Comments (0) President Obama has declared that we must all fight for health care because it is a “moral obligation” (see Obama goes Atlas Shrugged in health care debate)
Since our Dear Leader is so focused on moral obligations I thought we could take a brief look at another “moral” issue and see what his views have been:
Abortion: ” If you believe that life begins at conception, then I can’t change your mind.” (NY TIMES)
Today, President Obama, our Dear Leader, has declared that health care is a moral obligation. He held a conference call with 1000 rabbis, and after telling them he’d love to hold more calls like this to talk about Israel (because he’s such a big fan don’tcha know!) he then pressed them to lead the charge in the moral obligation of health care coverage.
Read all about it in the NY Times
President Obama sought Wednesday to reframe the health care debate as “a core ethical and moral obligation,” imploring a coalition of religious leaders to help promote the plan to lower costs and expand insurance coverage for all Americans.
“I know there’s been a lot of misinformation in this debate, and there are some folks out there who are frankly bearing false witness,” Mr. Obama told a multidenominational group of pastors, rabbis and other religious leaders who support his goal to remake the nation’s health care system.
Politico adds these quotes:
“These are all fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation: that is that we look out for one another, that I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper. In the wealthiest nation on earth right now, we are neglecting to live up to that call,” Obama said.
We are God’s partners in matters of life and death,” Obama said during the call with Jewish leaders, according to a post on Twitter by Washington-area Rabbi Jack Moline.
I’m not even sure what to make of that super creepy last quote – maybe Ezekiel Emanuel and his DEATH CHART can add some more clarity?
Folks -we are truly living in the world of Atlas Shrugged -as John Galt said in his radio speech:
And then there’s your ‘brother-love’ morality. Why is it moral to serve others, but not yourself? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but not by you? Why is it immoral to produce something of value and keep it for yourself, when it is moral for others who haven’t earned it to accept it? If it’s virtuous to give, isn’t it then selfish to take?
I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
We must take the same oath that John Galt did – before it is too late…
Watch this video – we are living Ayn Rand’s frightening future-world of Atlas Shrugged! Wake your friends and neighbors before it’s too late!
The White House thinks it is necessary to debunk the so called “myth” of the Indian Health Services in their latest blog post (HERE).
Strangely enough, the more they try to explain how the two are different, the more they start to sound the same…..
Take a look at the mission of the IHS from their website and then delete the words Indians and Alaskan Natives…..it sure sounds like Obama Care to me! (brackets and strikeouts mine)
The Indian Health Service (IHS), an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services, is responsible for providing federal health services to American Indians and Alaska Natives. The provision of health services to members of federally-recognized tribes grew out of the special government-to-government relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes. This relationship, established in 1787, is based on Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and has been given form and substance by numerous treaties, laws, Supreme Court decisions, and Executive Orders. The IHS is the principal federal health care provider and health advocate for [AMERICAN] Indian people, and its goal is to raise their health status to the highest possible level. The IHS provides a comprehensive health service delivery system for approximately [ALL AMERICANS ] 1.9 million American Indians and Alaska Natives who belong to 562 federally recognized tribes in 35 states.
Now on the the White House “Mythbusting”
“First, the IHS system is not an insurance plan. And comparing the two is like comparing apples to oranges. IHS provides comprehensive health care services to approximately 1.9 million American Indians and Alaska Natives living on or near reservations in 35 states. Some of these health services include doctor visits and check-ups, dental and vision care, diabetes prevention and treatment, mental health and substance abuse treatment, and home health care. IHS also helps construct hospitals and clinics and provides safe drinking water and sanitation facilities to American Indians and Alaska Natives. Health insurance, by contrast, provides individuals a guarantee to a defined set of benefits for a price. While the IHS accepts insurance payments for care it provides, it is not an insurance plan.
So let me get this straight…..we’re not supposed to be freaking out over Obamacare because it is “only” an insurance plan and NOT comprehensive health care? Indian Health Services covers its members from cradle to grave – all services including building the medical facilities that normally private enterprise would construct. And how exactly is that working out? And a public option that would crowd out private competitors would result in what….the government having to step in to provide these very things! We have seen the future and it is IHS! Note the government spending is now considered an “investment.” Last I checked an investment of money resulted in something that accrued a financial benefit. Health care is an expense – not an investment. Just like food, clothing and fuel. I don’t invest in a tank of gas. I buy a tank full and then enjoy the utility of that fuel enabling me to drive my car around town. Its not an investment in my business!
Second, national health reform will not dismantle IHS. American Indians and Alaska Natives will continue to have access to their Indian health service facilities.
We that’s a relief.
And third, while Indian health has been is historically underfunded, several tribes have developed innovative and award winning approaches to provide health care to their communities. These sites serve as successful models for other rural and public health programs. President Obama supports IHS which is why he proposed a 13% increase in the FY 2010 budget, and invested $590 million in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
Again – their example proves the point of why Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to nationalized health care. The IHS has been historically underfunded (can you say Medicare?) And Obama has increased their budget by 13% – which means the IHS costs will double in less than 6 years! That’s hardly the “bending” of the cost curve that he is so focused on. So if Dear Leader is increasing the spending on the IHS at rates that are even higher than the health care rate of inflation in the rest of the country, what do we expect from his national plans.
Which begs the question – WHO WILL PAY?
If you prefer to get your lies in video format watch the video below….. as they say…Shame on people trying to Scare you. Did they talk to Ezekiel Emanuel yet? If you haven’t already, see The Health Care Chart that Will Scare YOU to DEATH
In an excellent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Whole Foods CEO, John Mackey outlines eight things we can do to improve health care:
His closing paragraph is outstanding and focuses on liberty and personal responsibility! Bold emphasis mine
Health-care reform is very important. Whatever reforms are enacted it is essential that they be financially responsible, and that we have the freedom to choose doctors and the health-care services that best suit our own unique set of lifestyle choices. We are all responsible for our own lives and our own health. We should take that responsibility very seriously and use our freedom to make wise lifestyle choices that will protect our health. Doing so will enrich our lives and will help create a vibrant and sustainable American society.
Outstanding op-ed from Newt Gingrich which really hits home on the key issues on the health care debate in our country right now – that is whether will will have freedom from big brother rationing and be at the mercy of a bureaucrat for the kind of health care we will be able to receive. Free sounds oh so good from the politicians mouths until you wake up and can’t pay for everyone. And then you turn to rationing without alternate choices because you have a single payer system without competition.
| Trust the Government | |||
|
|
|||
|
|||
Read the whole op-ed HERE
The author of The Health Care Chart that Will Scare YOU to DEATH is an “ethicist” who goes to temple religiously but says he is a “Practicing Atheist”. He likes his synagogues to be without a rabbi (?) but full of “incredibly smart” people. He claims he has no faith but lots of religion. So being Jewish is more like a lifestyle? Wow. At least we have good food!
I am shocked that he can claim Judaism is not a religion of faith, but one of practice! The most holy Jewish Prayer, the Sh’ma declares:
Hear O Isreal, the Lord is our G-D, the Lord is One
And how about Maimonides 13 Principles of Faith?
I think I’m going to plotz! An Atheist Ethicist advising President Obama on how to ration healthcare!
Two weeks after Cassanda Effect reported on The Health Care Chart that Will Scare YOU to DEATH, the main stream media has woken up to his cold calculus, and are now DEFENDING it.
Let me be clear, the issue is not about Ezekiel Emanuel as a person. He is a respected physician, his past work clearly advocates for people dying with dignity, and he seems like a thoughtful man.
The issue we face is the notion of the GOVERNMENT developinga process on health care rationing with consequences that are deeply disturbign to anyoen who has ever dealt with a government agency.
Zeke Emanuel’s ethical approach is focused on social benefits – he is a Utilitarian, the greatest good for the greatest number.
View a talk he gave on the ethics of stem cell research at the Aspen Institute on August 1st 2009 (two weeks ago) HERE. Watch the video at the 45 minute mark to see his discussion on when an embryo has moral rights.
He states that you can’t understand the ethics until you understand the biology. He acknowledges the embryo should be treated with special significance. With respect and dignity. But not in the same way we treat babies and adults.
When asked if an embryo has moral rights , he tries to sidestep the issue by asking “what does my view matter”. He is the advisor to President Obama! That is why it matters!
He doesn’t buy the essentialist argument that the embryo in “en-souled”
“We have a gradation over time – there is not a bright line”
And there lies the issue. Moral Relativism and Utilitarian Moral Ethics versus the Sanctity of Life.
As I noted in my statement last week, nationalized health care inevitably leads to rationing. There is simply no way to cover everyone and hold down the costs at the same time. The rationing system proposed by one of President Obama’s key health care advisors is particularly disturbing. I’m speaking of the “Complete Lives System” advocated by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the president’s chief of staff. President Obama has not yet stated any opposition to the “Complete Lives System,” a system which, if enacted, would refuse to allocate medical resources to the elderly, the infirm, and the disabled who have less economic potential. [1] Why the silence from the president on this aspect of his nationalization of health care? Does he agree with the “Complete Lives System”? If not, then why is Dr. Emanuel his policy advisor? What is he advising the president on? I just learned that Dr. Emanuel is now distancing himself from his own work and claiming that his “thinking has evolved” on the question of rationing care to benefit the strong and deny the weak. [2] How convenient that he disavowed his own work only after the nature of his scholarship was revealed to the public at large.
The president is busy assuring us that we can keep our private insurance plans, but common sense (and basic economics) tells us otherwise. The public option in the Democratic health care plan will crowd out private insurers, and that’s what it’s intended to do. A single payer health care plan has been President Obama’s agenda all along, though he is now claiming otherwise. Don’t take my word for it. Here’s what he said back in 2003:
“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care plan…. A single payer health care plan – universal health care plan – that’s what I would like to see.” [3]
A single-payer health care plan might be what Obama would like to see, but is it what the rest of us would like to see? What does a single payer health care plan look like? We need look no further than other countries who have adopted such a plan. The picture isn’t pretty. [4] The only way they can control costs is to ration care. As I noted in my earlier statement quoting Thomas Sowell, government run health care won’t reduce the price of medical care; it will simply refuse to pay the price. The expensive innovative procedures that people from all over the world come to the United States for will not be available under a government plan that seeks to cover everyone by capping costs.
Our senior citizens are right to be wary of this health care bill. Medical care at the end of life accounts for 80 percent of all health care. When care is rationed, that is naturally where the cuts will be felt first. The “end-of-life” consultations authorized in Section 1233 of HR 3200 were an obvious and heavy handed attempt at pressuring people to reduce the financial burden on the system by minimizing their own care. Worst still, it actually provided a financial incentive to doctors to initiate these consultations. People are right to point out that such a provision doesn’t sound “purely voluntary.”
In an article I noted yesterday, Charles Lane wrote:
“Ideally, the delicate decisions about how to manage life’s end would be made in a setting that is neutral in both appearance and fact. Yes, it’s good to have a doctor’s perspective. But Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party — the government — recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations. You don’t have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach.” [5]
I agree. Last year, I issued a proclamation for “Healthcare Decisions Day.” [6] The proclamation sought to increase the public’s knowledge about creating living wills and establishing powers of attorney. There was no incentive to choose one option over another. There was certainly no financial incentive for physicians to push anything. In fact, the proclamation explicitly called on medical professionals and lawyers “to volunteer their time and efforts” to provide information to the public.
Comparing the “Healthcare Decisions Day” proclamation to Section 1233 of HR 3200 is ridiculous. The two are like apples and oranges. The attempt to link the two shows how desperate the proponents of nationalized health care are to shift the debate away from the disturbing details of their bill.
There is one aspect of this bill which I have not addressed yet, but it’s a very obvious one. It’s the simple fact that we can’t afford it. But don’t take my word for it. Take the word of Doug Elmendorf, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. He told the Senate Budget Committee last month:
“In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.” [7]
Dr. Elmendorf went on to note that this health care legislation would increase spending at an unsustainable rate.
Our nation is already $11.5 trillion in debt. Where will the money come from? Taxes, of course. And will a burdensome new tax help our economy recover? Of course not. The best way to encourage more health care coverage is to foster a strong economy where people can afford to purchase their own coverage if they choose to do so. The current administration’s economic policies have done nothing to help in this regard.
Health care is without a doubt a complex and contentious issue, but health care reform should be a market oriented solution. There are many ways we can reform the system and lower costs without nationalizing it.
The economist Arthur Laffer has taken the lead in pushing for a patient-center health care reform policy. He noted in a Wall Street Journal article earlier this month:
“A patient-centered health-care reform begins with individual ownership of insurance policies and leverages Health Savings Accounts, a low-premium, high-deductible alternative to traditional insurance that includes a tax-advantaged savings account. It allows people to purchase insurance policies across state lines and reduces the number of mandated benefits insurers are required to cover. It reallocates the majority of Medicaid spending into a simple voucher for low-income individuals to purchase their own insurance. And it reduces the cost of medical procedures by reforming tort liability laws.” [8]
Those are real reforms that we can live with and afford. Once again, I warn my fellow Americans that if we go down the path of nationalized health care, there will be no turning back. We must stop and think or we may find ourselves losing even more of our freedoms.
- Sarah Palin
[1] See http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions
[2] See http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/14/white-house-adviser-backs-off-rationing/
[3]See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hsqzSKuC44
[4] See http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2M0ODk0OTNkZjkwNGM4OGMyYTEwYWY3ODUzMzFiOTc=
[5] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html
[6] See http://www.gov.state.ak.us/archive.php?id=1094&type=6
[7] See http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/07/cbo-sees-no-federal-cost-savings-in-dem-health-plans.html
[8] See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574324361508092006.html
The White House has used the bully pulpit today, with David Axelrod sending out an email that he hopes will go viral. Its bad enough that I get spam all day long in my email box, and that President Obama seems to be EVERYWHERE, but now I have to look forward to getting this email from dozens of people. Way to use that bully pulpit! The email attempts to debunk eight health care “myths” , eight reasons why we need health careinsurance reform and eight of Obama’s health care policy goals. This is the first glimpse that Obama recognizes that a “Big Solution” will not be able to happen. Therefore he is placing more winnable, small points on the table so he can declare victory in the Fall, and deliver on his campaign promise of Health Care Reform. Most reasonable would agree with the problems that are delineated in list of ”reasons we need health insurance reform. The devil is in the details and the solutions. The most publicly discussed bill, HR 3200, is a massive attempt to require government control of health care. It is completely unacceptable to imagine such nonsense.
No where in the email does it explain how will will pay for all of this additional health care. And that, my friend, should cause you great concern.
Cassandra Effect has been slowly debunking the alleged “myths” with facts of our own. See:
Dear Friend,
This is probably one of the longest emails I’ve ever sent, but it could be the most important.
Across the country we are seeing vigorous debate about health insurance reform. Unfortunately, some of the old tactics we know so well are back — even the viral emails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions.
As President Obama said at the town hall in New Hampshire, “where we do disagree, let’s disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that’s actually been proposed.”
So let’s start a chain email of our own. At the end of my email, you’ll find a lot of information about health insurance reform, distilled into 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about reform and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now.
Right now, someone you know probably has a question about reform that could be answered by what’s below. So what are you waiting for? Forward this email.
Thanks,
David
David Axelrod
Senior Adviser to the President
P.S. We launched www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheckthis week to knock down the rumors and lies that are floating around the internet. You can find the information below, and much more, there. For example, we’ve just added a video of Nancy-Ann DeParle from our Health Reform Office tackling a viral email head on. Check it out:
8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage
Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won’t be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.
Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/
8 common myths about health insurance reform
Reform will stop “rationing” – not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a “government takeover” of health care or lead to “rationing.” To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.
We can’t afford reform: It’s the status quo we can’t afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.
Reform would encourage “euthanasia”: It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.
Vets’ health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans’ access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President’s budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.
Reform will benefit small business – not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.
Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare “doughnut” hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.
You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.
No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.
Learn more and get details:
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq
8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now
Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html
Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html
Roadblocks to Care for Women: Women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/women/index.html
Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes
Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured – 13 million people – are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spouse. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline
The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction
Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people – one in every three Americans under the age of 65 – were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction/diminishing/index.html
The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance – projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. Learn more: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf
Sarah Palin strikes back (with footnotes!) after Obama dismissed Palin’s statement that his health plan would lead to rationing of care.
Want to know what started this firestorm? Cassandra Effect readers knew about Ezekiel Emanuel’s rationing program, the Complete Lives System last month when I reported on The Health Care Chart that Will Scare YOU to DEATH
Full text of Palin’s post below (bold emphasis mine) Source: Official Sarah Palin facebook page.
Concerning “Death Panels”
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.
[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.
The Mouth of SauronRobert Gibbs does what he does best, lies, in yesterday’s press briefing.
This administration has studied Joseph Goebbels well:
And reporter Jake Tapper nails the whole health care issue in his question:
Jake Tapper:
Q A couple questions. I don’t know if you think it’s unfair to say, but it occurs to me that if the President finds himself at a town hall meeting telling the American people that he does not want to set up a panel to kill their grandparents, that perhaps there, at some point, the President has lost control of the message. And I’m wondering if you — if what you’ve seen in the last few weeks is one of the reasons why it was so important to the President earlier this year to pass health care reform in the House and Senate before the August recess. Is everything that’s going on right now what you feared would happen?
The Lies from Robert Gibbs
Q Who decides which of the many applicants for tickets to the town halls is actually chosen?
MR. GIBBS: Randomly by computer.
Q Totally random?
MR. GIBBS: Yes.
Q What about who gets a question?
MR. GIBBS: The President asks people to raise their hands and picks on them.
Q Robert, what do you think accounts for the stark difference in the scenes, though? I mean, we saw — people were very polite with the President yesterday. They are, shall we say, less than polite with some lawmakers you saw –
Maybe Mr. Gibbs never saw THIS VIDEO FROM THE LOCAL TV NEWS CHANNEL. Watch it and look at all the buses in the video and Organzing Health Care signs. as the report said about the people in the buses – Surely they will go through strict security – maybe to make sure they were agreeable and properly medicated?!!!! And there certainly were no plants in the audience this time (unlike the plants in the Annadale town hall, right?
More lies misspoken words from Obama. Its amazing how hard it is to get the truth out of your mouth every day, isn’t it!
Q I want to go back to the earlier question about the AARP. What he actually said was “AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare.” What exactly — how did he — can you explain to me how he misspoke and what he meant to say?
MR. GIBBS: I think, again, what he’s conflating is, one — and I think if you ask AARP this — they have been supportive of comprehensive health care reform for a long time. They have not, as they said, endorsed a specific piece of legislation. They are supportive of health care reform and they are supportive of an agreement that the Finance Committee and pharmaceutical manufacturers have entered into that the White House agrees with that would use $80 billion to partially fill with reduced-price prescription drugs 50 percent of the doughnut hole that seniors fall into at a certain level as part of Medicare Part D, as well as some of that additional money for savings in comprehensive health care reform.
Q But he left the impression, twice, to anyone, at least to me, sitting in the town hall meeting that Medicare — that AARP supported this and he needed it to rebut the questions about Medicare benefits would be cut. So is he going to not do that in future town halls?
MR. GIBBS: Well, the President is going to continue to say the bill doesn’t cut Medicare benefits. I think, again, the President was talking about the agreement structured with the Finance Committee and the pharmaceutical manufacturers.
More lies about the nature of the People Protesting for their FREEDOM.
MR. GIBBS: Some lawmakers.
Q Some lawmakers, but –
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know that — I’ll be honest with you, Sheryl, I don’t know how many town hall meetings you’ve been to over the summer –
Q I haven’t been to that many, but I’ve watched the clips of a fair number of them.
MR. GIBBS: Right. But let’s just address that for a second. You’ve watched clips put up about certain segments of certain town halls in order to demonstrate the consternation –
Q I’ve watched enough clips to know that President didn’t get that kind of treatment that some lawmakers got –
MR. GIBBS: No, no, I understand.
Q — and I’m just wondering do you think –
MR. GIBBS: I’m just asking you to compare that to all the town halls that you’ve been to over the summer.
Q But aside from that, the President didn’t get that kind of treatment. And I’m wondering, do you think is it just that people are more polite when it comes to talking to the President? Is it something in your — in the way folks are allowed into your meetings, or what’s the difference?
MR. GIBBS: Again, I think, again, I’m sensing your disappointment that he didn’t get yelled at.
Q No, I’m not disappointed, I’m just wondering what the explanation is for it.
MR. GIBBS: I think people wanted to — I think what the — I can’t speak to what — again, I don’t want to speak to what other town hall meetings because I only go to the President’s. It’s hard for me to — I doubt we’re seeing a representative sample of any series of town hall meetings, despite the food fight on cable every day.
But my sense is that people wanted to take the opportunity to find out from the President — to have him answer their questions about why he’s doing what he’s doing, and the concerns they may have on the legislation. That’s why when he asked, let’s take some questions from those directly that have some concerns, at that point I think — do you want to take that opportunity to have a discussion with the President of the United States about what he wants to see on health care reform? I think most people took that opportunity as something that was positive. I think it was a good conversation. I think the President thought it was a very productive conversation about the issues that we were dealing with.
And as Jake said, we — the President went out of his way to bring up, in fact, some of the misinformation that churns out there in order to address it, because I think obviously he understands he has a pulpit that is large enough to deal with some of the misinformation that some people might not ordinarily ask or inquire about because they’ve read it somewhere and they just assume that it’s true, even if it’s not.
Well – we can at least agree the President brought up some misinformation. That’s for sure.
Cassandra Effect
The majority of the initiatives that would pay for reform will come from cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. We want to take money that is already being spent on health care and re-allocate it toward reforms that lower costs and assure quality affordable health care for all Americans.
Ending big subsidies to insurance companies? Is that a code word for profits? They tell the truth when they say “We want to re-allocate.’ The problem we have is they then want to control what the money is spent on and ration your access to care as I reported two weeks ago in The Health Care Chart that Will Scare YOU to DEATH.
The cuts we are talking about involve spending that currently does not improve care for Americans. For example, we would save $177 billion in unwarranted subsidies to the insurance industry in the next ten years and put that money into actual care for people. These and other reforms will strengthen and stabilize Medicare.
Again with the “subsidies to insurance companies” - they must have poll tested people and learned that no one likes their insurance company. so they’re sticking it to them. Even though the insurance lobby has publicly been on board with health reform for months! They need to let the market work and the excess profits will be wrung out of the system! The manage to avoid making mention of Medicare cuts to doctors, which intuitively will lead to reduced care for patients by docs who are less motivated to care for Medicare patients.
But it’s not enough to stop there. Health insurance reform must also encourage the kinds of reforms we know will save money in the long run: preventive care; computerized record-keeping; and comparative effectiveness studies to expose wasteful procedures and hospitalizations and give doctors the tools to make the right treatments for you.
Again with the code words “Wasteful Procedures” = Rationing/Controlling Access to your health care. Make no Mistake about it!
We currently spend more than $2 trillion dollars a year on health care. Health insurance reform will make a short-term investment of roughly $100 billion a year to lower costs and relieve the crushing financial burden that is eating into family budgets, forcing families into bankruptcy, making it hard for businesses to expand and grow, and preventing the government from using your tax dollars to create jobs, improve education, rebuild our infrastructure. Health insurance reform would be fully paid for over 10 years, and it would not add one penny to the deficit.
how does a “short term investment” work when you are using it to pay for peoples insurance? Sounds like a permanent , long term program to me! Got to love how he manages to ties it back to creating jobs and educating the children……1
And the big lie….It will not add one penny to the deficit. That because the government doesn’t bother counting penny costs anymore It will add over one trillion of dollars! (Congressional Budget Office)
Let’s also remember that we can’t afford not to reform health care. The cost of inaction is too high. Health care spending has grown in recent years three times faster than average wages. Premiums have doubled in this decade. Out of pocket costs for people with insurance have gone up by 32 percent. Businesses are buckling under health care costs. One out of every six dollars in this country is spent on health care. Soon it will be one in five. If we do nothing, in 30 years, one third of this country’s economic output will be tied up in the health care system. Health care is the fastest-growing item in the federal budget. It is absolutely unsustainable. These costs are crushing families and businesses, keeping wages flat, stunting our economic growth, strangling our government. We have to bring costs under control now.
I love how Obama counts on the fact that most Americans do not understand the power of compounding and the Rule of 72, and the fallacy of expecting current trends to continue in a straight line in perpetuity. He does acknowledge a truth – that health care expenses are a Federal Budget problem. Guess who controls that budget? Congress. So why do we all need to suffer because they can’t do their job in managing their program costs? Furthermore, why on earth would we expect them to be better stewards of our health care expenses than ourselves?
Cassandra Effect
The defense of the indefensible begins by the Main Stream Media (Time Magazine) defending The Health Care Chart that Will Scare YOU to DEATH.
The attacks on Emanuel are a reminder that there is a narrow slice of Americans who not only don’t trust government but have also come to regard it as a dark conspirator in their lives. This peculiar brand of distrust helps create the conditions for fast-moving fear-mongering, especially on complex and emotionally charged topics like the life and death of the elderly and infirm. Prairie fires of that kind are hard to douse when the Administration’s own plan for health care remains vague, weeks away from being ready for a public rollout. The health-care bill that recently passed the House does not contain, as some have suggested, any provisions that would deny treatment to the elderly, infirm or disabled like Sola’s son. One provision allows doctors to be reimbursed for voluntary discussions of so-called “living wills” with patients, but does not in any way threaten to deny treatment to dying patients against their will. The legislation anticipates saving hundreds of billions of dollars by reforming the health-care system itself, a process that would try to increase the efficiency of medical care by better connecting payments to health outcomes and discouraging doctors from unnecessary tests and procedures. The Obama Administration hopes that many of these reforms will be made in the coming years by independent panels of scientists, who will be appointed by the President and overseen by Congress.
Somehow I don’t think Time appreciates the level of distrust across the country! Are they not paying attention? Senator Claire McCaskill astonished that “You Don’t Trust Me”
WE don’t trust the WEASEL WORDS ANYMORE – LET US MAKE OUR DECISIONS AND LEAVE US ALONE!
Read it all HERE
If you are one of those “distrusting of Government” then also see:
Newt Gingrich backs Sarah Palin and blasts Ezekiel Emanuel’s Complete Lives System
Sarah Palin denounces Ezekiel Emanuel’s Complete Lives System
Rep. Michele Bachmann speaks out against the rationing of health care
So much to tell from the only town hall meeting that had people shout “Yes We Can!” No boos, no jeers, no outraged Americans.? Is it possible that thare are no Katy Abrams in New Hampshire? ( Townhall to Senator Arlen Specter: This is about the systematic dismantling of this country)
Lets the Obama obfuscations begin!
“I don’t want people thinking I just have a bunch of plants in here”
Except there was a little girl who was a PLANT - we’ve seen this before (Plants found in Obama’s Online Healthcare Town Hall!).
Does he really think the American people are this stupid? Answer = Yes, because he said this whopper of a lie:
“I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter”
Really Mr. President? How about when you DID say you support a single payer system?
So I don’t want anybody saying somehow that I’m pulling the bait- and-switch here. I said very specifically I thought we should roll back Bush tax cuts and use them to pay for health insurance. That’s what I’m intending to do. All right? (Applause.)
Who applauds a tax increases? I hope you don’t have any capital gains or plan on making money – because Obama WILL raise taxes on more people than those making $250,000 a year.
Point number two: In terms of these expert health panels — well, this goes to the point about “death panels” — that’s what folks are calling them. The idea is actually pretty straightforward, which is if we’ve got a panel of experts, health experts, doctors, who can provide guidelines to doctors and patients about what procedures work best in what situations, and find ways to reduce, for example, the number of tests that people take — these aren’t going to be forced on people, but they will help guide how the delivery system works so that you are getting higher-quality care. And it turns out that oftentimes higher-quality care actually costs less.
Explain to me how the government as a single payer (Medicare, Medicaid and now a “public plan”) would not have an incredible chilling effect on peoples care by issuing recommendations to “guide how the delivery system works.” If you are a doctor you won’t want to risk being on the outlier list for the biggest (only?) payer. You willtow the company line to avoid being censured, or dropped as a provider. MAKE NO MISTAKE that this is what it will come to.
Finally, there is this disturbing Q+A that PROVES THE POINT that government controlled health care means you will replace the insurance company decisions with the Government’s decision – and I hope you like the kind of service this man received, because Obama called it a good result! Read on! (bold my emphasis)
Q Good afternoon, Mr. President. Bill Anderson from New Hampshire. In reference to what you just said — I’m presently under the New Hampshire Medicaid system and I have to take a drug called Lipitor. When I got onto this program they said, no, we’re not going to cover Lipitor — even though I’d been on that pill for probably 10 years,based on the information my doctor feels is right for me. And I had to go through two different trials of other kinds of drugs before it was finally deemed that I was able to go back on the Lipitor through the New Hampshire Medicaid system. So here it is, the Medicaid that you guys are administering and you’re telling me that it’s good — but in essence, I’m dealing with the same thing, and you’re telling me the insurance companies are doing. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that’s a legitimate point. I don’t know all the details, but it sounds to me like they were probably trying to have you take a generic as opposed to a brand name. Is that right? And it turned out that you did not have as good of a reaction under the generic as the brand name, and then they put you back on the brand name. Is that what happened?
Q Correct, to save money.
THE PRESIDENT: Well — right. Look, there may be — in nine out of 10 cases, the generic might work as well or better than the brand name. And we don’t want to just subsidize the drug companies if you’ve got one that works just as well as another.
The important thing about the story that you just told me was — is that once it was determined that, in fact, you needed the brand name, you were able to get the brand name. Now, I want to be absolutely clear here: There are going to be instances where if there is really strong scientific evidence that the generic and the brand name work just as well, and the brand name costs twice as much, that the taxpayer should try to get the best deal possible, as long as if it turns out that the generic doesn’t work as well, you’re able to get the brand name.
Note how it becomes the TAXPAYERS money, not YOURS! This is the fundamental problem with the debate – they think its THEIR MONEY when it should be yours buying your own private policy. Once it becomes THEIR money you are SCREWED!
So the basic principle that we want to set up here is that — if you’re in private insurance, first of all, your private insurance can do whatever you want. If you’re under a government program, then it makes sense for us to make sure that we’re getting the best deal possible and not just giving drug makers or insurers more money than they should be getting. But ultimately, you’ve got to be able to get the best care based on what the doctor says.
READ THAT SENTENCE AGAIN! ….. focus on the word ULTIMATELY. This is a weasel word – it means EVENTUALLY. After you file your appeals and prior authorizations and try five other drugs that don’t work but are cheaper.
And it sounds like that is eventually what happened. It may be that it wasn’t as efficient — it wasn’t as smooth as it should have been, but that result is actually a good one. And you think about all the situations where a generic actually would have worked — in fact, one of the things I want to do is to speed up generics getting introduced to the marketplace, because right now drug companies — (applause) — right now drug companies are fighting so that they can keep essentially their patents on their brand-name drugs a lot longer. And if we can make those patents a little bit shorter, generics get on the market sooner, ultimately you as consumers will save money. All right? But it was an excellent question, so thank you.
I somehow don’t think this man though that his experience dealing with side effects was a GOOD THING! And note Obama’s enthusiasm to reduce drug patents to speed generics along. Sounds like a great plan until the drug industry loses its profit motive and spends less on R+D to find amazing new cures. I WANT the drug companies making money so they keep developing new medicines.
The complete text of the Obama Portsmouth town hall can be found HERE
White House Health Insurance Reform FAQ #2 Isn’t health reform going to put more burdens on federal and state governments because we will be covering more people without insurance?
Controlling health spending is critical for the fiscal health of the federal government and the states. For example, health care spending today consumes 30 percent more of state and local budgets than it did 20 years ago, forcing governments to choose between cutting services and raising taxes.
They begin the FAQ with a threat to raise taxes! No information provided as to why there is a 30% increase in the past 20 years. Is it due to cost increases, expanded government employment, expanded benefits? No discussion or explanation -it just IS!
And the Council of Economic Advisors recently released a sobering report on the impact of health care spending on the federal government. It found that if we do nothing by 2019,
The uninsured population now is 54 Million “Americans”. No one seems to agree on this figure – the CBO says 31 Million – and 17% of this figure (one in six!) are illegals. The use of the term “Americans” is disturbing! There are certainly people without insurance, but blowing up the system for everyone else makes no sense at all. And we pay a hidden tax? They are asking us to now pay a non-hidden tax? You betcha! Remember what Obama said “”I want to cover everybody,” all the facts at MSNBC of all places
For working Americans who rely on employer-sponsored health insurance, rising costs mean that an even greater proportion of their compensation will be in the form of health benefits rather than take-home pay. In ten years, the estimated percentage of average total worker compensation that comes in the form of health insurance will be 26 percent.
That assumes we continue to buy overly generous insurance plans. Seriously folks – you DO NOT NEED first dollar coverage – you are PAYING for it through higher premiums. Get a high deductible policy – $2000, $3000, even $5000. If it was really your money to spend as you wished, what would you buy? First dollar coverage or catastrophic care insurance.
In addition:
Sure sounds like “resources” means taxes. Americans can’t have everything.
The Deficit will continue to rise – the first very true thing here! And yet another threat - BRING ON THE PAIN!
Does anyone REALLY believe this? And why is the focus only on the first 10 years? Is that as far as our limited ability to plan?
We HAVE to? Does anyone really expect MORE QUALITY AT LESS PRICE? Seriously folks – Wal Mart gives you less cost, but the quality suffers. There is no free lunch.
Panorama theme by Themocracy
