• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

another look at the "death panel" in the stimulas

Steve

Well-known member
when i found out the panel wasn't in the health bill.. I wondered where did the idea (or rumor) come from?

But, wait. Filtering out the characterizations, personal attacks, and theories of motivation, one question remains: Is there any factual basis for Gov. Palin’s warning about “death panels?”

Prof. William A. Jacobson, of Cornell Law School, has penned an intriguing piece titled “An Inconvenient Truth About The ‘Death Panel,’” in which he calls the issue of allocating resources away from the elderly and infirm “the ethical elephant in the room.” He directs readers’ attention to the philosophy espoused by key Obama health care adviser Dr. Ezekial Emanuel (brother of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel), in his article "Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions," published on January 31, 2009. A full copy is linked below. Read it; particularly the section beginning at page 6 of the link (page 428 in the original), at which Dr. Emanuel sets forth the principles of "The Complete Lives System."


I quickly found the articles from Peter singe and Rahm Emmanuels' brother and their links to the president.. but the liberals said it wasn't in the health bill.. would they lie?

soon research found that it wasn't in the health care bills being considered.. but in the stimulus bill.... the one nobody was allowed to read..

and it is hidden under the title.. Comparative Effectiveness Research

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 created the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research to coordinate comparative effectiveness research across the Federal government.

their task basically is to find out what is cost effective treatment...

but it mg ht mean not getting a procedure if we are to old or already ill..
How do drugs and “watchful waiting” compare with surgery as a treatment,...

As Congress translated the idea into legislation, it became a lightning rod for pharmaceutical and medical-device lobbyists, who fear the findings will be used by insurers or the government to deny coverage for more expensive treatments and, thus, to ration care.

In addition, Republican lawmakers and conservative commentators complained that the legislation would allow the federal government to intrude in a person’s health care by enforcing clinical guidelines and treatment protocols.

critics say the legislation could put the government in the middle of the doctor-patient relationship.

Bureaucrats “will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost-effective,”

Lawmakers and lobbyists agree that researchers should compare the clinical merits of different treatments. Whether they should also consider cost is hotly debated.

Representative Charles Boustany Jr., a Louisiana Republican who is a heart surgeon, said he worried that “federal bureaucrats will misuse this research to ration care, to deny life-saving treatments to seniors and disabled people.”

The House Appropriations Committee inadvertently stoked such concerns in a report accompanying its version of the economic recovery bill. It said that research comparing different treatments could “yield significant payoffs” because less effective, more expensive treatments “will no longer be prescribed.”

“Comparative effectiveness is a useful tool in the tool kit, but it’s not the answer to anything,” Mr. Witty said in an interview. “Other countries have fallen in love with the concept, then spent years figuring out how on earth to make it work.”
source the "liberal" New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/health/policy/16health.html

so don't worry Death panels are not in the health care bill... they were hidden in the stimulus bill.. that Obama hid from the public... Palin was right.. the idea of rationing care based on worth is downright evil.. to bad she wasn't smart enough to discover the real source of the death panel..

"Follow that? No “death panels” are proposed, just a committee that will determine which unfortunate sick citizens will “get chances that are attenuated.” Sorry, Grandma, the committee has voted to attenuate your chances…"

Mrs. Wagner, 64, learned from her physician that her lung cancer, which had been in remission, had returned and would likely kill her. Her last hope was a $4,000-a-month drug that her doctor prescribed for her, but the Oregon Health Plan refused to pay. What the Oregon Health Plan did agree to cover, however, were drugs for a physician-assisted death. Those drugs would cost about $50. "It was horrible," Wagner told ABCNews.com. "I got a letter in the mail that basically said if you want to take the pills, we will help you get that from the doctor and we will stand there and watch you die. But we won't give you the medication to live."

not only is he not transparent but he is hiding the truth by saying..

‘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. (Laughter.)’

Best-Medicine-.jpg


not only did the house of representatives pass the "Death Panel" it so did the senate and it was signed by the president...

http://www.examiner.com/x-3747-Louisville-City-Hall-Examiner~y2009m8d13-The-truth-about-Obamas-death-panel
 

Steve

Well-known member
There is nothing in any of the legislative proposals that would call for the creation of death panels or any other governmental body that would cut off care for the critically ill as a cost-cutting measure.

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 "DEATH" 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.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/death_panel_is_not_in_the_bill.html

Maybe we should ask the Associated Press and New York Times if they still think we shouldn't be concerned about a federal "death panel."

Also hidden, H.R.1 SEC. 9202 (4) Infrastructure and tools for the promotion of telemedicine, including coordination among Federal agencies in the promotion of telemedicine.

so, Sarah Palin was right after all.
home.parcoltop11.35513.ImageFile.jpg
 

Steve

Well-known member
Also hidden, H.R.1 SEC. 9202 (4) Infrastructure and tools for the promotion of telemedicine, including coordination among Federal agencies in the promotion of telemedicine.

telemedicine? WT_?

if offing grandma doesn't save enough.. maybe by outsourcing our health care to India we can save alot of money so everyone can have a phone doctor?

Just press O after the tone.... :roll: :roll: :wink:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
I doubt you will get a response from the Dems.

http://ranchers.net/forum/search.php?mode=results

Here's another one posted last night, that even OT won't touch. I don't understand why people won't look at this stuff when it is presented to them. They seem more interested in calling the poster of such articles as liars and fearmongers.

Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Obama Advisor: There Very Well May Be a Death Panel

Economist Martin Feldstein is probably coming as close as an Obama advisor can to letting the country know that a death panel may be on its way. Feldstein was appointed by President Obama to the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

In Wednesday's WSJ, Feldstein writes:


The White House Council of Economic Advisers issued a report in June explaining the Obama administration's goal of reducing projected health spending by 30% over the next two decades. That reduction would be achieved by eliminating "high cost, low-value treatments," by "implementing a set of performance measures that all providers would adopt," and by "directly targeting individual providers . . . (and other) high-end outliers."

Got that, "eliminate high cost, low value treatments"? Do you think that means a 20 year old youth with a broken leg who has many tax paying years ahead of him, or Grandma, where it is decided that it just isn't worth the cost to keep her alive through one more Christmas?

So how exactly will "they" decide what is "high cost, low value"?

Feldstein spills the beans on this also:

The president has emphasized the importance of limiting services to "health care that works." To identify such care, he provided more than $1 billion in the fiscal stimulus package to jump-start Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) and to finance a federal CER advisory council to implement that idea. That could morph over time into a cost-control mechanism of the sort proposed by former Sen. Tom Daschle, Mr. Obama's original choice for White House health czar. Comparative effectiveness could become the vehicle for deciding whether each method of treatment provides enough of an improvement in health care to justify its cost.

Got that? That's a medical decider treatment panel, a death panel, if you will. This is exactly what nut job Peter Singer is advocating. It's all about QALY. It's about Singer designing equations to determine who lives and who dies. This is exactly what he wrote in New York Times Magazine, just weeks ago:

As a first take, we might say that the good achieved by health care is the number of lives saved. But that is too crude. The death of a teenager is a greater tragedy than the death of an 85-year-old, and this should be reflected in our priorities. We can accommodate that difference by calculating the number of life-years saved, rather than simply the number of lives saved. If a teenager can be expected to live another 70 years, saving her life counts as a gain of 70 life-years, whereas if a person of 85 can be expected to live another 5 years,then saving the 85-year-old will count as a gain of only 5 life-years. That suggests that saving one teenager is equivalent to saving 14 85-year-olds.

After they kill off Grandmas, they are going after the quadriplegics. Here's Singer again:

How can we compare saving a person’s life with, say, making it possible for someone who was confined to bed to return to an active life? We can elicit people’s values on that too. One common method is to describe medical conditions to people — let’s say being a quadriplegic — and tell them that they can choose between 10 years in that condition or some smaller number of years without it. If most would prefer, say, 10 years as a quadriplegic to 4 years of nondisabled life, but would choose 6 years of nondisabled life over 10 with quadriplegia, but have difficulty deciding between 5 years of nondisabled life or 10 years with quadriplegia, then they are, in effect, assessing life with quadriplegia as half as good as nondisabled life. (These are hypothetical figures, chosen to keep the math simple, and not based on any actual surveys.) If that judgment represents a rough average across the population, we might conclude that restoring to nondisabled life two people who would otherwise be quadriplegics is equivalent in value to saving the life of one person, provided the life expectancies of all involved are similar.

This is the basis of the quality-adjusted life-year, or QALY, a unit designed to enable us to compare the benefits achieved by different forms of health care...If a reformed U.S. health care system explicitly accepted rationing, as I have argued it should, QALYs could play a similar role in the U.S

So what are the chances of this type rationing that Singer is calling for actually occurring? Here's Obama advisor Feldstein, again:

Although administration officials are eager to deny it, rationing health care is central to President Barack Obama's health plan. The Obama strategy is to reduce health costs by rationing the services that we and future generations of patients will receive.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Hey Steve, I also liked your inclusion of the pictures.

You'd like this site.

http://thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=3891

2kcdf84415ae.jpg


392049541v4_350x350_Front.jpg

It looks morbid at the first appearance. Then I saw that one of Carter smiling because he is "no longer the worst president in history" and I busted a gut.
 
Top