The Death Panel That Never Was?
I’ve often wonder how self-proclaimed atheists who are angry at God could properly call themselves atheists: if you truly do not believe in the existence of a thing, how can you be angry with it? For my part, I am neither happy with nor angry at leprechauns, as I do not believe in their existence.
On the other hand, I was upset with Section 1233 of HR3200 - the section authorizing what Sarah Palin called “death panels.”
The New York Times, in a breath taking denial of legislative reality (natch), dismissed the “death panel” discourse as just so much rumor mill hoo-hah.
The stubborn yet false rumor that President Obama’s health care proposals would create government-sponsored “death panels” to decide which patients were worthy of living seemed to arise from nowhere in recent weeks.
Advanced even this week by Republican stalwarts including the party’s last vice-presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, and Charles E. Grassley, the veteran Iowa senator, the nature of the assertion nonetheless seemed reminiscent of the modern-day viral Internet campaigns that dogged Mr. Obama last year, falsely calling him a Muslim and questioning his nationality.
But the rumor — which has come up at Congressional town-hall-style meetings this week in spite of an avalanche of reports laying out why it was false — was not born of anonymous e-mailers, partisan bloggers or stealthy cyberconspiracy theorists.
Rather, it has a far more mainstream provenance, openly emanating months ago from many of the same pundits and conservative media outlets that were central in defeating President Bill Clinton’s health care proposals 16 years ago, including the editorial board of The Washington Times, the American Spectator magazine and Betsy McCaughey, whose 1994 health care critique made her a star of the conservative movement (and ultimately, New York’s lieutenant governor).
The provenance goes beyond mainstream punditry and lies in the House bill itself. What the Times dismisses as “rumor” is the ineluctable conclusion one is obliged to reach after carefully parsing the text of section 1233. By conflating the practical effect of this bill on end-of-life health care with forced euthanasia in Nazi Germany, the Times creates a strawman argument that it proceeds to huff and puff and blow down to the ground. Apparently the editors fail to see the formal difference between the two scenarios and appear to oblivious to the substantive similarity in everyday applications.
The end result is government control and a panel of bureaucrats that ultimately decides who receives health care, when they receive it and how much they may receive. Whether or not one is marched into a death chamber or informed through a cold boilerplate letter that certain life sustaining drugs or surgery are being denied because they are simply too expensive, the outcome is still the same: death.
But all this is now moot. Apparently, the legislators working on the bill have decided to drop from it the provision the New York Times said never existed.
I suppose that now they feel justified in asking: death panels? What death panels?
It if wasn’t in the bill, why did the Senate have to remove it?
In effect, it was there, and this would have been ominous.
Now, let’s rip the bill apart on the other issues:
COST and bankrupting the country and currency,
RATIONING
LESS EFFICIENT
CONTROLLING
The bill required doctors and hospitals to sit down with patients to discuss the isssues if the patients requested it. This was something that was blown out of all proportion.
I believe in leprechauns. I’m sure I must have been out drinking with some when I went to Ireland, because I was very green and ill when I awoke late the next day.
Doctors can sit with their patients anytime and discuss end of life choices. They usually do it during a regular visit- especially if one is terminal. There is/ was no reason to put the provision in the bill so the doctor “can get paid.” Besides, POA, advanced directives and living wills are Legal documents, not medical.
It’s as stupid as the argument made for justifying partial- birth abortions.
Sarah kicked their ass on this one.
A 1990 federal law has required institutions that receive Medicare funds to inform all patients about their rights to have living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. when admitted to hospitals. See http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/fpc/profinfo/ib98_4.htm.
Sarah is a filthy liar, Tara Sue.
AMEN TARA SUE!
JIM M,
YOU are WRONG about Sarah….YOU ARE!!!! You just can’t stand one of us…
A tundra-grunged, moose poop-covered, mud-stained, oil-splatted liar to be more specific. The planned law only did what the current law does.
This is an example of the full frontal assault that Sarah Palin delivers when fighting. She doesn’t mess around with surprise attacks from the backside. Instead, she literally freezes her sights on their front side, trots out the bait, sets the trap and then challenges the enemy to make a run for her.
Brilliant.
Simply brilliant.
When I first heard Obama in his first healthcare townhall, repeating the phrase “death panels” I knew that Sarah Palin had won the debate, by putting Obama on the defensive, simply because the phrase is now deeply ingrained into our psyche. Obama, then trying to refute it by using the phrase, makes him suspect, simply because in the end, who believes him?
That’s right, Mad Dog. The truth is not a defense. Sarah is taking a page out of Rove’s book in doing this.
Hope you all have a good weekend. Hope the moose-poop thing doesn’t put you off some Graeter’s ice cream this weekend, Creationist. And have some Shiner Bock this weekend, Mad Dog. I know I will.
You know you love her, Jim.
Isn’t it fun when you get an ill informed troll to play with? Thanks, Jim M, for proving your inability to argue a point and resorting immediately to name calling. Standard for leftard trolls.
Now, to the point, Sarah was only obliquely referring to section 1233 when she spoke of “Death panels”. She was referring even more to the writings of Rahm’s brother, Zeke (Ezekiel) in regard to the value of certain types of people who need major medical care. He seems to want to divide them into groups by how useful they are to society. That is, determine who gets treatment and who doesn’t. You know, death panels.
Coming from a bitched slapped, bajinga whipped, nutburger eating, mealy-mouthed lawyer pimp, brain dead ignoramous, corporate pawn punk, low-life scum, shit worm food spit, brain dead political gnome hack….that’s pretty damn good!
Nice Doggy!
I thought so, too, but then I am easily impressed.
Good for you as well, but I am allergic to some nuts, so the nutburger thing needs to be reworked. And I resemble those other remarks (nuk, nuk, nuk).
Go back to Palin’s Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=116471698434, Buford. 80% of it talks about section 1233. Only in the last two paragraphs does she say that her original remarks also dealt with Rahm’s brother’s statements.
Jim- you don’t need to show me Medicare laws. I’m pretty familiar with them.
Since it’s already law, what the hell is the point of putting it in the bill?
If gubment health care comes to this country- you sign up first, the rest of us will keep our “crappy” plans and wait for your report.
I’ll believe Sarah any day over the asshats in Washington.
Jim,
You need a Shiner for sure and it’s not the Bock (but it rhymes with it).
Tara Sue, because doctors and hospital will have to comply with the new law, and because some provisions of current law (parts of ERISA, for instance) will be deleted because they no longer would make sense as written. I will take the new plan in a heartbeat if it has no preexisting coverage limits/exclusions, guaranteed availability and community pricing.
Mad Dog, have a good one this weekend and Manly, hope the $10 helps.
Jim M, you are so brainwashed, it’s just a pity. Spew the talking points if you wish. Let me give you a couple of them. If the government plan is good enough for the hoi polloi, is it good enough for congresscritters? Will they all go on it, with their families? How about “bending the cost curve? Adding 40 to 50 million new insured will bend the cost curve, all right. Just not in the direction we’re being told.
The best way to keep a dog (no not MD) from getting into dinner is to put it on a high shelf or in the fridge, where it can’t reach. The best way to keep a kid’s hands out of the cookie jar is to put the cookies somewhere the kid can’t reach, can’t climb to, and can’t knock stuff over. Saying “No” repeatedly and physical punishment have their place, of course, but frankly nothing quite beats simple avoidance.
We know from history that when the government gets their hands on anything, they aren’t satisfied until they have their hands on everything. We also know from history that when the government runs healthcare, this IS what happens. Look at Britain and Canada if you need more proof. Even if it doesn’t start this way, this is where it will get to eventually.
Slippery slope? Maybe, but I’m a firm believer in the slippery slope. I believe the very worst in our politicians and expect nothing less. So rather than leave the door open then try to come back and say “No No Bad Dog” later, which never works with politicians, I choose instead to lock the door and throw the key away.
After all, you can’t fall off the slippery slope if you stay on the level path.
*eats*
Jim-
Why re-work the whole system?
Why not- portablility, no pre-existing condition and tort reform? That makes a helluva lot more sense!
It drives down cost, and makes it much more affordable for “everyone.”
Who here thinks that Jim M is a member of Obama’s Cybercorps?
John,
It’s unanimous.
Grue in the Attic on August 14, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Pefectly stated…………..
That’s called swearing to uphold the Constitution when elected to represent us.
Perhaps a more generic ammendment to try politicians for treason would be in order.
Jim M.,
BHO as quoted by the NYT on April 14, 2009…
btw, when was the last time Fed. Law/Regs weren’t determinative?
Section 1233 of HR 3200 MANDATED that doctors have end of life discussions with their patients and PAID them to do so. Once every five years, and more often if the patient’s health status changed…
This is different from making patients aware of DNR orders, living wills, etc.
Add to the mix the chief of staff to the Precedent has a brother that advocates these types of comparative worth scenarios…
Based on what Dr. Frankenrahm proposed, would a young child needing a transplant be allowed to have one under the “public option”? Would a young boy with muscular dystrophy be provided with the medical treatment that would allow him to grow to be Stephen Hawking? Would the GOVERNMENT stop providing Aricept/Excelon/Namenda for Alz patients after 6 months?
If obamacare was such a good thing to have and would result in such great coverage, why hasn’t one single Congressman stepped forward to say that they would switch to the resulting program?
Here’s the provision. It still looks to me to effectively be the same as the current law requirement:
16 (a) MEDICARE.—
17 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861 of the Social
18 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1 395x) is amended—
4 “(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the
5 continuum of end-of-life services and supports avail-
6 able, including palliative care and hospice, and bene
7 fits for such services and supports that are available
8 under this title.
9 “(F) (i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of
10 orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar
11 orders, which shall include—
12 “(I) the reasons why the development of
13 such an order is beneficial to the individual and
14 the individual’s family and the reasons why
15 such an order should be updated periodically as
16 the health of the individual changes;
17 “(II) the information needed for an indi
18 vidual or legal surrogate to make informed deci
19 sions regarding the completion of such an
20 order; and
21 “(III) the identification of resources that
22 an individual may use to determine the require-
23 ments of the State in which such individual re-
24 sides so that the treatment wishes of that indi
25 vidual will be carried out if the individual is un
1 able to communicate those wishes, including re-
2 quirements regarding the designation of a sur
3 rogate decisionmaker (also known as a health
4 care proxy).
5 “(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement
6 for explanations under clause (i) to consultations
7 furnished in a State—
8 “(I) in which all legal barriers have been
9 addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining
10 treatment to constitute a set of medical orders
11 respected across all care settings; and
12 “(II) that has in effect a program for or-
13 ders for life sustaining treatment described in
14 clause (iii).
15 “(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining
16 treatment for a States described in this clause is a
17 program that—
18 “(I) ensures such orders are standardized
19 and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;
20 “(II) distributes or makes accessible such
21 orders to physicians and other health profes
22 sionals that (acting within the scope of the pro-
23 fessional’s authority under State law) may sign
24 orders for life sustaining treatment;
1 “(III) provides training for health care
2 professionals across the continuum of care
3 about the goals and use of orders for life sus-
4 taining treatment; and
5 “(IV) is guided by a coalition of stake-
6 holders includes representatives from emergency
7 medical services, emergency department physi
8 cians or nurses, state long-term care associa
9 tion, state medical association, state surveyors,
10 agency responsible for senior services, state de-
11 partment of health, state hospital association,
12 home health association, state bar association,
13 and state hospice association.
1 “(B) An advance care planning consultation with re-
2 spect to an individual may be conducted more frequently
3 than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant
4 change in the health condition of the individual, including
5 diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a
6 life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening
7 injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a
8 long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or
9 a hospice program.
10 “(4) A consultation under this subsection may in-
11 clude the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining
12 treatment or a similar order.
13 “(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term ‘order
14 regarding life sustaining treatment’ means, with respect
15 to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to
16 the treatment of that individual that—
17 “(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as de-
18 fined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care
19 professional (as specified by the Secretary and who
20 is acting within the scope of the professional’s au-
21 thority under State law in signing such an order, in-
22 cluding a nurse practitioner or physician assistant)
23 and is in a form that permits it to stay with the in-
24 dividual and be followed by health care professionals
25 and providers across the continuum of care;
1 “(ii) effectively communicates the individual’s
2 preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, in-
3 cluding an indication of the treatment and care de-
4 sired by the individual;
5 “(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized
6 within a given locality, region, or State (as identified
7 by the Secretary); and
8 “(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as
9 defined in section 1866(f) (3)) if executed by the in-
10 dividual.
11 “(B) The level of treatment indicated under subpara
12 graph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treat-
13 ment to an indication to limit some or all or specified
14 interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may in-
15 clude indications respecting, among other items—
16 “(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the
17 patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac
18 or pulmonary problems;
19 “(ii) the individual’s desire regarding transfer
20 to a hospital or remaining at the current care set-
21 ting;
22 “(iii) the use of antibiotics; and
23 “(iv) the use of artificially administered nutri
24 tion and hydration.”.
Great news from Oregon…sorry for you, ORrighty/Miles
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1
This is from ABC News, too…
Let’s face it, Obamacare devalues human life, period.
Hey Jim M,
Are you the same guy who donated $10 to Colonel Rash’s website?
This must be Jim Moran of the Virginia delegation to Congress. Same level of brain activity.
I did contribe the $10, and I’m not Jim Moran.
Not to stick up for Jim M or anything… but at least he has the capacity to enter in Manly’s URL. Moran could throw a rock at the ground and miss…
Thanks, Max. I hope a few others of you also contributed to Manly.
Jim, you could be called dumb for numbering every sentence, like we intelligent people cannot read…
Where in the hell did you learn to write….in concentration camps?!
Numbering every sentence so you don’t lose your place?
Geez!! Get a grip in a free land.
Oh yea?!!
Well I gave him $50.00 and $100.00 respectively!! And then another $125.00 for him to send someone to VIP for the Lonegan campaign.
Neener, neener, neener…neener, neener…..well never mind.
You know, Jim, some of us don’t brag about the good things we do…and I wasn’t going to mention my good deeds until I got so damn SICK of your effing bragging, to show you how stupid you are!!
Good grief!! You effing liberals make me sick!
Knock it off!!
I’ve had it with you.
Woof.