► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘euthanasia’

The New York Times Christmas Day Death Panel Discussion

by Bunk Five Hawks X ( 109 Comments › )
Filed under Breaking News, Democratic Party, Health Care, Healthcare, History, Links, Media, Politics, Progressives at December 27th, 2010 - 2:00 pm


Interesting that the New York Times thought to publish a piece of inconvenient truth on Christmas Day. The article addresses the known concerns about Obamacare and euthanasia of the elderly, yet has one more little tidbit thrown in:

Proponents asked that the truth not be forwarded.

It’s not necessary to repost the entire NYT flying pig moment here (it’s linked below) but check out the opening paragraphs:

When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

Congressional supporters of the new policy, though pleased, have kept quiet. They fear provoking another furor like the one in 2009 when Republicans seized on the idea of end-of-life counseling to argue that the Democrats’ bill would allow the government to cut off care for the critically ill.

Read the rest for yourselves, but don’t miss this:

Several Democratic [sic] members of Congress, led by Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, had urged the administration to cover end-of-life planning as a service offered under the Medicare wellness benefit. A national organization of hospice care providers made the same recommendation.

Mr. Blumenauer, the author of the original end-of-life proposal, praised the rule as “a step in the right direction.”

“It will give people more control over the care they receive,” Mr. Blumenauer said in an interview. “It means that doctors and patients can have these conversations in the normal course of business, as part of our health care routine, not as something put off until we are forced to do it.”

After learning of the administration’s decision, Mr. Blumenauer’s office celebrated “a quiet victory,” but urged supporters not to crow about it.

“While we are very happy with the result, we won’t be shouting it from the rooftops because we aren’t out of the woods yet,” Mr. Blumenauer’s office said in an e-mail in early November to people working with him on the issue. “This regulation could be modified or reversed, especially if Republican leaders try to use this small provision to perpetuate the ‘death panel’ myth.”

Moreover, the e-mail said: “We would ask that you not broadcast this accomplishment out to any of your lists, even if they are ‘supporters’ — e-mails can too easily be forwarded.”

The e-mail continued: “Thus far, it seems that no press or blogs have discovered it, but we will be keeping a close watch and may be calling on you if we need a rapid, targeted response. The longer this goes unnoticed, the better our chances of keeping it.”

The details of Obamacare include nothing less than a slightly modified resurrection of the eugenics movement of the 1930s, and it’s still pure evil.

[h/t Aardvarks & Asshats]

I Guess There *Were* End-of-Life Provisions in ObamaCare After All

by tqcincinnatus ( 97 Comments › )
Filed under Healthcare, Politics at August 14th, 2009 - 7:04 am

Hmmmm.   Looks like a lot of left-leaning bloggers will be eating crow, since Chuck Grassley, one of the leading Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee, says that end-of-life provisions have been removed from the Senate’s version of ObamaCare,

Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, who is working with Finance Committee chairman Sen. Max Baucus on a health care compromise, has just issued a statement saying that concerns about end-of-life issues in the House health care bill are entirely legitimate.  In addition, Grassley says the Finance Committee has “dropped end-of-life provisions from consideration entirely” because of those fears and also because of concerns that they could be “implemented incorrectly.”  Grassley’s statement:

The bill passed by the House committees is so poorly cobbled together that it will have all kinds of unintended consequences, including making taxpayers fund health care subsidies for illegal immigrants. On the end-of-life issue, there’s a big difference between a simple educational campaign, as some advocates want, and the way the House committee-passed bill pays physicians to advise patients about end of life care and rates physician quality of care based on the creation of and adherence to orders for end-of-life care, while at the same time creating a government-run program that is likely to lead to the rationing of care for everyone. On the Finance Committee, we are working very hard to avoid unintended consequences by methodically working through the complexities of all of these issues and policy options. That methodical approach continues.  We dropped end-of-life provisions from consideration entirely because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly. Maybe others can defend a bill like the Pelosi bill that leaves major issues open to interpretation, but I can’t.

In other words, the end-of-life provisions could have lead to “death panels”….just like Palin said. 

Makes sense, really.  When you start rationing care – as you almost invariably do under any universal single payer health care system – then you start taking into account things like “how many useful years does this person have left?”  And you start considering that giving health care to old people who won’t be working and producing tax revenue isn’t worth it.  You start measuring the value of a person’s life on how much revenue they can generate for the state.   Then you end up with the death panels Palin warned about.  Where did she get such a silly idea?  Probably from Oregon, where exactly that sort of thing has already happened via Oregon’s state-run health care system. 

Once again, conservatives were right, and the leftie blogs were wrong.  I’m starting to detect a trend here.