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

'Death panel' is not in the bill... it already exists

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
August 15, 2009
'Death panel' is not in the bill... it already exists

By Joseph Ashby
Former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin has come under fire for her Facebook post accusing President Obama and the Democrats of including a "death panel" provision the health care bill. The Associated Press recently ran a ‘Fact Check' article rebutting Palin's claim.

AP argues that the bill's end-of-life counseling provision has been mistaken as a promotion of euthanasia and thus the death panel assertion by Palin and many other conservatives is false and misleading.

The New York Times has joined in the death panel bashing. Jim Rutenburg and Jackie Calmes assert the following:

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 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.


Who is on the Council? One of its most prominent members is none other than Dr. Death himself Ezekiel Emanuel. Dr. Emanuel's views on care of the elderly should frighten anyone who is or ever plans on being old. He explains the logic behind his discriminatory views on elderly care as follows:

Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years.


On average 25-year-olds require very few medical services. If they are to get the lion's share of the treatment, then those 65 and over can expect very little care. Dr. Emanuel's views on saving money on medical care are simple: don't provide any medical care. The loosely worded provisions in H.R 1 give him and his Council increasing power to push such recommendations.

Similarly hazy language will no doubt be used in the health care bill. What may pass as a 1,000 page health care law will explode into perhaps many thousands of pages of regulatory codes. The deliberate vagueness will give regulators tremendous leverage to interpret its provisions. Thus Obama's Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein will play a major role in defining the government's role in controlling medical care.

How does Sunstein approach end of life care? In 2003 he wrote a paper for the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies arguing that human life varies in value. Specifically he champions statistical methods that give preference to what the government rates as "quality-adjusted life years." Meaning, the government decides whether a person's life is worth living. If the government decides the life is not worth living, it is the individual's duty to die to free up welfare payments for the young and productive.

Ultimately it was Obama himself, in answer to a question on his ABC News infomercial, who said that payment determination cannot be influenced by a person's spirit and "that at least we (the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research) can let doctors know and your mom know that...this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."

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."

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/death_panel_is_not_in_the_bill.html
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Yep- Hypocrit-- keep the piss running down folks legs in fear-- of what might be there- or what they might do- or what you prognosticate in your North Korean provided crystal ball will happen :roll:

Good old Communist- Anti American- Secessionist- southern extremists tactics.....You just do their job so well..... :roll: :( :(

Too bad- I think I represent a whole lot bigger bunch of folks- that are willing to sit back and see what really comes out as a health care bill- and what is in it- knowing that not all of it will probably be what I agree with- nor will some of it be what others agree with- but hoping and praying that it is what is best for America because they know what we have now is not working.....

And I have listened to even the most conservative of our lawmakers like Senator Hatch say "DOING NOTHING IS NOT AN OPTION".....

And proudly I disagree with all your piles of horseshit you throw out to slam this country and our government- from whatever country you choose to hide in anonymity in - and believe the American system- decided by the voters- is still best in the world.....

AND AGAIN I HAVE TO SAY- I WAS NEVER PROUDER IN MY LIFE THAN TODAY- TO SEE THE PEOPLE OF MONTANA SHOW UP- AND SHOW FOLKS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO ACT LIKE "NUTCASES" OR "WINGERNUTS" ON EITHER SIDE...... :D :D :D :clap:

Choice of health insurance is limited in Montana. Blue Cross Blue Shield Montana alone constitutes 75 percent of the health insurance market in Montana, with the top two insurance providers accounting for 85 percent.

Insurance companies and Major League Baseball are the only two industries exempt from anti-trust laws.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
If you are happy just sitting back and letting whatever happen, good for you. Hope you are in a comfy chair.

Too bad- I think I represent a whole lot bigger bunch of folks- that are willing to sit back and see what really comes out as a health care bill

After it is signed into law, it's too late do say anything anyway, isn't it? This article is not about the Health Care bill though, it's about the Stimulus bill.

They snuck that one past you, when you were sitting back, in your comfy chair.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Well you better keep hiding in North Korea or Canada or wherever you are cause they'll be chasing you down with the needle first :wink: :roll: :roll: :lol:
 

Broke Cowboy

Well-known member
Actually - if this is true:

"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."

I am very concerned about the potential attitude and quality of care for folks under this new proposed system - essentially that statement could be legally twisted and come to included everyone over 40.

There are many examples of this type of bastardization of initial intent through legal interference.

All it takes is the right combination of people, intent and lawyers and it comes into play in the future.

No matter which side of the argument you might be on - your Second Ammendment was not written clearly enough for TODAYS legal system and there is continual disagreement on what it truly means.

So unclear language is deadly to any new bill. And attitudes permeate the writing and the intent. Once it is signed there it will take huge effort to correct or make changes - you will live with what you get for a long time.

Sound sensational and fictitious? Yeah - but things have a habit of coming back to haunt us.

A small example:

OT is an older rancher who is getting some serious arthritis - no reason or fault of his own other than a life time of hard work to pay taxes and raise a family and be a valued member of the community.

If he is over 65, then the arthritis resulting from that hard work and being a good citizen of the community, gets a reduced level of care due to age and the fact he needs to "be more accepting of the conditions that come with age".

I think this might be one of the scarier statements - providing a small peek into the thought processes taking place behind the scenes.

Hope I am wrong - but this type of thing CAN happen.

BC
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: Betsy McCaughey
Share | Email | Print | A A A

Commentary by Betsy McCaughey

Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama’s stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.

Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.

Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).

The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.

New Penalties

Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)

What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.

The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Elderly Hardest Hit

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. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.

In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.

Hidden Provisions

If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.

The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).

Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,” he said. “The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.”

More Scrutiny Needed

On Friday, President Obama called it “inexcusable and irresponsible” for senators to delay passing the stimulus bill. In truth, this bill needs more scrutiny.

The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn. This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy.

(Betsy McCaughey is former lieutenant governor of New York and is an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The opinions expressed are her own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Betsy McCaughey at [email protected]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs#
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I'm not going to sit back in my chair and just let these idiots install a socialist system that spends another trillion that we don't have - with the promise those numbers will go up, that will be run by an outfit with proven abysimal management and installed by a man who lies about it every flipping day! This thing is a pig 10 different ways.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
All it takes is the right combination of people, intent and lawyers and it comes into play in the future.



Under this system, patients would receive scarce care according to the graph shown below.

Complete Life

rahm.jpg


The paper concludes: “the complete lives system combines four morally relevant principles: youngest-first, prognosis, lottery, and saving the most lives. In pandemic situations, it also allocates scarce interventions to people instrumental in realising these four principles. Importantly, it is not an algorithm, but a framework that expresses widely affirmed values: priority to the worst-off, maximising benefits, and treating people equally. To achieve a just allocation of scarce medical interventions, society must embrace the challenge of implementing a coherent multiprinciple framework rather than relying on simple principles or retreating to the status quo.”
 
Top