The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Government by regulation. Shhh.

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL
    Posts
    2,953

    Default Government by regulation. Shhh.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...=nl_pmheadline

    http://tinyurl.com/2eg35at

    By Charles Krauthammer
    Friday, December 31, 2010

    Most people don't remember Obamacare's notorious Section 1233, mandating government payments for end-of-life counseling. It aroused so much anxiety as a possible first slippery step on the road to state-mandated late-life rationing that the Senate never included it in the final health-care law.

    Well, it's back - by administrative fiat. A month ago, Medicare issued a regulation providing for end-of-life counseling during annual "wellness" visits. It was all nicely buried amid the simultaneous release of hundreds of new Medicare rules.

    - more -

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,149

    Default

    I'm not at all opposed to "end of life counseling", and as a general rule don't buy into "slippery slope" scare tactics

  3. #3
    Senior Member M&K's Retrievers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Royse City, TX
    Posts
    5,196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mjh345 View Post
    I'm not at all opposed to "end of life counseling", and as a general rule don't buy into "slippery slope" scare tactics
    Wouldn't that depend on what the counseling advises?
    M&K's HR UH Tucker of Texoma JH
    M&K's SHR Prime Black Angus
    M&K's Miss Jessie Girl JH
    Sir Jacob of Lakeview-Jake
    Freeway JYD

    Mike Whitworth

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M&K's Retrievers View Post
    Wouldn't that depend on what the counseling advises?
    Not to me.

  5. #5
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M&K's Retrievers View Post
    Wouldn't that depend on what the counseling advises?
    I haven't seen anything that prescribes what must be discussed. The statute only provides for reimbursement to the physician, for what is often the longest and most involved discussion had with the family or patient.
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL
    Posts
    2,953

    Default

    The point is not the so-called "death panels."

    The point is that the Administration is using rule-making to create laws despite the actions of Congress against these laws.

    Again, suppose the Fish and Wildlife Service procedes with a rule-making which provides that no hunting or field events can take place on any lands purchased with Pittman-Robinson Act funds. (BTW, this is not far-fetched. They already tried something like this in Illinois in the Green River WMA.)

    Eric

  7. #7
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Johnson View Post
    The point is not the so-called "death panels."

    The point is that the Administration is using rule-making to create laws despite the actions of Congress against these laws.

    Again, suppose the Fish and Wildlife Service procedes with a rule-making which provides that no hunting or field events can take place on any lands purchased with Pittman-Robinson Act funds. (BTW, this is not far-fetched. They already tried something like this in Illinois in the Green River WMA.)

    Eric
    Thanks for the refocus.

    Isn't it different that its being brought up by this method now, after not being included at all in the original legislation......as opposed to being in the legislation, and being voted down, then to be put through via this method?
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Pac NW
    Posts
    4,316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    Thanks for the refocus.

    Isn't it different that its being brought up by this method now, after not being included at all in the original legislation......as opposed to being in the legislation, and being voted down, then to be put through via this method?
    Why most of us don't like BHO's brand of government !!!!!!!!! & why we think his defenders are a little short of a full deck. As one who is probably closer than any on this forum to making these choices I was going to present from my perspective, but will now let this play out 1st. I believe the "Death Panel" option worthy of an in depth discussion.
    __________________________

    Marvin S

    Everyone's friend is No One's friend

    Someday your life will flash before your eyes. It's your responsibility to make sure it's worth watching!

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL
    Posts
    2,953

    Default

    There's a bit of a gray area. In the case of the Section 1233 of the healthcare legislation, it was removed from the bill because it was known to be unpopular. Thus, Congress didn't act on it so that technically, it's a new issue. OTOH, I don't believe that it's "new" for a minute.

    Overall, the administrative rule-making authority ought not be used to invoke rules that are contrary to the legislative intent of Congress. If Congress has not expressed itself yet, that's a risk to us and/or the Administration. Once the public finds out what a couple of bureaucrats have done in their own name, there may or may not be consequences.

    Eric

  10. #10
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Johnson View Post
    Thus, Congress didn't act on it so that technically, it's a new issue. OTOH, I don't believe that it's "new" for a minute.


    Eric

    I agree wholeheartedly. And there will be a political price for this.

    However, we shouldn't be surprised at this tactic, and should expect it to become more and more popular as we have an ever increasingly polarized political field.

    And I won't bring up his name, but in all fairness, the last guy took end-runs and executive maneuvering around Congress to new levels. This isn't anything new.
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •