Article Image

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

Written by Subject: Obama Administration
 

Return to the Article



August 15, 2009 'Death panel' is not in the bill... it already existsBy 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."

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/death_panel_is_not_in_the_bill.html at August 15, 2009 - 11:05:57 AM EDT _uacct = "UA-31527-12"; urchinTracker();

2 Comments in Response to

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

Most medicine tries to shock your body into a reaction that gets rid of adverse symptoms. This drains and weakens your body. 

Genuine nutritional health tries to give your body the weapons and tools to fight the underlying cause of the symptoms. This strengthens your body. 

If a person wants to remain using medicine that drains his body right along with his wallet, that's the person's choice - young or old. 

There are nutritional stores all around the country - some cities have them almost as regular as convenience stores. 

The only thing lacking is knowledge. 

Like any habit, once you are hooked on the "habit" of remaing sickly, as well as on the "habit" of using medicine... well, it's pretty hard to kick a habbit. 

 

Comment by Lola Flores
Entered on:

To the author:

You are correct in asserting that the 'death panels' already exist.  However, you're sadly mistaken in everything else, particularly, in the spirit of your article.

Rather, it is the insurance companies that rob, rape and ridicule the working class that hold the 'death panels.'  It is them who decide who is or isn't entitled to a certain procedure and, if so, when and how.  It is them who decide who will die because they have been denied coverage, treatment or a certain procedure even though they have paid their premiums in full.  It is them who decide to drop people from the policy  because of a certain condition.  It is them who decide to deny coverage because someone has a chronic or serious illness.  These are the 'death panels' that everybody should be afraid of because it is them to decide who lives and dies and when. It is these 'panels' that would have made Hitler proud.

 

 


Join us on our Social Networks:

 

Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network:

Attorney For Freedom