When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
If you have not already ready this Article by Joseph Ashy, American Thinker Aug 15.2009 post,
‘Death panel’ is not in the bill… it already exists — pls at least skim through. It fits like a glove with this Flopping Aces Post.
Relays how Palin critics used wordsmithing to try and discredit her. Then reminds all of us about the “panel” set up in HR 1 — the Stimulus Package. By the passage of the HR 1 Bill…THE panel exists — already. Please do not let our illustrious President and Congressmen off the hook on this — if the HealthCare Bill is so darn good, why are they sneaking around the American People…maybe because this is about Mr Obama and gaining more power and not health care.
Below is an excerpt from the Ashby article…Again, I urge everyone at least skim through the info and write your elected officials to let them know you are aware the panel already exists. All the dishonest rhetoric in the world will not cover up this panel’s existance and panel members.
Maybe this would be a good question for the all-knowing, current President — describe who you have on the panel now in existence, their purpose, and how will this investment into the panel formation stimulate our economy? Based on his answers to the 1 or 2 valid questions he was asked this week… I bet he would offer some lofty eternal campaign rhetoric that would not even come close to topic or giving an answer…and maybe throw in a George Bush reference or two for the obots delight.
Excerpt from Ashby’s article starts——————————————————-
“The AP is technically correct in stating that end-of-life counseling is not the same as a death panel. The New York Times is also correct to point out that the health care bill contains no provision setting up such a panel.”
“What both outlets fail to point out is that the panel already exists.”
“H.R. 1 (more commonly known as the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, even more commonly known as the Stimulus Bill and aptly dubbed the Porkulus Bill) contains a whopping $1.1 billion to fund the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The Council is the brain child of former Health and Human Services Secretary Nominee Tom Daschle. Before the Porkulus Bill passed, Betsy McCaughey, former Lieutenant governor of New York, wrote in detail about the Council’s purpose.”
“Daschle’s stated purpose (and therefore President Obama’s purpose) for creating the Council is to empower an unelected bureaucracy to make the hard decisions about health care rationing that elected politicians are politically unable to make. The end result is to slow costly medical advancement and consumption. Daschle argues that Americans ought to be more like Europeans who passively accept “hopeless diagnoses.”
“McCaughey goes on to explain:
Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them.”
———————————————
Inspectorudy
14 years ago
The dishonest thing about how the MSM and BHO have treated the “Death Panel” issue is that they tried to make the “End of Life Counseling” mentioned in HR3200 the death panel. It wasn’t! Sarah Palin nailed it when she said if she and her son Trig, should ever have to face a death panel when and if her son should ever need health care. This was clearly aimed at the panel in the House bill who’s job it would be to determine the availability of medical proceedures and to whom they would be made available. Any fool can see that with rising health plan cost, either taxes have to be raised or care rationed. In Canada, UK and France care has been rationed and age and mental/physical conditions have been considered in the decision making. This woman has put the wild eyed Dems on the run again! Not bad for a stupid uneducated ex-governor!
greg
14 years ago
I’m anxiously awaiting what new bombshell Sarah Palin is going to drop on 0bama and his pack of thugs and cutthroats. If she can get them on the run with “death panels” they aren’t nearly as tough as everyone thought they were. Too bad the rest of the gop can’t figure it out, and go on the attack. Instead, most of them are perfectly willing to sit and do nothing to stop this massive power grab, or actively participate in it. Thanks to the TEA Party participants, the townhall patriots, and Sarah Palin for a job well done, but there is more work for all of us to do to make sure that this whole bill gets buried, it’s a shovel ready project waiting to be completed.
blogforce one
14 years ago
Can anybody say “national ID”? The “health care” bill would require compulsory Issuance of ID cards,(verrr iss your papers!”)! tied into everyone’s personal bank accounts Except illegal aliens who will be issued the National ID card giving them De Facto rights equal to all LEGAL American citizens. Thus effectively “legalizing” them all! No National ID, no admittance to the hospital or ER. Period. Pure Fascism, plain and simple.
checkers
14 years ago
This is all just a smoke screen. They will never drop their plans to control all aspects of your lives and impose some variation of mandatory population control, global warming control, limit your travel and driving control, decide what you should eat control, and on and on.
They say they are “dropping” the public option. What they really are doing is hoping we will not pay attention and then after the August recess they will sneak some small provisions of what they want into small bills here and there. Until there is a point of no return.
No, the only way to stop this is vote them all out in 2010 and 2012. Even then we are not safe, we have just bought time. Until the next liberal Utopian dreamer comes along.
Toothfairy
14 years ago
Sarah is using more of that sunshine disinfectant on Obamacare and it’s sending the vermin running for cover. Let’s see Daschle and company “accept” health conditions that come with age without treatment. Obama already showed us all how he “cared” for his own granny. He virtually ignored her in her final years, called her a racist and complained about the cost of her hip replacement surgery. This was the thanks he gave to the woman who provided him a home and made it possible for him to attend that exclusive private school in Hawaii. What a role model.
Blogforce One, that National ID thing is already law – in a way you would never have considered. Starting in 2014 every doctor and medical facility in the country has to turn over ALL medical records to the “national medical records database.” You think a “national ID” is bad, you ain’t seen nothin’
Nellie
14 years ago
“The dishonest thing about how the MSM and BHO have treated the “Death Panel” issue is that they tried to make the “End of Life Counseling” mentioned in HR3200 the death panel. It wasn’t”!
This is evident in the fact that there is no panel involved in the End of Life Counseling, just the patient and doctor. Also in the fact that Sarah Palin’s child would not be receiving such counseling. So she was clearly referring to the inevitable outcome of government health care. jJust today I heard yet more media misrepresentation of what she said. Either that, or they’re just to stupid to follow what their supposed intellectual inferior is saying.
@greg: I don’t think it’s entirely fair to say the GOP leadership in Washington isn’t fighting hard. I have already posted the numerous amendments that GOP congressional leaders put forward to force Dems to go on the record in favor of trial laywers, abortionists and illegal aliens.
I do believe that our leadership has learned that they need have no fear of opposing Obama and that they MUST LEAD that opposition.
So let’s be fair to them.
@blogforce one: Only problem with that national I.D. card: The Dems will fix it so it can’t be required for voting. Don’t want to cut down on the vote fraud they depend on to win close elections.
@plainjane: Thanks for sharing that link. It’s no coincidence that ALL of Obama’s big legislative ventures thus far have ended up enriching big business and fat cats.
The real story should be about the back room deals reportedly being negotiated between the Obama administration and Blue Dog Democrat Max Baucus, on the one hand, and Big Pharma, for-profit hospitals, and the private insurance industry, on the other hand. This is where the real action is taking place and it’s looking increasingly likely, as a result, that the Health Care bill which ends up emerging from Congress could represent a massive public subsidy to the private health care industry. …
Rep. Giffords canceled her town hall in Sahuarita/Green Valley, AZ and Jesse Kelly, her Republican challenger, scheduled an appearance in the same venue at the same time and place. From the looks of the video below it was very successful. Both sides were allowed to speak for two hours and with no problems. You would think that a 2 term congresswoman could manage to put on a town hall during the one month August recess.
This August should be an opportunity for a host of GOP congressional wannabees.
AdrianS
14 years ago
One thing that I have not see or read regarding the fallen Obama Hellcare plan is this: Was the needed “reform” an agenda item for Obama, and others within the administration, to merely attempting to collapse the existing system for the sake of extinguishing the existing values currently held by the government for monies received in the current Medicare plan; and MUST Obama now trash the existing health care system in order to squelch the government’s obligation to all who have paid into the system over the past 30 to 40 years? That, if you think about it, represents a lot of government obligation to its citizens swept under the rug.
One could argue that the value of the old system would somehow be wrapped up into a new system. But why then the unpredictable and perhaps exorbitant costs, perhaps as high as 3 trillion dollars?
Isn’t it interesting also that those who stood to lose the most in reduced quality and quantity of health care are the elderly – senior citizens who have paid into the current health care system for 30, 40 or even 50 years. Madoff would have had a fun time with Obama and his ponzi plans.
Fortunately, there is the reality that, given all of the tremendous opposition to ANY change at all, Obama and his Hellcare plans will simply die on the vine — nipped in the bud. Most of all Americans are actually satisfied with the health care plans as they are. No need to change; especially after a brief sampling of what Obama’s plan had planted inside: increased taxes, loss of Constitutional rights, control over hospitals and medial personnel, panels to decide who is admitted or readmitted to hospitals, a huge bureaucracy with bureaucrats over medical professionals, sever cuts in Medicare services, no reduction in the cost of drugs, lowered quality of care, lies, end-of-life mandatory counseling every five years, long waits for medical treatment, senior “discounts” — meaning seniors are discounted from the system if they’re too old (we wouldn’t want to waste money), and other Obamatrocities.
Ironically, given the majorities the Democrooks had, there’s actually hope. There are mostly decent people in this country. Obama has been exposed as a liar (Google AARP, Obama, and lies). Obama’s ratings (according to a new Rasmussen poll) have fallen, in two weeks, to a new low of just 42% approval. And, Obama’s approval rating is still falling.
@Cary: The first thing I would say is Obermann who? Is he some Cable guy with an audience small enough to fit inside the average football stadium with seats left over?
But seriously, the guy is a deranged nut. If the anchors on Fox News spoke with the venom he did, there would be riots in the streets demanding Fox be taken off the air (oops… don’t we already have that?)
When Olbermann said that Sarah Palin was a “clear and present danger to the safety and security of this nation” he crossed a line. He’s trying to stifle political speech and call it a matter of national security to do so.
Cary, I’m not sure how well you know your history, but do you recall who it was that last said certain political speech should be outlawed to protect national security? Hint, it occurred somewhere in Europe.
Granny
14 years ago
I couldn’t agree with Mike’s America more. Just let me add that Olbermann needs to READ THE BILL.
I agree that much of his rhetoric is over the top. But what do you think, not of HIM, but of his overall point? One thing I think he left out is the fact that insurance companies already have “Death Panels” – businessmen denying already insured people coverage, because of variables. My best friend’s grandmother was in her 90’s and taken off her feeding tube solely because of her age – they would have fought tooth and nail for someone younger. So, if this indeed exists in the government’s plan, how is it any different from what we have now?
Cary, I’m not sure how well you know your history, but do you recall who it was that last said certain political speech should be outlawed to protect national security? Hint, it occurred somewhere in Europe.
Actually, I believe it’s occurring NOW… somewhere in the Mid-East and Asia.
@Cary: I thought I made it quite clear what I thought of the criminalizing of political speech which is what Assberman is talking about.
As for the Grandmother with the feeding tube, I’m willing to bet that was a decision made by a family in consultation with their physician and their priest. NOT a government panel which makes the decision for you.
That is why it is called a “death panel” because it takes the decision away from the family and doctor.
As for the Grandmother with the feeding tube, I’m willing to bet that was a decision made by a family in consultation with their physician and their priest.
You’d lose that bet, my friend. Read his own words in the link I provided. I’ll add that he was her primary care taker and that it came down to insurance companies wanting to spend the money on someone who “wasn’t going to last anyway”.
And yes, it is very clear what you think about that one particular point he made. So does one hyperbolic statement void his whole overall point?
That is why it is called a “death panel” because it takes the decision away from the family and doctor
Could you please provide where in the bill it states that this will happen?
I’m not voicing an opinion, just trying to understand yours.
@Cary: Call Senator Grassley’s office and ask them how they arrived at this interpretation. Obviously, if they didn’t think the section they removed was a problem they would have left it in.
I’m sorry, but Assberman’s whole point is lost with his NAZI tactics.
My best friend’s grandmother was in her 90’s and taken off her feeding tube solely because of her age – they would have fought tooth and nail for someone younger.
Having read through your friends’ comment on your site, he indicates that the decision regarding his grandmother was made at the behest or urging of the doctors, not an insurance company.
My grandmother died in exactly the same manner – starved to death under heavy medication. She had suffered a small stroke which disabled her swallowing mechanism; she was unable to take in nutrition, thus requiring a feeding tube.
If she had been a young woman, the doctors would have pushed for rehabilitating her tongue and throat functions; at 96 years of age, they pushed for euthanasia.
Big difference there.
Then your friend goes on to say:
As to the larger issue of government intervention: I know I wouldn’t want such involvement in my personal life decisions.
Hopefully, your friend realizes that Obies’ plan will produce exactly that.
Huge levels of government intervention and loss of freedom for Americans.
Obviously, if they didn’t think the section they removed was a problem they would have left it in.
But isn’t that how these things work? Additions and subtractions, based on debates about what works? But if what was interpreted as “Death Panels” was removed, then it ISN’T part of the bill! So, why are you fighting something that doesn’t exist?
Having read through your friends’ comment on your site, he indicates that the decision regarding his grandmother was made at the behest or urging of the doctors, not an insurance company.
Unfortunately, this is a painful topic for my friend to discuss, therefore getting him to come here and speak for himself would be next to impossible. He and I have had many discussion about this. Given what my friend wrote about his grandmother’s strength and overall health, do you honestly think the doctors would have pushed for such a decision if the financial resources were there? My point is that the very thing you guys are fighting against in this bill (which,as Mike says, has been removed) already exists.
@Cary: ” “Death Panels” was removed, then it ISN’T part of the bill! So, why are you fighting something that doesn’t exist? “
Uhhh… Cary… It was removed from the Senate version. It’s still IN the House bill. It’s not dead by any means. It’s entirely relevant to talk about this, ESPECIALLY SO since you asked!
And the purpose of this post was twofold:
1. To point out how effective Sarah Palin’s leadership on this issue was.
2. To point out how radical the people adivising Obama, and by extension Obama himself, are on health care.
Frankly, your latest comment showed you are more interested in attempting move the goal posts than learning about my opinion.
Cary, the portion that was removed came out of the Senate version but it can be plugged right back in at any time. CONgress is famous for putting things back in after the bills have passed their respective houses.
The most important thing to remember however is that we were told these provisions “didn’t exist” so if they were being honest with us there would be nothing to remove.
The language remains in HR3200.
The structural groundwork is already in place. It passed as part of the stimulus bill.
We aren’t fighting against something that doesn’t exist. It’s all right there, plain as the nose on your face.
If it never existed, then how was it so easy, and convenient, to remove it under public pressure?
He and I have had many discussion about this. Given what my friend wrote about his grandmother’s strength and overall health, do you honestly think the doctors would have pushed for such a decision if the financial resources were there? My point is that the very thing you guys are fighting against in this bill (which,as Mike says, has been removed) already exists.
Sorry, you’re making apples and oranges comparisons here.
Based on your friends’ comments, the family members made decisions based on the advice of doctors.
To me, it sounds as if the situation your friend relates worked as it should have. The family, in consultation with the patients’ doctors made a very difficult decision. I cannot imagine a team of doctors making a recommendation to remove a feeding tube strictly based on monetary reasons. Doctors take their Hippocratic Oath very seriously and I cannot see a situation where a doctor would recommend removing care because funding was an issue.
The issue we are discussing is faceless gov’t entities who will make broad sweeping decisions based on cost/benefit analysis in relation to the patients’ contributive value to society.
When you take a look at the writings of people like John Holdren and Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and find that they both advocate for treatment only when the person in question can be a productive citizen that’s a problem.
Emanuel has said that medical treatment for those with dementia should not be guaranteed. He has said the same for babies and young children with chronic health issues.
That’s what we are fighting against, not something that doesn’t exist.
Frankly, your latest comment showed you are more interested in attempting move the goal posts than learning about my opinion.
Actually Mike, for the record, I am still undecided on this issue and still digging for facts and perspective. I’m sure that before I’m done, I’ll run yards in both directions. Frankly, I ran with you guys for quite a while, now I am indeed going in the other direction. Nobody’s scored a touchdown yet.
… how was it so easy, and convenient, to remove it under public pressure?
Well, I certainly hope that the public has a substantial say in this, and that ALL of our concerns are heard and weighed.
I’ll put my friend’s situation aside, since he’s not going to be here to explain it himself.
I completley agree with you that Dr. Holden’s and Dr. Emanuel’s positions are something to fight against – and left out of any legislation. But I’m not going to accept some insurance exec deciding a person’s fate any more than a politician. Can we at least agree that that is what’s happening now in this country? I does happen. I don’t want to trade one or another. But as long as it remains removed from the bill, I see it as a better option in this regard.
AdrianS
14 years ago
Wherever there is a majority of voters in opposition to the Obama Hellcare plan, let there be a start to the RECALL of Congressmen and Senators who favor the insidious plan. I would like to suggest that recalls begin immediately to force the will of the people as per the Constitution of the United States.
Unfortunately our Congress is made up of scandalous, low-lives that want to take it upon themselves to approve Obama’s plan despite overwhelming opposition everywhere. Obama’s falling approval rating to just 42% (and falling further and faster) is a testament to the great opposition to ANY healthcare “refore” throughout America.
Granny
14 years ago
I could not agree with you more Adrian S about firing the lot of them. Unfortunately only 18 states have a recall mechanism to get rid of irresponsible congressmen before their terms expire.
Re healthcare reform, as I pointed out to someone yesterday you don’t call in the wrecking ball and take it to the house simply because the roof needs a few shingles.
Granny
14 years ago
Cary
32Reply to this comment
@Aye Chihuahua:
I’ll put my friend’s situation aside, since he’s not going to be here to explain it himself.
I completley agree with you that Dr. Holden’s and Dr. Emanuel’s positions are something to fight against – and left out of any legislation. But I’m not going to accept some insurance exec deciding a person’s fate any more than a politician. Can we at least agree that that is what’s happening now in this country? I does happen. I don’t want to trade one or another. But as long as it remains removed from the bill, I see it as a better option in this regard.
Cary, I’ve been reading along as your posts drop into my inbox all afternoon. Let me give you some input from a medical point of view.
Your friend’s grandmother might very well have reached some kind of cap on her insurance. Or there may have been (probably was) some other health problem that as a grandchild rather than an immediate relative your friend was not fully informed about.
At any rate, we do not as a society generally go around forcing families to discontinue care and the insurance companies absolutely do not have that kind of power.
Now, they can refuse to pay once a cap has been reached and they can refuse payment for certain kinds of treatments, but any insurance company is required to spell out in writing exactly what they cover, how much they will pay and who they will pay. This is part of the insurance policy itself and a copy must be given to the policy holder, usually either immediately on enrollment or shortly thereafter.
If your insurance company refuses to pay for a certain treatment, then you are free to dispute with them – even taking them to court if you must. Many people have done this over the years for various cancer treatments and new drugs. Most of the time they win.
If you should lose a dispute over coverage with your insurance company you are always free to pay for the care yourself. Thus, the family of your friend’s grandmother, if this was truly nothing more than the insurance company refused to pay, could have simply guaranteed on-going payment and/or taken the insurance company to court.
The ObamaCare bill as written in the House is something entirely different. These death care boards have the power to dictate who will and who will not receive treatment, how long they receive treatment and the exact treatment that they will receive. They have the power to change the criteria. And Congress has no power to oversee or change things. Decisions that are normally left to the doctor and family are now completely in the hands of the deathcare board – no doctor input, no family input, not even any congressional input. And if you don’t like it – no recourse. In fact, under the bill as currently written providing medical care outside the system, acquiring medical care outside the system or refusal to enroll in the system are all criminal acts.
Your insurance company couldn’t pull that off in a million years.
Thanks for your input, Granny. I should clarify a couple of things about my friend’s relationship with his grandmother. He was raised by her, rather than his own mother, and was her proxy. So he was, or should have been, privy to all concerns. I’m not sure that the court system would have moved quickly enough to help her, but I have suggested that he take legal action after the fact. However, it’s too painful for him and he doesn’t see the point.
That’s the thing about health, death, and business… it’s very easy to exploit people in pain. My family was lucky that my father took care of all decisions before he died, from his DNR, to his service, to where he wanted his ashes spread. He even made sure that mom would be okay financially.
Certainly, the House version of the bill, as you state, needs to be revised. Obama has previously stated that decisions should indeed be between a doctor, the patient, and the family. I will hold him to pushing Congress in that direction.
Thanks for your input, Granny. I should clarify a couple of things about my friend’s relationship with his grandmother. He was raised by her, rather than his own mother, and was her proxy. So he was, or should have been, privy to all concerns.
Actually Cary, if he was her health care proxy then he should have had to specifically sign for the tube removal – unless she was concious and signed for it herself or she had a specific clause in her DNR orders or the medicos (usually the facility NOT the doctors who try this) got a specific court order. EVEN if she had run out of insurance. Medical facilities in this country are prohibited from taking someone off life support just because the insurance has run dry.
As I said earlier, the filter has been busy, busy, busy since Friday.
Just keep raising your hand and someone will fetch your comment.
Obama has previously stated that decisions should indeed be between a doctor, the patient, and the family. I will hold him to pushing Congress in that direction.
Unfortunately, Obie has made many contradictory and often polar opposite statements which are directly contradictory to the facts and the wording of the legislation.
He tweaks his message and tells people what he thinks they want to hear.
In short, Obie is the consummate politician and a liar at the same time.
Whether he consented under duress or the facility got a court order, I don’t honestly know. He still has a difficult time talking about it, so I’ll refrain from asking him. Unfortunately, I was not there at the time (he still lives in my hometown) and his stress level was so high, he didn’t even call his best friend (me) until it was over. I do know that it did not end according to his wishes, and that it came down to money – and her “usefulness” at her age. This is what I mean about business exploiting people in pain. I’m not convinced that government would do a better job in this case, but as long as we’re discussing it, I believe this should be addressed. I do think he had a legal case, but he wanted no part of what he would have considered “blood money.”
Thanks for your positive comments about Sarah Palin. I truley think she is the anti-Obama and will at least slow him down on changing our country into something we may regret.
Madalyn
14 years ago
To Cary, comment #21 – The difference with the Terri Schaivo case was that her parents were fighting to keep her alive, even offering to pay for all hospital, doctor bills, etc. Her husband had the final say. What I found to be horrible about that is that her husband had been having an affair and even fathered 2 children with his mistress. Something I felt the courts should have taken into consideration when they ruled in the husbands favor was he was no longer looking out for the best interest of Terri. Now, he had the option of pulling her off all food and drink and letting her die, or let things stand as they were. He chose to have her die. I was appalled that our justice system would let someone who had a lot to gain (marry his mistress, collect life insurance, etc.) make the decision to let her die. I felt her parents and brother were the only ones who did not have a vested interest in her death and should have been the ones to make the decision. I feel our justice system let the family down with that ruling. Her husband wanted her dead, and there was some speculation and evidence he was reponsible for the condition she was in.
Just my opinion
Madalyn
Let me be clear that I do support Universal Health Care. What I’m not sure of is whether I support what’s currently on the table.
Personally, I’d like to see it run like the public defender system. People can get private lawyers if they can afford it, or be assigned one if they cannot. Why not private/ public doctors?
“Whether he consented under duress or the facility got a court order, I don’t honestly know. He still has a difficult time talking about it, so I’ll refrain from asking him.”
Sounds to me like he was in one of those of “end of life” counseling sessions Obama and the Democrats want in. As I see it, if it’s wrong for the Insurance companies to have “death panels” why the hell would we want such power given also to a government bureaucracy?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/death_panel_is_not_in_the_bill.html
If you have not already ready this Article by Joseph Ashy, American Thinker Aug 15.2009 post,
‘Death panel’ is not in the bill… it already exists — pls at least skim through. It fits like a glove with this Flopping Aces Post.
Relays how Palin critics used wordsmithing to try and discredit her. Then reminds all of us about the “panel” set up in HR 1 — the Stimulus Package. By the passage of the HR 1 Bill…THE panel exists — already. Please do not let our illustrious President and Congressmen off the hook on this — if the HealthCare Bill is so darn good, why are they sneaking around the American People…maybe because this is about Mr Obama and gaining more power and not health care.
Below is an excerpt from the Ashby article…Again, I urge everyone at least skim through the info and write your elected officials to let them know you are aware the panel already exists. All the dishonest rhetoric in the world will not cover up this panel’s existance and panel members.
Maybe this would be a good question for the all-knowing, current President — describe who you have on the panel now in existence, their purpose, and how will this investment into the panel formation stimulate our economy? Based on his answers to the 1 or 2 valid questions he was asked this week… I bet he would offer some lofty eternal campaign rhetoric that would not even come close to topic or giving an answer…and maybe throw in a George Bush reference or two for the obots delight.
Excerpt from Ashby’s article starts——————————————————-
“The AP is technically correct in stating that end-of-life counseling is not the same as a death panel. The New York Times is also correct to point out that the health care bill contains no provision setting up such a panel.”
“What both outlets fail to point out is that the panel already exists.”
“H.R. 1 (more commonly known as the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, even more commonly known as the Stimulus Bill and aptly dubbed the Porkulus Bill) contains a whopping $1.1 billion to fund the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The Council is the brain child of former Health and Human Services Secretary Nominee Tom Daschle. Before the Porkulus Bill passed, Betsy McCaughey, former Lieutenant governor of New York, wrote in detail about the Council’s purpose.”
“Daschle’s stated purpose (and therefore President Obama’s purpose) for creating the Council is to empower an unelected bureaucracy to make the hard decisions about health care rationing that elected politicians are politically unable to make. The end result is to slow costly medical advancement and consumption. Daschle argues that Americans ought to be more like Europeans who passively accept “hopeless diagnoses.”
“McCaughey goes on to explain:
Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them.”
———————————————
The dishonest thing about how the MSM and BHO have treated the “Death Panel” issue is that they tried to make the “End of Life Counseling” mentioned in HR3200 the death panel. It wasn’t! Sarah Palin nailed it when she said if she and her son Trig, should ever have to face a death panel when and if her son should ever need health care. This was clearly aimed at the panel in the House bill who’s job it would be to determine the availability of medical proceedures and to whom they would be made available. Any fool can see that with rising health plan cost, either taxes have to be raised or care rationed. In Canada, UK and France care has been rationed and age and mental/physical conditions have been considered in the decision making. This woman has put the wild eyed Dems on the run again! Not bad for a stupid uneducated ex-governor!
I’m anxiously awaiting what new bombshell Sarah Palin is going to drop on 0bama and his pack of thugs and cutthroats. If she can get them on the run with “death panels” they aren’t nearly as tough as everyone thought they were. Too bad the rest of the gop can’t figure it out, and go on the attack. Instead, most of them are perfectly willing to sit and do nothing to stop this massive power grab, or actively participate in it. Thanks to the TEA Party participants, the townhall patriots, and Sarah Palin for a job well done, but there is more work for all of us to do to make sure that this whole bill gets buried, it’s a shovel ready project waiting to be completed.
Can anybody say “national ID”? The “health care” bill would require compulsory Issuance of ID cards,(verrr iss your papers!”)! tied into everyone’s personal bank accounts Except illegal aliens who will be issued the National ID card giving them De Facto rights equal to all LEGAL American citizens. Thus effectively “legalizing” them all! No National ID, no admittance to the hospital or ER. Period. Pure Fascism, plain and simple.
This is all just a smoke screen. They will never drop their plans to control all aspects of your lives and impose some variation of mandatory population control, global warming control, limit your travel and driving control, decide what you should eat control, and on and on.
They say they are “dropping” the public option. What they really are doing is hoping we will not pay attention and then after the August recess they will sneak some small provisions of what they want into small bills here and there. Until there is a point of no return.
No, the only way to stop this is vote them all out in 2010 and 2012. Even then we are not safe, we have just bought time. Until the next liberal Utopian dreamer comes along.
Sarah is using more of that sunshine disinfectant on Obamacare and it’s sending the vermin running for cover. Let’s see Daschle and company “accept” health conditions that come with age without treatment. Obama already showed us all how he “cared” for his own granny. He virtually ignored her in her final years, called her a racist and complained about the cost of her hip replacement surgery. This was the thanks he gave to the woman who provided him a home and made it possible for him to attend that exclusive private school in Hawaii. What a role model.
Just who profits from Obamacare? Not thee or me.
http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/08/16/reforming-for-profits/
Now HERE is somebody who tells it like it is. http://www.gilacourier.com/?p=3135
This is what a Town Hall should look like.
Blogforce One, that National ID thing is already law – in a way you would never have considered. Starting in 2014 every doctor and medical facility in the country has to turn over ALL medical records to the “national medical records database.” You think a “national ID” is bad, you ain’t seen nothin’
“The dishonest thing about how the MSM and BHO have treated the “Death Panel” issue is that they tried to make the “End of Life Counseling” mentioned in HR3200 the death panel. It wasn’t”!
This is evident in the fact that there is no panel involved in the End of Life Counseling, just the patient and doctor. Also in the fact that Sarah Palin’s child would not be receiving such counseling. So she was clearly referring to the inevitable outcome of government health care. jJust today I heard yet more media misrepresentation of what she said. Either that, or they’re just to stupid to follow what their supposed intellectual inferior is saying.
@greg: I don’t think it’s entirely fair to say the GOP leadership in Washington isn’t fighting hard. I have already posted the numerous amendments that GOP congressional leaders put forward to force Dems to go on the record in favor of trial laywers, abortionists and illegal aliens.
I do believe that our leadership has learned that they need have no fear of opposing Obama and that they MUST LEAD that opposition.
So let’s be fair to them.
@blogforce one: Only problem with that national I.D. card: The Dems will fix it so it can’t be required for voting. Don’t want to cut down on the vote fraud they depend on to win close elections.
@plainjane: Thanks for sharing that link. It’s no coincidence that ALL of Obama’s big legislative ventures thus far have ended up enriching big business and fat cats.
I’ll cite this from your link:
@Granny: Thanks for that news. From your link:
This August should be an opportunity for a host of GOP congressional wannabees.
One thing that I have not see or read regarding the fallen Obama Hellcare plan is this: Was the needed “reform” an agenda item for Obama, and others within the administration, to merely attempting to collapse the existing system for the sake of extinguishing the existing values currently held by the government for monies received in the current Medicare plan; and MUST Obama now trash the existing health care system in order to squelch the government’s obligation to all who have paid into the system over the past 30 to 40 years? That, if you think about it, represents a lot of government obligation to its citizens swept under the rug.
One could argue that the value of the old system would somehow be wrapped up into a new system. But why then the unpredictable and perhaps exorbitant costs, perhaps as high as 3 trillion dollars?
Isn’t it interesting also that those who stood to lose the most in reduced quality and quantity of health care are the elderly – senior citizens who have paid into the current health care system for 30, 40 or even 50 years. Madoff would have had a fun time with Obama and his ponzi plans.
Fortunately, there is the reality that, given all of the tremendous opposition to ANY change at all, Obama and his Hellcare plans will simply die on the vine — nipped in the bud. Most of all Americans are actually satisfied with the health care plans as they are. No need to change; especially after a brief sampling of what Obama’s plan had planted inside: increased taxes, loss of Constitutional rights, control over hospitals and medial personnel, panels to decide who is admitted or readmitted to hospitals, a huge bureaucracy with bureaucrats over medical professionals, sever cuts in Medicare services, no reduction in the cost of drugs, lowered quality of care, lies, end-of-life mandatory counseling every five years, long waits for medical treatment, senior “discounts” — meaning seniors are discounted from the system if they’re too old (we wouldn’t want to waste money), and other Obamatrocities.
Ironically, given the majorities the Democrooks had, there’s actually hope. There are mostly decent people in this country. Obama has been exposed as a liar (Google AARP, Obama, and lies). Obama’s ratings (according to a new Rasmussen poll) have fallen, in two weeks, to a new low of just 42% approval. And, Obama’s approval rating is still falling.
I’m interesting in learning what you guys think of this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/11/olbermann-slams-palin-for_n_256207.html
@Cary: The first thing I would say is Obermann who? Is he some Cable guy with an audience small enough to fit inside the average football stadium with seats left over?
But seriously, the guy is a deranged nut. If the anchors on Fox News spoke with the venom he did, there would be riots in the streets demanding Fox be taken off the air (oops… don’t we already have that?)
When Olbermann said that Sarah Palin was a “clear and present danger to the safety and security of this nation” he crossed a line. He’s trying to stifle political speech and call it a matter of national security to do so.
Cary, I’m not sure how well you know your history, but do you recall who it was that last said certain political speech should be outlawed to protect national security? Hint, it occurred somewhere in Europe.
I couldn’t agree with Mike’s America more. Just let me add that Olbermann needs to READ THE BILL.
My comment was marked as Spam. I wanted to find out your view on his overall point, I can already guessed how you felt about him!
Are all my comments being marked as spam now?
@Cary:
No.
Sometimes the filter is very aggressive.
Sometimes less.
I’ve been fishing good comments out of there for the past three days. (More than normal for some reason.)
There is no method to its’ madness and it’s nothing personal.
Thanks, Aye… but there’s still a comment of mine missing. Oh well.
Sorry, I don’t see anything else in the filter from you.
You are more than welcome to repost it if you like.
@Mike’s America:
I agree that much of his rhetoric is over the top. But what do you think, not of HIM, but of his overall point? One thing I think he left out is the fact that insurance companies already have “Death Panels” – businessmen denying already insured people coverage, because of variables. My best friend’s grandmother was in her 90’s and taken off her feeding tube solely because of her age – they would have fought tooth and nail for someone younger. So, if this indeed exists in the government’s plan, how is it any different from what we have now?
Cary, I’m not sure how well you know your history, but do you recall who it was that last said certain political speech should be outlawed to protect national security? Hint, it occurred somewhere in Europe.
Actually, I believe it’s occurring NOW… somewhere in the Mid-East and Asia.
To further explain the case with my friend’s grandmother, he explains it in a comment on this discussion:
http://caryscolumn.blogspot.com/2005/03/death-and-dignity.html
@Cary: I thought I made it quite clear what I thought of the criminalizing of political speech which is what Assberman is talking about.
As for the Grandmother with the feeding tube, I’m willing to bet that was a decision made by a family in consultation with their physician and their priest. NOT a government panel which makes the decision for you.
That is why it is called a “death panel” because it takes the decision away from the family and doctor.
Is that clearer now?
@Mike’s America:
You’d lose that bet, my friend. Read his own words in the link I provided. I’ll add that he was her primary care taker and that it came down to insurance companies wanting to spend the money on someone who “wasn’t going to last anyway”.
And yes, it is very clear what you think about that one particular point he made. So does one hyperbolic statement void his whole overall point?
Could you please provide where in the bill it states that this will happen?
I’m not voicing an opinion, just trying to understand yours.
@Cary: Call Senator Grassley’s office and ask them how they arrived at this interpretation. Obviously, if they didn’t think the section they removed was a problem they would have left it in.
I’m sorry, but Assberman’s whole point is lost with his NAZI tactics.
@Cary:
Having read through your friends’ comment on your site, he indicates that the decision regarding his grandmother was made at the behest or urging of the doctors, not an insurance company.
Big difference there.
Then your friend goes on to say:
Hopefully, your friend realizes that Obies’ plan will produce exactly that.
Huge levels of government intervention and loss of freedom for Americans.
@Mike’s America:
But isn’t that how these things work? Additions and subtractions, based on debates about what works? But if what was interpreted as “Death Panels” was removed, then it ISN’T part of the bill! So, why are you fighting something that doesn’t exist?
@Aye Chihuahua:
Unfortunately, this is a painful topic for my friend to discuss, therefore getting him to come here and speak for himself would be next to impossible. He and I have had many discussion about this. Given what my friend wrote about his grandmother’s strength and overall health, do you honestly think the doctors would have pushed for such a decision if the financial resources were there? My point is that the very thing you guys are fighting against in this bill (which,as Mike says, has been removed) already exists.
@Cary: ” “Death Panels” was removed, then it ISN’T part of the bill! So, why are you fighting something that doesn’t exist? “
Uhhh… Cary… It was removed from the Senate version. It’s still IN the House bill. It’s not dead by any means. It’s entirely relevant to talk about this, ESPECIALLY SO since you asked!
And the purpose of this post was twofold:
1. To point out how effective Sarah Palin’s leadership on this issue was.
2. To point out how radical the people adivising Obama, and by extension Obama himself, are on health care.
Frankly, your latest comment showed you are more interested in attempting move the goal posts than learning about my opinion.
@Cary:
Cary, the portion that was removed came out of the Senate version but it can be plugged right back in at any time. CONgress is famous for putting things back in after the bills have passed their respective houses.
The most important thing to remember however is that we were told these provisions “didn’t exist” so if they were being honest with us there would be nothing to remove.
The language remains in HR3200.
The structural groundwork is already in place. It passed as part of the stimulus bill.
We aren’t fighting against something that doesn’t exist. It’s all right there, plain as the nose on your face.
If it never existed, then how was it so easy, and convenient, to remove it under public pressure?
@Cary:
Sorry, you’re making apples and oranges comparisons here.
Based on your friends’ comments, the family members made decisions based on the advice of doctors.
To me, it sounds as if the situation your friend relates worked as it should have. The family, in consultation with the patients’ doctors made a very difficult decision. I cannot imagine a team of doctors making a recommendation to remove a feeding tube strictly based on monetary reasons. Doctors take their Hippocratic Oath very seriously and I cannot see a situation where a doctor would recommend removing care because funding was an issue.
The issue we are discussing is faceless gov’t entities who will make broad sweeping decisions based on cost/benefit analysis in relation to the patients’ contributive value to society.
When you take a look at the writings of people like John Holdren and Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and find that they both advocate for treatment only when the person in question can be a productive citizen that’s a problem.
Emanuel has said that medical treatment for those with dementia should not be guaranteed. He has said the same for babies and young children with chronic health issues.
That’s what we are fighting against, not something that doesn’t exist.
@Mike’s America:
Actually Mike, for the record, I am still undecided on this issue and still digging for facts and perspective. I’m sure that before I’m done, I’ll run yards in both directions. Frankly, I ran with you guys for quite a while, now I am indeed going in the other direction. Nobody’s scored a touchdown yet.
Well, I certainly hope that the public has a substantial say in this, and that ALL of our concerns are heard and weighed.
@Aye Chihuahua:
I’ll put my friend’s situation aside, since he’s not going to be here to explain it himself.
I completley agree with you that Dr. Holden’s and Dr. Emanuel’s positions are something to fight against – and left out of any legislation. But I’m not going to accept some insurance exec deciding a person’s fate any more than a politician. Can we at least agree that that is what’s happening now in this country? I does happen. I don’t want to trade one or another. But as long as it remains removed from the bill, I see it as a better option in this regard.
Wherever there is a majority of voters in opposition to the Obama Hellcare plan, let there be a start to the RECALL of Congressmen and Senators who favor the insidious plan. I would like to suggest that recalls begin immediately to force the will of the people as per the Constitution of the United States.
Unfortunately our Congress is made up of scandalous, low-lives that want to take it upon themselves to approve Obama’s plan despite overwhelming opposition everywhere. Obama’s falling approval rating to just 42% (and falling further and faster) is a testament to the great opposition to ANY healthcare “refore” throughout America.
I could not agree with you more Adrian S about firing the lot of them. Unfortunately only 18 states have a recall mechanism to get rid of irresponsible congressmen before their terms expire.
Re healthcare reform, as I pointed out to someone yesterday you don’t call in the wrecking ball and take it to the house simply because the roof needs a few shingles.
Cary
32Reply to this comment
@Aye Chihuahua:
I’ll put my friend’s situation aside, since he’s not going to be here to explain it himself.
I completley agree with you that Dr. Holden’s and Dr. Emanuel’s positions are something to fight against – and left out of any legislation. But I’m not going to accept some insurance exec deciding a person’s fate any more than a politician. Can we at least agree that that is what’s happening now in this country? I does happen. I don’t want to trade one or another. But as long as it remains removed from the bill, I see it as a better option in this regard.
Cary, I’ve been reading along as your posts drop into my inbox all afternoon. Let me give you some input from a medical point of view.
Your friend’s grandmother might very well have reached some kind of cap on her insurance. Or there may have been (probably was) some other health problem that as a grandchild rather than an immediate relative your friend was not fully informed about.
At any rate, we do not as a society generally go around forcing families to discontinue care and the insurance companies absolutely do not have that kind of power.
Now, they can refuse to pay once a cap has been reached and they can refuse payment for certain kinds of treatments, but any insurance company is required to spell out in writing exactly what they cover, how much they will pay and who they will pay. This is part of the insurance policy itself and a copy must be given to the policy holder, usually either immediately on enrollment or shortly thereafter.
If your insurance company refuses to pay for a certain treatment, then you are free to dispute with them – even taking them to court if you must. Many people have done this over the years for various cancer treatments and new drugs. Most of the time they win.
If you should lose a dispute over coverage with your insurance company you are always free to pay for the care yourself. Thus, the family of your friend’s grandmother, if this was truly nothing more than the insurance company refused to pay, could have simply guaranteed on-going payment and/or taken the insurance company to court.
The ObamaCare bill as written in the House is something entirely different. These death care boards have the power to dictate who will and who will not receive treatment, how long they receive treatment and the exact treatment that they will receive. They have the power to change the criteria. And Congress has no power to oversee or change things. Decisions that are normally left to the doctor and family are now completely in the hands of the deathcare board – no doctor input, no family input, not even any congressional input. And if you don’t like it – no recourse. In fact, under the bill as currently written providing medical care outside the system, acquiring medical care outside the system or refusal to enroll in the system are all criminal acts.
Your insurance company couldn’t pull that off in a million years.
@Granny:
Thanks for your input, Granny. I should clarify a couple of things about my friend’s relationship with his grandmother. He was raised by her, rather than his own mother, and was her proxy. So he was, or should have been, privy to all concerns. I’m not sure that the court system would have moved quickly enough to help her, but I have suggested that he take legal action after the fact. However, it’s too painful for him and he doesn’t see the point.
That’s the thing about health, death, and business… it’s very easy to exploit people in pain. My family was lucky that my father took care of all decisions before he died, from his DNR, to his service, to where he wanted his ashes spread. He even made sure that mom would be okay financially.
Certainly, the House version of the bill, as you state, needs to be revised. Obama has previously stated that decisions should indeed be between a doctor, the patient, and the family. I will hold him to pushing Congress in that direction.
Lost in the filter again!
@Cary: @Granny:
Thanks for your input, Granny. I should clarify a couple of things about my friend’s relationship with his grandmother. He was raised by her, rather than his own mother, and was her proxy. So he was, or should have been, privy to all concerns.
Actually Cary, if he was her health care proxy then he should have had to specifically sign for the tube removal – unless she was concious and signed for it herself or she had a specific clause in her DNR orders or the medicos (usually the facility NOT the doctors who try this) got a specific court order. EVEN if she had run out of insurance. Medical facilities in this country are prohibited from taking someone off life support just because the insurance has run dry.
@Cary:
As I said earlier, the filter has been busy, busy, busy since Friday.
Just keep raising your hand and someone will fetch your comment.
Unfortunately, Obie has made many contradictory and often polar opposite statements which are directly contradictory to the facts and the wording of the legislation.
He tweaks his message and tells people what he thinks they want to hear.
In short, Obie is the consummate politician and a liar at the same time.
@Aye Chihuahua:
No worries. Thanks!
@Granny:
Whether he consented under duress or the facility got a court order, I don’t honestly know. He still has a difficult time talking about it, so I’ll refrain from asking him. Unfortunately, I was not there at the time (he still lives in my hometown) and his stress level was so high, he didn’t even call his best friend (me) until it was over. I do know that it did not end according to his wishes, and that it came down to money – and her “usefulness” at her age. This is what I mean about business exploiting people in pain. I’m not convinced that government would do a better job in this case, but as long as we’re discussing it, I believe this should be addressed. I do think he had a legal case, but he wanted no part of what he would have considered “blood money.”
@Aye Chihuahua:
Raising my hand again! LOL
This filter thing is going crazy!
Thanks Aye!
Thanks for your positive comments about Sarah Palin. I truley think she is the anti-Obama and will at least slow him down on changing our country into something we may regret.
To Cary, comment #21 – The difference with the Terri Schaivo case was that her parents were fighting to keep her alive, even offering to pay for all hospital, doctor bills, etc. Her husband had the final say. What I found to be horrible about that is that her husband had been having an affair and even fathered 2 children with his mistress. Something I felt the courts should have taken into consideration when they ruled in the husbands favor was he was no longer looking out for the best interest of Terri. Now, he had the option of pulling her off all food and drink and letting her die, or let things stand as they were. He chose to have her die. I was appalled that our justice system would let someone who had a lot to gain (marry his mistress, collect life insurance, etc.) make the decision to let her die. I felt her parents and brother were the only ones who did not have a vested interest in her death and should have been the ones to make the decision. I feel our justice system let the family down with that ruling. Her husband wanted her dead, and there was some speculation and evidence he was reponsible for the condition she was in.
Just my opinion
Madalyn
@Madalyn:
Yes, I did discuss those points on my follow up post at the time:
http://caryscolumn.blogspot.com/2005/04/ethical-questions.html
Let me be clear that I do support Universal Health Care. What I’m not sure of is whether I support what’s currently on the table.
Personally, I’d like to see it run like the public defender system. People can get private lawyers if they can afford it, or be assigned one if they cannot. Why not private/ public doctors?
@Cary said: “I certainly hope that the public has a substantial say in this, and that ALL of our concerns are heard and weighed. “
Nancy Pelosi calls that kind of thinking UnAmerican and disruptive.
@Cary
“Whether he consented under duress or the facility got a court order, I don’t honestly know. He still has a difficult time talking about it, so I’ll refrain from asking him.”
Sounds to me like he was in one of those of “end of life” counseling sessions Obama and the Democrats want in. As I see it, if it’s wrong for the Insurance companies to have “death panels” why the hell would we want such power given also to a government bureaucracy?