Concerning the "Death Panels"

I admit I am not paying as much attention to the health care proposals as I should be. Too much going on in my life to read the bills. I do admit with most of the country that we need to do something about our health care system. But, as I heard mentioned on the radio this morning, mostly with the costs involved.

As a STRONGLY Libertarian oriented person I find it odious at the least that our government is trying to become even more involved in health care than they are. Frankly the less our governmetn does the better I'd like it. GIve me more money to pay for my own health care.

One of the raging controversies is that of "Care Rationing" and the "Death Panels." President Obama has gone on record (multiple times but that's another issue) to say that the right wing has it wrong. Well here is a response from Sarah Palin. What I like about this is she actually sites the bill in her description. Something you almost NEVER hear a democrat do.

Copied from her Facebook notes - Sarah Palins' response to the President:

quote

Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly, and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these “unproductive” members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care.

The President made light of these concerns. He said:

“Let me just be specific about some things that I’ve been hearing lately that we just need to dispose of here. The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for death panels that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we’ve decided that we don’t, it’s too expensive to let her live anymore....It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, etc. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything.” [1]

The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” [2] With all due respect, it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.

Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual ... or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility... or a hospice program." [3] During those consultations, practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services. [4]

Now put this in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” [5] Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As Charles Lane notes in the Washington Post, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones.... If it’s all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to “bend the curve” on health-care costs?” [6]

As Lane also points out:

Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren’t quite “purely voluntary,” as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, “purely voluntary” means “not unless the patient requests one.” Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive -- money -- to do so. Indeed, that’s an incentive to insist.

Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they’re in the meeting, the bill does permit “formulation” of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would “place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign,” I don’t think he’s being realistic. [7]

Even columnist Eugene Robinson, a self-described “true believer” who “will almost certainly support” “whatever reform package finally emerges”, agrees that “If the government says it has to control health-care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending.” [8]

So are these usually friendly pundits wrong? Is this all just a “rumor” to be “disposed of”, as President Obama says? Not according to Democratic New York State Senator Ruben Diaz, Chairman of the New York State Senate Aging Committee, who writes:

Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200 puts our senior citizens on a slippery slope and may diminish respect for the inherent dignity of each of their lives.... It is egregious to consider that any senior citizen ... should be placed in a situation where he or she would feel pressured to save the government money by dying a little sooner than he or she otherwise would, be required to be counseled about the supposed benefits of killing oneself, or be encouraged to sign any end of life directives that they would not otherwise sign. [9]

Of course, it’s not just this one provision that presents a problem. My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President’s chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens....An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” [10] Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.” [11]

President Obama can try to gloss over the effects of government authorized end-of-life consultations, but the views of one of his top health care advisors are clear enough. It’s all just more evidence that the Democratic legislative proposals will lead to health care rationing, and more evidence that the top-down plans of government bureaucrats will never result in real health care reform.

- Sarah Palin

[1] See http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/president-obama-addresses-sarah-palin-death-panels-wild-representations.html.
[2] See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
[3] See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1); Sec. 1233 (hhh)(3)(B)(1), above.
[4] See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1)(E), above.
[5] See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
[6] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html].
[7] Id.
[8] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/10/AR2009081002455.html].
[9] See http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/letter-congressman-henry-waxman-re-section-1233-hr-3200.
[10] See http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf
[11] See http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions.

unquote

Combative? Aren't they elected by US?

There are multiple sources in the media for the complaint by the White House that the discourse and difficulty arising at town hall meetings and other venues where our elected leaders are appearing over the Obama Healthcare Plan is driven by a "organization" seeking to discredit the White House's legislation plan. In fact the White House has gone to the level that I personally do not remember of publishing a "tattle" site where anyone can report instances of "misinformation" to the White House. Obama has even upped the ante by threatening "double the effort" to support any candidate for office that votes for his legislation when someone brings up Health Care as an "attack" on their record.

Well excuse me - but is this not America. Do the people of this country NOT have the Constitutional RIGHT to organize to voice their opinion? And who cares who is "behind it." Do we question who is behind the Union organizers? Oh wait, that must be OK because its obvious that the Union is a necessary social instrument and since it is a social instrument it must know more than the common man.

And now this. The Washington Times is reporting that a Congressman, after opening the floor for questions, is ranting at a man for having the gall to question the healthcare program. Howe dare this man intrude on his time to ask a question about healthcare.

It is time that everyone take the time to mail a postcard to their Congressman and voice their opinion - CLEARLY. This Congressman said that there was no appointment. Well go to your legislators local office and register your voice. Tell them you are a constituent and you are NOT going to take this abusive response lying down.

If you do NOT fight for our rights and our country NOW, will you be willing to do it over the trenches?

Thomas Jefferson knew

Here are some thoughts taken from another forum

The founding fathers of this country, knew first hand the kind of tyranny would tear this nation apart, so they created the Bill Rights so WE THE PEOPLE could have control. WE THE PEOPLE have become blind and deaf to the events that are slowing enslaving us.

Please read these wonderful quotes by my hero Thomas Jefferson:

1)A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.

2)A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.

3)All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent

4)Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.

5)Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories

6)I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

7)My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.

8)Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.

9)The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

10)A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.

HUZZAH! A strike for freedom of speech in California

I won't repeat the history but a blow for common sense and freedom has been struck in California. The same court, which issued an injunction allowing the authorities to confiscate a particular club's colors or items with their name, has issued a new injunction overturning the previous one. This injunction prohibits the government authorities from confiscating a club's colors and items with their name attached.

Read the original story which denotes the goverment's use of this unconstitutional tactic here and the latest update at.

It will be noted that the same Judge who granted the previous injunction issued the latest. She realized the government had hoodwinked her into not fully disclosing the broad anti-constitutional grounds she was giving them. Note, in the last few paragraphs, how she states that our patches are protected under the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech provision of the Constitution, . . despite how despicable some may see us as being.

My respects to the Motorcycle 101 forum at Delphi for the orignal source of this information.

Healthcare

Like all political issues there are two sides of any political discussion. In nearly every one of these conversations there seem to be two diametrically opposed sides with no middle ground. I completed a diverstity class for my BS recently. My professor responded to me when I said the problem was that there is no middle ground that the problem was no one wanted to "discuss any possible middle ground." As I thought about it I didn't really understand what he meant.

My previous post illustrates this concept so very distinctly for me. As I read the e-mail that I had received I was struck by the relevance to the discussion currently ongoing about Healthcare. In fact I was initially worried that this e-mail might in fact be a taunt for that discussion. You can take the core subject of this e-mail in either light depending upon your outlook on politics. For me I take it from both views - the middle ground if you will.

The Insurance companies need to be held accountable for the concept that profit is more important than people. But I also do NOT want my government in the business of providing (in ANY measure) health care. Personally I do NOT see that as a dichotomy of thoughts. This country needs some help; and we do need to reign in some of the social injustice But we do NOT need our tax dollars and our elected officials put into a position of making life and death decisions over the populace.

That is NOT a function of government. I challenge anyone, anywhere to show me where in the Constitution it says the government is responsible for the social welfare of the populace? They are responsible for interstate commerce, international trade and soverign protection. ANY function outside that concept is unconstitutional.

Now the argument for insurance company regulation falls into the interstate commerce. But when you read the constitution - it is the REGULATION of interstate commerce - not the participation in it.

For me the concept of PARTICIPATION is what is getting scary.

A very important issue

This came by my e-mail and I am NOT going to frame this in the light of politics. Simply put this is a crying shame and I hope that it never happens to anyone I care about. This is the text of the e-mail:

From a nurse:

I'll never forget the look in my patients' eyes when I had to tell them they had to go home with the drains, new exercises and no breast. I remember begging the Doctors to keep these women in the hospital longer, only to hear that they would, but their hands were tied by the insurance companies. So there I sat with my patients, giving them the instructions they needed to take care of themselves, knowing full well they didn't grasp half of what I was saying, because the glazed, hopeless, frightened look spoke louder than the quiet 'Thank You' they muttered. A mastectomy is when a woman's breast is removed in order to remove cancerous breast cells/tissue. If you know anyone who has had a Mastectomy, you may know that there is a lot of discomfort and pain afterwards..

Insurance companies are trying to make mastectomies an outpatient procedure. Let's give women the chance to recover properly in the hospital for 2 days after surgery.

The balance of the e-mail continues with a plea to complete an online petition. I do not know how effective these on-line petitions are, but at the very least register your support for the concept. Perhaps the vision of pure numbers may help.

http://www.lifetimetv.com/breastcancer/petition/signpetition.php

A tad late but hey its still an issue

OK so its a tad late, but hindsight is typically clearer anyway.

So is anyone else scratching their head and trying to figure out just why the President of the United States, arguably one of the most powerful man in the world (Lord that's a scary thought)would even BOTHER to get involved in day to day police business?

For those who had their head in the sand, here is the situation as it appears to have run through.

A woman passing by a home in Cambridge Massachusetts sees two men trying to gain entry to a house without a key. The woman tells someone who then telephones 911 to report the possible "crime" in progress. To include a report purportedly stating that the men used their shoulders to get in through the door.

The police are dispatched and arrive to find two men inside the home. They request the men come outside and one of them becomes "verbally abusive" and the office ends up arresting the individual.

Now notice there have been no racial overtones, etc. So why did this situation blow up all out of proportion. Could it be that a radical individual was upset because he had ranted for so very long about unjust profiling that he failed to see and appreciate the situation? That someone had the decency to report what appeared to be a break in at his house. That the police had the need, indeed the right, to identify the occupants of the house at the time. Instead this turned into a quagmire. Is it a problem with race relations or a problem with a grown man's attitude toward society in general.

And enter the President. Upon being questioned off handed (albeit expectantly) about his impressions, did the man say - I do not have sufficient information to respond? Did the man say that the situation should be allowed to play itself out and in the background sic the federal government on the city? No he opens his mount and says the police officer acted STUPIDLY. So basically we have the highest authority in the land condemning a police officer without having a clue as to the situation. I can only hope that when pressed he won't have us push the trigger because the other guy "acted stupidly."

And THEN he has the parties get together in the Rose Garden and have a beer get together. End result - no change. Well at least he wasn't spending money again.