refused to grant. Which means the Feds had the ultimate decisive power.

By the way, the only way this girl would be ahead of others is if her condition were more critical. So Sebilius would not be putting her ahead.

Do you really want the Secretary of Health to be overruling decisions made by doctors? That seems pretty death panelly to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why then did she have the authority to refuse this little girl?


Reagan gave it to her in 1984.

If policy has not been updated since Reagan then you need to blame every president after Reagan, not Reagan. Good grief, you would think from your statement that medical advances have not been made since the Reagan presidency.

That doesn't make it right. Reagan was not right about everything. I also disagree with his amnesty bullshit.

Well then propose an alternate method for deciding who gets the limited number of organs available for donation? Please I'm all ears. You can call it a "Life Panel". I would like to know who chooses the people who will, and won't receive an organ.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why then did she have the authority to refuse this little girl?

I don't think that is what happened. Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the organ donor policy is not something the Secretary of Health controls. In this instance, she was asked to make an exception to the existing policy. She apparently has that legal power, but that is not the power to "refuse" but the power to "grant". However, this turns the "death panel" accusation on its head. The current policy was decided through a public process involving medical professionals and public input. If Sebelius stepped in, she would be using her sole discretion to give a lung that would normally go to another person to this young girl. So, Sebelius would be a one-person death panel. Instead, she decided to adhere to existing policy. Obviously, all of our hearts go out to this girl. But, let's not forget that there are other people also waiting for a lung and one of those wouldn't get one if Sebelius put this girl ahead of them. The problem is not enough donors.

Which she refused to grant. Which means the Feds had the ultimate decisive power.

By the way, the only way this girl would be ahead of others is if her condition were more critical. So Sebilius would not be putting her ahead.

Do you really want the Secretary of Health to be overruling decisions made by doctors? That seems pretty death panelly to me.

Nope. Which is why it should not be set up this way. Reagan was wrong in this regard. What are the dems doing to dismantle it? Seems to me it was conservatives fighting for this little girl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why then did she have the authority to refuse this little girl?

I don't think that is what happened. Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the organ donor policy is not something the Secretary of Health controls. In this instance, she was asked to make an exception to the existing policy. She apparently has that legal power, but that is not the power to "refuse" but the power to "grant". However, this turns the "death panel" accusation on its head. The current policy was decided through a public process involving medical professionals and public input. If Sebelius stepped in, she would be using her sole discretion to give a lung that would normally go to another person to this young girl. So, Sebelius would be a one-person death panel. Instead, she decided to adhere to existing policy. Obviously, all of our hearts go out to this girl. But, let's not forget that there are other people also waiting for a lung and one of those wouldn't get one if Sebelius put this girl ahead of them. The problem is not enough donors.

Which she refused to grant. Which means the Feds had the ultimate decisive power.

By the way, the only way this girl would be ahead of others is if her condition were more critical. So Sebilius would not be putting her ahead.

Hello poster, this is a transmission from Planet Earth: the secretary of Health and Human Services is among the "feds" whom you seem to despise so.