MSNBC host Keith Olbermann has been having a bit of a hard time lately. His father is extremely ill and, after six extremely difficult months has, apparently, asked his son to kill him. Olbermann has used this horrible situation as a 'learning experience' about 'death panels'. He has decided to attack Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin as well (why change now?) in his recent Special Comment, and he has coined the term 'life panels' in a bid to change the perception of the legislation and make it more palatable. The death panel issue is a bone of contention for the democrats, and they are desperate to spin it, as it has gotten a certain amount of traction with the public.
The problem is, he is talking about end of life counselling, not death panels. This is when the doctor speaks with family members about making a plan to assist in helping a terminally ill patient finish their days in comfort and dignity. I think most people would agree that end of life counselling for a terminally ill patient isn't such a bad thing. Difficult, yes, but unfortunately necessary sometimes. There were those who protested the end of life counselling, but what they were protesting was the mandated frequency of it, whether you were terminally ill or not - not the necessity.
The so-called 'death panels' have nothing whatsoever to do with end of life counselling. The death panels refer to the bureacrats who will be measuring your illness on the scale of "quality adjusted life years". Under the death panels, Keith Olbermann's dad would have gotten a pain pill and cabfare home to die months ago. The myriad tests run and procedures tried that have kept him alive to this point would never have been offered because the senior Mr. Olbermann, due to his age and obviously bad health, would have been deemed a waste of resources.
The answer we need, Keith, is whether all that was done for your father was worth the few extra months you have been blessed to share with him. Because the death panels in those bills aren't about end of life counselling - it's about ending your life when you're no longer viable.
It's about being 65 years old, getting a stage four cancer diagnosis and being given morphine instead of chemo. It's stage four, you're at retirement age - why waste the chemo when the odds are so long and you wouldn't add much to the collective if you do somehow manage to recover? Those decisions aren't made by you and your doctor, they are made by bureacrats who create a generic actuary table on human viability and productivity. What you have put into the system in the past doesn't matter, what counts is if you will offset the current costs.
Your 'life panels', Keith, are about you and your family making choices. The 'death panels' are about the choices being made for you by bureacrats in Washington with a budget. Your father wouldn't have been given the treatment that reduced his white blood cell counts by two-thirds, he would have been given pain killers to keep him comfortable until he died. There is no second opinion. There is no chance of a miracle cure. There are no more brave fights that beat the odds.
There is only the nameless, faceless bureacracy deciding your fate without ever even meeting you or your doctor. The only way to keep this behemoth 'deficit neutral' is to keep down costs.
The wonderful new treatments, the expensive alternatives, the innovations would all be gone under the heavy weight of bureaucratic oversight. Bureaucracies don't like experimental treatments - they are not cost effective. Your life is merely an equations calculated by a spreadsheet - nothing more, nothing less. Considering how tone deaf our government has become, that is a really scary prospect.
It's too bad that Keith Olbermann has decided to publicize his father's illness to make a political point, but that is his prerogative. It would have been a better thing to highlight the fantastic work our doctors, nurses and hospitals do, even in difficult, complex cases such as this. Instead Mr. Olbermann has decided to climb on his soap box and use the situation to push a (erroneous) political point of view while simultaniously using his father's illness as a shield against any criticism of his stance.
One can only hope that eventually Olby will realize the gift he was given with the six month extension of his father's life, and perhaps he will someday grasp that, if the health care legislation had been passed, he would not have had that gift.
But, after all, this is Keith Olbermann we are talking about, so don't hold your breath.
Showing posts with label death panels. Show all posts
Showing posts with label death panels. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
THE LIE OF THE YEAR
Last week, the St. Petersburg Times' Politifact came out with an article titled 'Politifact's Lie of the Year: Death Panels'. The article discusses the origin of the term - Sarah Palin's Facebook page - and the ripple effects it has had. It talks about how ridiculous the claim was, how wrong, how politically motivated the whole argument was.
But last night, Senator Jim DeMint, on the floor of the Senate, brought to light two things. The first is the fact that there is, indeed, a rationiing board, called the Independent Medical Advisory Board (IMAB). This board is charged with making sure the per capita growth rate of Medicare spending is reduced. This will apparently not be done through rationing, though. According to page 1004, the IMAB:
It's amazing how something so ridiculous and far-fetched, as supporters of the bill call death panels, keeps popping up. Why does it keep mysteriously ending up in all of the legislation so far? Because rationing health care is the only way to make this behemoth even remotely affordable. And so the democrats keep putting it in. When it is uncovered that the boards are back in, the knee-jerk reaction of the democrats is to denounce those who dare to mention their existence, calling them crazy, ridiculous, fringe, unhinged. None of which explain why these boards keep ending up in their legislation.
As usual, they ridicule and deride, instead of attempting to explain or justify. One would assume that is because there is just no explaining or justifying the rationing boards. There are too many countries now that have them, and there is a plethora of horror stories about them.
The second thing is a rules change that Sen. DeMint exposed. The Presiding officer decided that, although the wording of the subsection expressly uses the terms 'rules change', it is not, in fact, a rules change.
This is not just unconstitutional. It is a powergrab of breathtaking proportions. Not only is it taking power from future congresses, it is taking power over all of our lives and making it nearly impossible to wrest it back.
For those who think this board is a harmless bureaucratic committee, think again. There is a damn good reason why they have made this and only this unrepealable. It's the only way to keep this nightmare of a bill from bankrupting the country down the road. There must be rationing to keep it solvent - there are not enough doctors and nurses to care for us all, and there isn't nearly enough money to pay for it.
They are trampling all over our Constitution in order to make sure they have unchallenged power and control.
That is not democracy; that is, as Senator DeMint so aptly put it, tyranny.
But last night, Senator Jim DeMint, on the floor of the Senate, brought to light two things. The first is the fact that there is, indeed, a rationiing board, called the Independent Medical Advisory Board (IMAB). This board is charged with making sure the per capita growth rate of Medicare spending is reduced. This will apparently not be done through rationing, though. According to page 1004, the IMAB:
"shall not include any recommendation to ration health care"Reeeally? So, a recommendation to, say, restrict poor women under the age of 50 from getting yearly mammograms because it is 'wasteful' isn't rationing? Not that anything like that would happen, of course. Our government officials would never do anything as crazy as that.
It's amazing how something so ridiculous and far-fetched, as supporters of the bill call death panels, keeps popping up. Why does it keep mysteriously ending up in all of the legislation so far? Because rationing health care is the only way to make this behemoth even remotely affordable. And so the democrats keep putting it in. When it is uncovered that the boards are back in, the knee-jerk reaction of the democrats is to denounce those who dare to mention their existence, calling them crazy, ridiculous, fringe, unhinged. None of which explain why these boards keep ending up in their legislation.
As usual, they ridicule and deride, instead of attempting to explain or justify. One would assume that is because there is just no explaining or justifying the rationing boards. There are too many countries now that have them, and there is a plethora of horror stories about them.
The second thing is a rules change that Sen. DeMint exposed. The Presiding officer decided that, although the wording of the subsection expressly uses the terms 'rules change', it is not, in fact, a rules change.
DEMINT: and so the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it’s a procedure change?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: that is correct.
DEMINT: then I guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if they can redefine them. Thank you. and I do yield back.
This is not just unconstitutional. It is a powergrab of breathtaking proportions. Not only is it taking power from future congresses, it is taking power over all of our lives and making it nearly impossible to wrest it back.
For those who think this board is a harmless bureaucratic committee, think again. There is a damn good reason why they have made this and only this unrepealable. It's the only way to keep this nightmare of a bill from bankrupting the country down the road. There must be rationing to keep it solvent - there are not enough doctors and nurses to care for us all, and there isn't nearly enough money to pay for it.
They are trampling all over our Constitution in order to make sure they have unchallenged power and control.
That is not democracy; that is, as Senator DeMint so aptly put it, tyranny.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
IBD/TIPP SHOCKER
Proving they have the tenacity and single-mindedness of a pit bull, the Obama administration is once again trying to rally the troops to pass ObamaCare. There is a full court press going on right now, but the ACORN scandal has sucked all the oxygen out of the room, so little attention is being paid to reports like this stunning IBD/TIPP poll.
The administration insists that there will be no rationing of care (death panels, if you prefer Palinese). Even with every doctor and nurse practicing now, there will most definitely be rationing when 47 million (or is it 30 million - the numbers keep changing) are added to the insurance rolls. This will not cut down on emergency room visits - one of the many reasons health care is so costly - just the opposite, actually. It will take months to see a general practitioner, so people will instead prefer to spend hours waiting their turn at the ER.
The IBD poll, showing a full 45% of our doctors would retire upon adoption of ObamaCare, proves adoption will put us immediately into crisis. This country already has a nursing crisis, as well as a shortage of general practitioners, and that crisis will become a catastrophe if what the IBD poll predicts will happen really does.
This poll is remarkably damaging to ObamaCare, so it is no surprise that it is getting little play. The poll finds many results in complete opposition to what the administration - and the AMA, for that matter - has been saying:
The administration insists that there will be no rationing of care (death panels, if you prefer Palinese). Even with every doctor and nurse practicing now, there will most definitely be rationing when 47 million (or is it 30 million - the numbers keep changing) are added to the insurance rolls. This will not cut down on emergency room visits - one of the many reasons health care is so costly - just the opposite, actually. It will take months to see a general practitioner, so people will instead prefer to spend hours waiting their turn at the ER.
The IBD poll, showing a full 45% of our doctors would retire upon adoption of ObamaCare, proves adoption will put us immediately into crisis. This country already has a nursing crisis, as well as a shortage of general practitioners, and that crisis will become a catastrophe if what the IBD poll predicts will happen really does.
This poll is remarkably damaging to ObamaCare, so it is no surprise that it is getting little play. The poll finds many results in complete opposition to what the administration - and the AMA, for that matter - has been saying:
- More than seven in 10 doctors, or 71% — the most lopsided response in the poll — answered "no" when asked if they believed "the government can cover 47 million more people and that it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better."
- Two-thirds, or 65%, of doctors say they oppose the proposed government expansion plan. This contradicts the administration's claims that doctors are part of an "unprecedented coalition" supporting a medical overhaul.
- Four of nine doctors, or 45%, said they "would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement" if Congress passes the plan the Democratic majority and White House have in mind.
The American Medical Association (AMA) has been cheer leading the efforts of the Obama administration, including lobbying and advertising to sway public opinion. However, the AMA only represents about 18% of doctors, and has been losing support amongst those still members of the organization. The public view has been that doctors are behind ObamaCare, but nothing could be further from the truth.
None of this information seems to have slowed the ObamaCare express one iota, which is truly troubling. The purpose of this plan was to help the American people who have no health coverage. The result of the plan will be that even more people will be unable to access a doctor when they need one. And yet, the administration still plows ahead, even when the experts, practicing doctors, tell them it is a mistake.
Just this fact alone makes one wonder - even though it is becoming more and more clear that this plan will do more harm than good to the country, both economically and in terms of quality and quantity of care, why is the administration so adamant to pass it?
Seems to me to have more to do with power over one-sixth of the American economy than caring for the American people.
But, if the opinion of doctors in the field doesn't matter, what does my lowly opinion mean?
Good thing there are a few million other voices joining mine, and, with the downfall of ACORN imminent, a midterm election turnover is looking better and better. If congress doesn't pass a health care bill by November, it most likely won't pass at all, because they will be too busy campaigning to keep their seats next year.
After all, re-election is far more important than forwarding the business of the country, and, for once, that will work in our favor!
Thursday, August 13, 2009
DEATH PANEL REDUX (Updated)
Last week, Sarah Palin wrote on her FaceBook page about a provision in HR3200, calling them 'Death Panels'. http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=113851103434
This phrase caused an uproar amongst supporters of the bill, and some thoughtful consideration on the part of opposition. Had she gone too far? Has she lost her mind? There was much debate, both for: http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/08/inconvenient-truth-about-death-panel.html
and against: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_08/019420.php .
Finally, in his NH town hall this week, President Obama referenced her comments and attempted to make light of them. After all, there's no truth to the crazy stuff she was spouting, right? Well, Mrs. Palin has made another statement on her FaceBook page today in support of her statements, complete with footnotes. http://www.facebook.com/notes.php?id=24718773587
I'm glad she reiterated that the 'totally voluntary' nature of the legislation is a complete fallacy - when you pay someone to recommend something (like end-of-life counselling), they will recommend it frequently. After all, didn't our own President twice say that doctors perform unnecessary operations in order to make more money? Wouldn't it be far easier to make that money by suggesting counselling than by ripping out some poor kids' perfectly healthy tonsils or lopping off random limbs, as Dear Leader has accused? Not to mention I hardly think mandatory counselling every 5 years or if you are diagnosed with a serious illness can be considered 'voluntary'.
Let us consider, too, the concept of rationing. The administration insists there will be absolutely NO rationing. I beg to differ. According to their estimates, they will be adding 47 million people to the insurance rolls, but we are currently experiencing a shortage of both nurses AND doctors. These are not jobs that you can fill with unskilled workers, and we all know it takes years to train new doctors and nurses. So right out of the gate, there will be a shortage of care due to a shortage of health care workers.
Now lets consider what else might cause rationing. Well, with so many people on board, the costs are going to skyrocket. Especially if, as many maintain, businesses decide it's cheaper to have their staff on the public option, and people start abandoning the private sector for the cheaper public option. According to many in the administration, a single payer option is the ultimate goal, and if they have to take it step by step over a decade, so be it, as long as the goal is reached. Once that goal is reached, the cost of the program will become prohibitive, and cost-cutting solutions will start to be enforced.
Add to that the possibility of an economic crisis - caused, say, by the FED pumping unbacked trillions of dollars into the marketplace, causing the dollar to lose value and interest rates to soar. That would cause a major shortage of tax revenue to pay for massive entitlement programs, and would necessarily provoke rationing to save the bureaucracy from collapse.
Am I saying there will be Orwellian-style 'Death Panels'? Well, first of all, I'm sure they won't call them that. They'll probably use a harmless sounding acronym like the British have http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/health/03nice.html . NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) has decided that a human life is worth around $45,000 per year. If your health care is going to cost more than that, due to expensive procedures or drugs, they consider your life not worthy of prolonging. Was it a panel of doctors who decided that? No. It was a panel of bureaucrats, crunching the numbers. And here's the kicker - if you decide to pay for the drugs/procedures out of your own pocket, the State will refuse to pay for the rest of your care.
Would you call that a death panel?
Yes, her phrasing was a bit over the top, evoking Orwellian images of standing before faceless bureaucrats, but, truly, is it that far off the mark? Really the only difference right now in Britain is that the bureaucrats don't actually see you - there is no face to your case for them, you are merely a number. Which, if you think about it, is even scarier, because it removes all humanity from the decision.
I DO disagree with her on one thing from her original statement. She states that both her senior parents AND her Down's syndrome child would face the panel. I think poor Trig wouldn't even make it that far. According to the beliefs of both our Science Czar, John Holdren, and Obama's health care advisor, Ezekiel Emanuel, a fetus with Down's Syndrome would be a non-productive drain on the system, and would necessarily be terminated (in the case of Holdren, even if it is involuntary termination). Heck, Holdren believes that a born baby will "ultimately develop into a human being". He doesn't really specify at what age they miraculously become human, but it is far past the time of birth, and requires two things - nourishment and socialization in the 'crucial early years after birth'. Yeah, but Palin's the crazy one. If you'd like to read more about Mr. Holdren's beliefs check out his manifesto, called EcoScience. It was published in the '70's, but he has NEVER ONCE refuted his positions.
What we all need to keep in mind when it comes to this bill and others, is the concept of a 'foot in the door'. I think that, ultimately, that is what Sarah Palin is trying to illustrate with her '1984'-like imagery of Death Panels.
By small increments are we brought to a new reality.
UPDATE: Looks like the sunshine Mrs. Palin turned on this subject has done it's job:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/13/breaking-finance-committee-drops-death-panel-provisions-from-senate-bill/
DEMOCRACY IN ACTION!!
This phrase caused an uproar amongst supporters of the bill, and some thoughtful consideration on the part of opposition. Had she gone too far? Has she lost her mind? There was much debate, both for: http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/08/inconvenient-truth-about-death-panel.html
and against: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_08/019420.php .
Finally, in his NH town hall this week, President Obama referenced her comments and attempted to make light of them. After all, there's no truth to the crazy stuff she was spouting, right? Well, Mrs. Palin has made another statement on her FaceBook page today in support of her statements, complete with footnotes. http://www.facebook.com/notes.php?id=24718773587
I'm glad she reiterated that the 'totally voluntary' nature of the legislation is a complete fallacy - when you pay someone to recommend something (like end-of-life counselling), they will recommend it frequently. After all, didn't our own President twice say that doctors perform unnecessary operations in order to make more money? Wouldn't it be far easier to make that money by suggesting counselling than by ripping out some poor kids' perfectly healthy tonsils or lopping off random limbs, as Dear Leader has accused? Not to mention I hardly think mandatory counselling every 5 years or if you are diagnosed with a serious illness can be considered 'voluntary'.
Let us consider, too, the concept of rationing. The administration insists there will be absolutely NO rationing. I beg to differ. According to their estimates, they will be adding 47 million people to the insurance rolls, but we are currently experiencing a shortage of both nurses AND doctors. These are not jobs that you can fill with unskilled workers, and we all know it takes years to train new doctors and nurses. So right out of the gate, there will be a shortage of care due to a shortage of health care workers.
Now lets consider what else might cause rationing. Well, with so many people on board, the costs are going to skyrocket. Especially if, as many maintain, businesses decide it's cheaper to have their staff on the public option, and people start abandoning the private sector for the cheaper public option. According to many in the administration, a single payer option is the ultimate goal, and if they have to take it step by step over a decade, so be it, as long as the goal is reached. Once that goal is reached, the cost of the program will become prohibitive, and cost-cutting solutions will start to be enforced.
Add to that the possibility of an economic crisis - caused, say, by the FED pumping unbacked trillions of dollars into the marketplace, causing the dollar to lose value and interest rates to soar. That would cause a major shortage of tax revenue to pay for massive entitlement programs, and would necessarily provoke rationing to save the bureaucracy from collapse.
Am I saying there will be Orwellian-style 'Death Panels'? Well, first of all, I'm sure they won't call them that. They'll probably use a harmless sounding acronym like the British have http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/health/03nice.html . NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) has decided that a human life is worth around $45,000 per year. If your health care is going to cost more than that, due to expensive procedures or drugs, they consider your life not worthy of prolonging. Was it a panel of doctors who decided that? No. It was a panel of bureaucrats, crunching the numbers. And here's the kicker - if you decide to pay for the drugs/procedures out of your own pocket, the State will refuse to pay for the rest of your care.
Would you call that a death panel?
Yes, her phrasing was a bit over the top, evoking Orwellian images of standing before faceless bureaucrats, but, truly, is it that far off the mark? Really the only difference right now in Britain is that the bureaucrats don't actually see you - there is no face to your case for them, you are merely a number. Which, if you think about it, is even scarier, because it removes all humanity from the decision.
I DO disagree with her on one thing from her original statement. She states that both her senior parents AND her Down's syndrome child would face the panel. I think poor Trig wouldn't even make it that far. According to the beliefs of both our Science Czar, John Holdren, and Obama's health care advisor, Ezekiel Emanuel, a fetus with Down's Syndrome would be a non-productive drain on the system, and would necessarily be terminated (in the case of Holdren, even if it is involuntary termination). Heck, Holdren believes that a born baby will "ultimately develop into a human being". He doesn't really specify at what age they miraculously become human, but it is far past the time of birth, and requires two things - nourishment and socialization in the 'crucial early years after birth'. Yeah, but Palin's the crazy one. If you'd like to read more about Mr. Holdren's beliefs check out his manifesto, called EcoScience. It was published in the '70's, but he has NEVER ONCE refuted his positions.
What we all need to keep in mind when it comes to this bill and others, is the concept of a 'foot in the door'. I think that, ultimately, that is what Sarah Palin is trying to illustrate with her '1984'-like imagery of Death Panels.
By small increments are we brought to a new reality.
UPDATE: Looks like the sunshine Mrs. Palin turned on this subject has done it's job:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/13/breaking-finance-committee-drops-death-panel-provisions-from-senate-bill/
DEMOCRACY IN ACTION!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)