Sarah Palin responded to the left’s mass attacks on her claim that end of life care would have to be managed, and that the govt will be deciding how much coverage to give people. Mr Obama has been using straw-man arguments claiming that ‘some want things to stay the same,’ but in all his arguments and all his claims about healthcare….he never cites the sections, never quotes the bill, and expects anyone who questions it to do exactly that. The Democrats’ members of Congress aren’t expected to read the bill (anyone thing Ted Kennedy to Robert Byrd are gonna read it?). Supporters of the bill aren’t expected to read it, but anyone who does have concerns is expected to cite it chapter and verse. Here, Sarah Palin does just that.
Will Mr Obama respond w full quotes and citations?
Will he even read the bill?
Will he just try the general rhetoric road that continues to fail in stopping the loss of support for the Democrats’ plan?
Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly, and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these “unproductive” members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care.
The President made light of these concerns. He said:
“Let me just be specific about some things that I’ve been hearing lately that we just need to dispose of here. The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for death panels that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we’ve decided that we don’t, it’s too expensive to let her live anymore….It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, etc. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything.” [1]The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” [2] With all due respect, it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.
Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual … or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility… or a hospice program.” [3] During those consultations, practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services. [4]
Now put this in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” [5] Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As Charles Lane notes in the Washington Post, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones…. If it’s all about alleviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to “bend the curve” on health-care costs?” [6]
As Lane also points out:
Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren’t quite “purely voluntary,” as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, “purely voluntary” means “not unless the patient requests one.” Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive — money — to do so. Indeed, that’s an incentive to insist.
Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they’re in the meeting, the bill does permit “formulation” of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would “place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign,” I don’t think he’s being realistic. [7]
Even columnist Eugene Robinson, a self-described “true believer” who “will almost certainly support” “whatever reform package finally emerges”, agrees that “If the government says it has to control health-care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending.” [8]
So are these usually friendly pundits wrong? Is this all just a “rumor” to be “disposed of”, as President Obama says? Not according to Democratic New York State Senator Ruben Diaz, Chairman of the New York State Senate Aging Committee, who writes:
Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200 puts our senior citizens on a slippery slope and may diminish respect for the inherent dignity of each of their lives…. It is egregious to consider that any senior citizen … should be placed in a situation where he or she would feel pressured to save the government money by dying a little sooner than he or she otherwise would, be required to be counseled about the supposed benefits of killing oneself, or be encouraged to sign any end of life directives that they would not otherwise sign. [9]
Of course, it’s not just this one provision that presents a problem. My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President’s chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens….An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” [10] Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.” [11]
President Obama can try to gloss over the effects of government authorized end-of-life consultations, but the views of one of his top health care advisors are clear enough. It’s all just more evidence that the Democratic legislative proposals will lead to health care rationing, and more evidence that the top-down plans of government bureaucrats will never result in real health care reform.
[1] See http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/president-obama-addresses-sarah-palin-death-panels-wild-representations.html.
[2] See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
[3] See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1); Sec. 1233 (hhh)(3)(B)(1), above.
[4] See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1)(E), above.
[5] See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
[6] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html].
[7] Id.
[8] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/10/AR2009081002455.html].
[9] See http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/letter-congressman-henry-waxman-re-section-1233-hr-3200.
[10] See http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf
[11] See http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions.
Author of “Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War
Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War: Malensek, Scott: 9798864028674: Amazon.com: Books
Scott, can you indicate where Sarah published this piece? Or was it a speech?
she posted it on Facebook. I copy/pasted the whole thing for those who are not on FB.
🙂
The moose in his shorts is baaaackkk.
Sarah will cause the Dem’s to think twice before they challenger her- she is very organized.
We already have healthcare rationed by the payment committees of Blue Cross, Humana, United Healthcare and other. They ration care on newborns with expensive conditions, and old people with chronic diseases.
And how about the rationing done by denying small business owners and entrepreneurs the same guarantees as people who work for large corporations? You pay twice as much for the same care for trying to do something entrepreneurial.
What about THAT rationing? Or do you just hate small business?
The real power in Washington is represented by those who “advise” the President on key policy matters. We all know that these key “advisors” are from the left-wing section of the Democratic Party, and we all know by now what their real agenda is: to radically reduce the global population, to reduce the role of the US in the World, and to “de-develop” the US. That’s their real agenda, that’s their goal in their own words.
They have in the face of the President someone who simply tries to make the pill a little sweeter to shallow, and we have to admit he’s a good “communicator.”
Sarah Palin has hit a nerve in them; she has identified in a few words what is precisely the aim of the Bill: to reduce costs on the backs of the elderly and the very young and sick. They hate that, they hate her, and the more they hate the more Governor Sarah Palin becomes popular with the American people.
Malcolm, it’s quite the straw man to throw out current “rationing” to make your point. It’s quite common amongst “your kind”, so to speak. Always makes me laugh. It’s rather like how the O’faithful try to justify the terrible trio’s – Obama/Pelosi/Reid – tripling of the debt in mere months by complaining about George W. Bush’s spending. An amount, I might add, which makes him look like Scrooge by comparison. Only fools and the uneducated buy into that kind of debate.
Fact is, most Americans are very satisfied with their current coverage and their beefs are to stop the insipid creeping of coverage cuts and premium hikes.
This is all about Americans recognizing that O’healthcare will only deepen the coverage cuts/rationing… along with a few other ditties. Like driving up taxes to stay a failing financial model, turning the medical profession into a not-for-profit industry, just to name a few. In other words, it’s gotten out that this will not only cost more to the taxpayer, the erosion of health care will step up several notches. And that is simply not acceptable.
Most of us are all for financial and structural “reform”, not “remaking”. Eliminate govt red tape paperwork, get rid of the trial lawyer advocated malpractice crap, and allow the wealthier Medicare enrollees to opt out and have private insurance instead… which can save considerable bucks annually. Allow business to band together in associations to get packaged plans at good rates. Tell the Dems that 12 years exclusive rights on pharmaceutical research is not accomplishing competition, but a monopoly that keeps drug prices high.
And for heavens sake, keep the government as far away from *any* new plans as possible…
Interesting how the advocates like to bring up France as the icon of healthcare. But then they tend to ignore the lines and waiting, the doctors making half what US doctors make, the fact that France doesn’t have the malpractice torts we have, and that the French pay for their doctors tuition.
I HATE SARAH PAAAAAAAALIN!!!!!!!
Just one of the many reasons that the right loves her so much.
Let’s call it for what it is … these consultations are meant to invoke a “Duty to Die“
Just to make a quick point here to those who argue for ObamaCare. If you have not read the Healthcare bill, I have read the whole thing, you would not be for it. My parents fall into the end of life crap where anything done to save their lives will not be allowed due to their age. Instead they would be mandated to take end of life classes to help them “die with dignity” and they would be given medication to help ease their suffering and pain. In other words, ObamaCare would mandate that they SUFFER AND DIE! Not all meds, not any med, can totally ease pain and suffering. Meds only make it “easier” to tolerate pain and suffering.
If this doesn’t totally PISS you off something is wrong. I am very angry over this bill. Besides being a firefighter, I also work in a hospital and have shown sections of the bill to doctors regarding end of life care and regarding the limits to how much money they can make. Those I showed this to are shocked and getting angry. They had no idea what is in this bill because they have relied on the Main Stream Media and Obama to “inform” them. READ THE BILL. It maybe over 1,000 pages, but it does not take a lawyer to see the language of the bill is bad for all of us.
IF THIS IS SO GOOD, WHY DOES OBAMA AND CONGRESS EXEMPT THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES FROM THIS BILL?
Rasmussen now has Toomey crushing Specter 48% to 36% (43% vs Sestak 35%).
They say it’s all thanks to ObamaCare.
2010 can’t come fast enough.
I support Mrs. Palin on this.
I’m independent and I don’t care about the COST OR THE DEFICIT rethorics of the Republicans and Democrats. They are both sinners. Small or Large … sin is the same IMHO.
My issue in coming to townhall is the rationing principle of BOTH EXISTING AND PROPOSED HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.
My idea of rationing is exactly the same as Mrs. Palin. She just wrote what an ordinary mother thinks in a very scholarly, yet understandable, manner.
I’m a mother too of 2 kids and caring for 2 ageing parents. It’s not just getting access. It’s the quality of access that should based “on moral principles” of the beneficiaries.
The President is just creating another layer. If MEDICARE AND MEDICAID are broken as he implies, HE IS THE PRESIDENT NOW. Why can’t he efficiently clean up (cut cost, remove inefficient employees, improve services, etc.) of these two EXISTING systems?
If the President wants to allocate More Money to MEDICARE/MEDICAID for EXISTING UNINSURED poor people, then why not write a Bill that is limited to that goal and that will never destroy our freedom – i.e., NO POLITICAL STRING ATTACHED?
>>> is it impossible for him? isn’t he the omnipotent and omniscient Ruler of the Land? [I voted for him because I didn’t know then that he would be this arrogant.]
PROBABLY, LEGISLATION IS NOT THE ANSWER. CLEANING THE IMPLEMENTATION BACKBONE IS WHAT PEOPLE LIKE ME ACTUALLY NEED RIGHT NOW.
NO “POLITICAL CORRECTNESS” IN RATIONING POLICY, please, Mr. President!!!!
Why is it that most of the people who will read this think healthcare rationing is a great argument to kill heathcare reform?
Do you honestly think heath care is not rationed already? If you do you are kiddng yourself. As it stands right now, heath care is not there for those who can’t afford it, available for those who can, and unlimited for the rich.
Families are choosing to pay their bills, over taking their child to the doctor, because the out of pocket expenses are too high.
maybe you have good insurance and do not care about others who do not?
Right now, these health insurance companies are no diiferent than big oil companies. They sell something that everyone has to have, that is immune to the normal economic effects of supply and demand. I trust government more than big, record profit collecting private enterprises who owe nothing to their customers.
Lets keep people filing for bankruptcy because they or their child gets sick.
Well, well, sarah’s trying to get all smartypants now, throwin’ footnotes around!
Notice Palin’s footnotes are other people’s statements of opinion, and don’t establish anything that approximated Palin’s original statement:
“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.”
She has backed away from it.
Therefore, the primary question for evaluating her above statement is whether counseling on end-of-life decisions — which patients are not required to go through — constitutes a “death panel” sentence for a senior citizen, or her baby, by depriving them of health care.
Obviously, it does not.
Looking at palin’s argument in facebook amounts to an opinion of HR1233 that doctors should be careful and compassionate when they brief patients about end-of-life care (and obviously, they should).
Therefore, again, it does not justify the term “death panels,” That’s why she didn’t use the term again. she has walked back the loose and unsupported term and now left it adrift.
@Herman:
Are you genetically obtuse or are is that an acquired skill for you?
Palin’s first statement had factual validity and was a strike directly to the heart of this bill.
Her second statement provided the source materials upon which her statement was made.
Palin hasn’t “walked back” anything.
Quite the contrary, she just thrust another dagger into HR 3200.
Spin all you like, those of us who are paying attention know the reality.
PS…HR1233 is not the health care bill. Do try and pay attention.
Herman
“Therefore, again, it does not justify the term “death panels,” That’s why she didn’t use the term again. she has walked back the loose and unsupported term and now left it adrift.”
The term is in the title of the post. She didn’t back off anything.
Poor Herman
Obama made a secret deal w insurers and pharmaceuticals (see also secret meeting of Cheney w oil execs re energy policy), and now the single payer/govt option is on the table to be chopped. Why? Cause most Americans don’t want this bill. They know unlimited coverage isn’t fiscally feasible, and to limit coverage, someone will have to decide when to cut it off/when to let people die. Obama can’t decide on a dog for his kids let alone on something like this. SO, he passes the buck, gets to say he passed reform, and the unquestioning leftist base (Herman) is left out there in the cold again. Next thing ya know Obama’ll start torturing prisoners and doing renditions on em like Bushco did.
Oh wait….
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/11/target-of-obama-era-rendi_n_256499.html
DAMN, another leftist bitching point is gone. I blame Bush. Yeah, that’s it
By the way Herman, if the language in the House bill was so innocuous and benign then why did the Senate slice basically identical provisions from their version today?
Mr. Gray, see post number 7. Read it until you understand it. Or have someone read it for you as your comprehension clearly sucks.
Let’s look at what Senator Grassley said about dropping the Obama lied, people will die portion of the boondoggle:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2009/08/13/score-one-for-sarah-palin-on-the-healthcare-reform-death-panels.html
People should know it’s not what the bill says now that you need to be scared to death of. It’s what the bill opens the door to. MataHarley mentions people being allowed to opt out of Medicare. No where in the original Medicare bill did it say if you refuse to participate in Medicare your social security benefits will be withheld. That is the law today though, not really even law, it is bureaucratic dictate. A couple seniors are suing the federal government for the right to opt out of Medicare without losing their SS. They aren’t asking for a refund or alternate care they just don’t want to participate. What kind of system on the brink of financial ruin refuses to let people not consume what little money is left? Why is the government to scared of people paying for their own care?
The original Medicare bill did contain very specific language about Medicare paying providers fair prices. When that become to much of a burden they just repealed that section then slashed provider payments so they don’t even cover the cost of care. They transferred billions in cost annually to private plans. At this point in time everyone was already in Medicare, all private options had been killed off, and refusal to participate meant losing your SS benefits. Members had no choice nor do most providers and no hospital does.
“Or do you just hate small business?”
Malcolm, if your going to respond to a blog post about liberals telling lies to cover up for their terrible reform bill you might want to get your basic facts correct.
Republicans for 15 years proposed AHP bills that would allow small businesses to group together like Union Taft Hartley plans to lower their cost and stabilize their benefits. The right saw the problem and tried to fix it. The Democrats were more concerned about protecting the advantages of their Unions and blocked it every year. The insurance problems of small business are 100% the fault of Democrats…who now propose the exact same solution they blocked for so long, makes you question their motives a bit.
No we don’t have HC rationed by carriers, they represent less then 25% of the market. We ration care the American way, by ones desire to earn it. If I want to go out in life and work hard I can buy pretty much all the care I want. That is what people are fighting to protect, the freedom to feed and provide for our families. I don’t want to live under a system like in the UK where I am told even if I can purchase the therapy with my own money I am not allowed to take it.
Old people with Chronic Diseases are covered by the government via Medicare, your mixing up your demigodary.
Factually, I am looking at the rate sheets, individual insurance tends to be cheaper then group counter to what you claim.
Being opposed to provisions proposed in the formation of the Obamination Healthscare Bill, doesn’t necessarily mean one is “for”, or supports, or endorses, the private healthcare insurers and their current practices. There are many areas of reform, etc., that everybody could agree on. The President, his admin, and the DNC led congress, have chosen NOT to address this bill in any sort of wide, bi-partisan way, but have chosen a highly focused/targeted partisan path being as vague as possible about details, not listening to any other views, and attacking anyone who opposes the bill.
They could have chosen an entirely different path/route to this. That’s “their” fault. Not ours.
btw…Sept 11th, I’m declaring it “Obama’s Watch” day. Everything from that day forward (regardless of mistakes made in the past admins, regardless of what was left for him to deal with, regardless of what he “inherited” from the Bush admin) is going to be laid at his feet.
Mr. Gray, what rationing takes place today is but a drop in the bucket compared to what will go on under O’healthcare. By adding more than half the nation’s population to a financially unsustainable medical system, bloated with malpractice and red tape laws and regulations, the need to evaluate it’s financial health annually (correction, *twice* annually) to further cut costs is a reality.
And that reality resides in the totally separate WH written legislation, the Independent Medicare Advisory Council Act, which I blogged about on Aug 8th.
This group of health care czars, newly empowered with power wrested from Congress, has but one task alone…. to determine policy changes and payment reductions to Medicare in order to rein in the costs. While this group of appointees, who answer to the POTUS and are immune from the US court system, is charged only with the power to restructure Medicare to some semblence of financial stability, this same control will be given to another group of czars for the proposed sister public option for the under 65 crowd.
I might add that even the AARP is uncomfortable with the concept of IMAC. Which may explain why they…. as an insurance provider who will stand to benefit mightily from HR 3200 implementation… isn’t quite as “on board” as Obama lies about.
Yet there will be those who post here who find this prediction “fantasy”. The reality is, they cannot create the czars to manage a plan that does not yet exist. But a “new age Medicare” system will experience the same financial woes, and will require constant slashing in benefits and reimbursements that Medicare does.
So for those that think the “death panels” is a description only applicable to Sect 1233 of HR3200, I will say this… these panels still exist in a different form via the proposed IMAC legislation and creation of omnipotent health czars. To have the power to deny treatment is nothing short of a death sentence for all too many.
Nate… you are exactly right. Those who believe mandates will not come to pass because the details don’t exist in the text of the legislation are purveyors of fool’s gold. I told the story of the “choice” of seniors being that of enroll in Medicare, or lose your SS checks back on August 3rd. Included in that post is the players in the Hall v Sebelius lawsuit… well to do seniors who could save the system vast amounts of money annually if only even 1% of seniors were allowed to opt out. This was accomplished in 1993 by Clinton rules changes to the SSA… and not even published in the Federal Register for the review period.
Think that can’t… or won’t… happen again? With the health czars, they don’t have to publish the policy rule changes. The only way they can be stopped is if Congress (who does not have the power to approve changes in the power grab) manages a joint resolution of “disapprove” within 30 days of the POTUS approve of the czars’ recommendations. No resolution, no need to publish, and no way to stop their restructured changes.
Yet no one in the MSM picks up on this Medicare opt out as one of the “reforms” that needs to happen. While the CBO only sees a possible (if any) savings of $2 bil over several years by using the IMAC health czars to curb costs with bi-annual slash recommendations, almost that same amount could be saved immediately with an opt out annually… and at no government expense. Frankly, I would bet considerably more than 1% of seniors *would* opt out in favor of private insurance… but not at the cost of losing SS money that’s been stolen from them their enire working lives.
The only thing I can add to Nate’s stellar comments is that the push by the pro-O’care types is now to make the insurance companies the boogie man. They inaccurately suggest that insurers are making big bucks on higher premiums, and reduced coverage. What the liars using this tact do not tell you is that those insurers pay over 40% more for the same service a medicare patient receives. They have an average payout of 131% of baseline costs… prices charged by care providers to make up for the cost shifting and losses for servicing Medicare enrollees. But then, it’s much easier to demonize “corporate” insurance than to accuse the care providers of overcharging (that is necessary to stay in business).
Yes… read the bill as originally issued (who knows what it is now…). When you start putting the puzzle pieces together, you can see the future doesn’t contain improved quality care, but guarantees rationing will deepen, and care providers will get even less reimbursement for their services than they do today.
This is not the “change” people voted for.
And, BTW…. I am delighted to see the awakening of Jonas here. I commend you for your astuteness to the issue, made easier (and more painful) by reality living in your back yard. Hopefully you will take some time to educate those around you as well.
It is my ferverent hope that your two parents care will actually improve, and not degrade further with *real* reform that we, the people, intend to demand. And that certainly isn’t the bogus BS laid before us now.
Check out what Ronald Reagan has to say about Socialism and specifically Socialized Medicine! Worth listening to for sure! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs
@Neo
Exactly correct. These would be ghoulish “guilt trip” counseling sessions, where they do their best to convince you that it is best for for the children, your country, and family for you to take the “red white and blue” pill of oblivion, lie down, and die for the good of America.
Population control, end of life counseling, Obama and the Democrats must have been big fans of Soylent Green.