The Unwitting Birthplace of the 'Death Panel' Myth

Not so much a myth as a lie.

 

Palin's "death panel" comment wasn't about end of life counselling. It was about healthcare rationing. Do you need to see the comment in context again?

 

Here's the statment in context again.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=61016


It's about health care rationing, not end of life counseling.

 

The latter.

 

First I do not hate Obama, just some of his policies.

While I am an uncompromising pro-life advocate and supporter, I am considered liberal in many other areas such as entitlements (for the poor and needy including illegal aliens), some of environmentalism, etc. Before the Dem support of Roe vs Wade I was a staunch JFK type Democrat.

The problem is that our president is a DINO (sane democratism that is).

Obviously this administration is not going to come up with a term such as "Death Panel". It is a derisive but deserved phrase for an element within the underlying philosophy of the 1036 page HR3200 bill (incidentily, it keeps getting shorter, the last time I checked it was 1017 pages).

The underlying philosophy of HR3200 IMO comes from the writings of Ezekiel Emanuel.

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is the health-policy advisor at the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research (FCCCER) and also the brother of the President's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

His views ought to matter to matter to Christians and they certainly matter to me.

The views of the President's advisors are why he selected them in the first place, otherwise he could use a lottery to determine who will advise him.

Go here to see abstracts of Dr. Emanuel writings where he advocates age profiling and social worth as criteria to determine who gets priority health care.

http://www.examiner.com/x-9452-DC-Catholic-Living-Examiner~y2009m8d12-Dr-Ezekiel-Emanuel-Obamas-top-health-care-advisor-advocates-denying-care-to-elderly-and-disabled


There is a link there to the full document(s) of Dr. Emanuel.

Then compare some of the wording of HR3200 and make your own conclusion as to rationing and prioritizing of health care for the elderly and those of diminished “investment” value.

i.e. Dr Emanuel...

In a separate 1996 article for the Hastings Center Report, Dr. Emanuel spoke about rationing care away from those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens" to the non-disabled, adding "An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."

In other words, leave those of least social worth to fend for themselves (In other words, let the families pay for the care (presumably) or let them die, comfortably in a hospice, but let them die).

As to HR3200, it openly declares (over and over again) that much of the details, administration and regulations of the bill "shall" be decided/developed by a committee in collaboration with the Secretary of Health and Welfare/Human Services or by the secretary himself.


e.g. SEC. 1152. POST ACUTE CARE SERVICES PAYMENT REFORM PLAN AND BUNDLING PILOT PROGRAM
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this section referred to as the“Secretary”) shall develop a detailed plan to reform payment for post acute care (PAC) services under the Medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (in this section referred to as the “Medicare program)”.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07242009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/deadly_doctors_180941.htm?page=0

Pages 424-432 (SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION) of this convoluted bill in the section concerning "end of life" and "ESRD (End Stage Renal Disease").

"(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;
(II) distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law) may sign orders for life sustaining treatment;
(III) provides training for health care professionals across the continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining treatment"

The question I have from reading these pages is why is it necessary for the signed order to be for "life sustaining treatment"? In other words the default treatment for ESRD will now be to let them die and "life sustaining treatment (such as kidney dialysis)" would necessitate a written order.

One might say that this is what is already required for ESRD. Right now the standard treatment prescribed by most doctors is dialysis (or you can find one who will prescribe dialysis), However after the bill passes, the government will be running the life-death prescription lottery.

Prove that wrong from HR3200. This bill (IMO) is carefully word-smithed and grammar-crafted to avoid inflammatory terms such as "death panel", "euthanasia", "rationing", "prioritization", etc and is the first "olive out of the bottle" leading to "The Eugenics and Population Control HR???? Bill".

In another section it is stated that the Secretary of Health would draw up a document outlining standard treatments for diseases including ESRD.

That alone should be a blinking red light. This bill needs to be thrown out until the government in a multi-partisan way (I am an Independent) spells out exactly what they mean with no second-guessing required.

Yes everyone will be mandated for (not provided for) under 1 of 3 categories 1) abortion (already legalized), 2) prioritized and/or rationed healthcare or 3) "death with dignity" (already legalized in 2 states).

HankD

 

Maybe the idea of death panels originated from the President's own words:


THE PRESIDENT: I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.

I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. LINK

 

The language is clearly in the bill, thus those that discuss the so-called "death panels" are only discussing something that is currently in the HR bill. Since this is what is being pushed, and what would be passed, I believe those discussing either the merits or the drawbacks of such a plan are totally within rights and reason. That doesn't make one an Obama hater but rather a good American. A good American looks into the issues and discusses them, expressing their views on the matter, which just happens to be one of those inalienable rights the citizens of this country possess.

The Obama lovers, the ones who think he can do no wrong and think anyone criticises him is a hater - they are the ones who derail conversation about the matter. By insisting something that clearly exists in the language of the bill does not exist and then charging those who discuss it with being haters, they have attempted to deflect the debate for their own personal reasons.

 

Just worth repeating

 

Britain's "Death Panel" at work: Is it a myth?

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=61434

Obama's will be patterned after theirs.