« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Democrats Call Foul on Republican Objection to ‘Death Panels’

By: James Richardson (Diary)  |  August 14th, 2009 at 05:53 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Democratic health care strategists are calling foul today on GOP officials John Boehner, Thaddeus McCotter, Johnny Isakson, and Chuck Grassley, claiming the Republican Party leaders are guilty of partisan obstructionism of the worst kind – demagoging the same end-of-life provisions, the now-famous “death panels,” they supported in the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill.

“So either Republicans were for death panels in 2003 before turning against them now–or they’re lying about end-of-life counseling in order to frighten the bejeezus out of their fellow citizens and defeat health reform by any means necessary,” wrote TIME’s Amy Sullivan.

Not quite.

The four Republicans did, as Sullivan reported, vote for the 2003 bill, but nowhere in the bill did it call for the same broad and wholly unnecessary end-of-life counseling practices as President Barack Obama’s proposal.

Republican operatives argue the comparison between the two bills is an unfair one, noting, specifically, that Republican-backed provisions in the 2003 bill called for end-of-life counseling only in cases where individuals were already on hospice care—that is, terminally ill and close to death—whereas the 2009 bill calls for end-of-life counseling for all 44 million seniors on Medicare every five years.

“Anyone who understands this issue would find this comparison idiotic,” said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel. “Hospice care is, by definition, for people who are already close to death. The Democrats’ new government takeover of health care legislation would offer this counseling to every senior on Medicare.”

The 2003 bill, Steel explains, is not nearly as prescriptive as the proposed legislation of 2009, which calls for, among other things, the explanation of living wills, durable power of attorney, orders of life-sustaining treatment, health care proxies and end-of-life services by medical practitioners.

The 2003 legislation backed by Boehner, McCotter, Isakson, and Grassley was specific as it related to end-of-life consultation for those already in hospice care or those who were terminally ill – not for the 44 million seniors already enrolled in Medicare.

Cross-posted at Skepticians.com.

Follow James on Twitter.

Tags: , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • USNJIMRET

    The principle is the same, the application to a different level.
    IOW, if it is a bad idea now, it was also a bad idea in 2003.

    • OccamsRazor
    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      You miss the point entirely, in fact.

    • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

      Intent matters, and the GOP legislators’ intent was to ease pain, not save money.

      There are plenty of sites that will be happy to let you do the Democrats’ work for them. This isn’t one of them. Savvy?

      • USNJIMRET

        Yes, I savvy.

  • OccamsRazor

    The Democrats DO NOT NEED REPUBLICANS TO PASS LEGISLATION.

    Let ‘em own it. Let ‘em own it for the next 2 generations.

    • OccamsRazor

      I am only commenting upon THIS post. At THIS time, it’s MY personal opinion that Conservatives defeat Healthcare as it stands today in all it’s facets TODAY. STAY FOCUSED.

      THEN, we must have a plan. The best thing I’ve heard to date is Krauthammer’s as a template. Let’s start from there. Let’s bounce ideas off of one another.

    • Rod_Patrick
      • Rod_Patrick

        OccamsRazor.

        Ughh!!!! Redneck Rod has never learned the rope of RS… and the use of computer.

        • Rod_Patrick

          they are both OccamsRazors. LOL!

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      And besides, we need to lay the groundwork now if we’re going to run against it later.

      • OccamsRazor

        .

      • OccamsRazor

        To get RedState conversation going on HOW we can solve this debackle. HOW DO WE SOLVE HEALTHCARE??!! What is OUR MO? Let’s find a way to RUN with this. The spotlight is ON us. We’ve been focusing SSOO long on how to get the spotlight, we don’t even know what to do when we HAVE it. In the words of a famous patriot, “Let’s Roll”. Let US own the conversation. Let US push the Overton window. I personally don’t know. But I propose a teeshirt for the best RedState idea given. :)

  • larryp

    the people to read for themselves side-by-side,,,Be a great idea. These explanations sound very strainedand a loser. Why? defensive–GOP on the defensive. Better to let the peopl decide.AND use the occasion to slam theDonks “no-bill” townhalls. TEll the peoplke that there is either no bill ready or the bill isdone but being hidden.
    This is what Obam is doing arguing something he has not read nor has anything else. It is what Daschle said went wrong with HilaryCare. Too much info! Just pass the skeleton, the enabling legislation then add everything in when it is too late to thwart.it.
    Exactly according to plan. Also Harry Reid has promised passage in committee with an allowed 50 + 1 vote.

  • jsmiddleton4

    I want nothing to do with socialized medicine nor Obamacare but this is not correct.

    ?Anyone who understands this issue would find this comparison idiotic,? said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel. ?Hospice care is, by definition, for people who are already close to death.”

    I have been a hospice nurse for 7 years. Hospice is way more than taking care of people close to death. Having advanced directives in place needs to be done long before a person is in the middle of death and dying. Imagine how the Terry Schavio case could have gone if she had her advanced directives in place and her wishes in writing.

    • Streiff

      Are you contending Terry Schiavo was a senior citizen? Or are yoiu saying yoiu are in favor of “end of life” counseling for every citizen of every age? And hospices do a lot of things but they are don’t do way more than taking care of people close to death. That is their core function.

    • Scope

      but I have 2 loved ones that had hospice care before their deaths. One of the requirements for an aunt in Connecticut with Brain Cancer to receive Hospice care was that she have a terminal diagnosis, and that she was not expected to live more than 6 months. Another case, with my mother, in Pennsylvania was that she have a diagnosis by a doctor that she was terminally ill, and would not survive her illness, which was also cancer.

      Yes, Hospice is a wonderful organization which does much more than care for the dying, they also provide emotional support for family members, and, provide other support mechanisims, however, they are only their when death is expected. They are not there to tell Grandma that her life isn’t worth saving just because she is on Medicare.

  • ellisclarke

    American citizens already have the best health care insurance programs in the world and more than 90% are satisfied with the coverage available to them. People from around the Globe come to America for health care, not the other way around.

    So, why the need to DISMANTLE this world envied and renowned coverage? Is it to cover the 15 to 20 million non Americans that live in the country illegally for political reason? Is it to cover the 2 to 3 million who do not have and can not afford health care coverage for political reasons? Or, is it so Government and political parties can further control your life style and have unelected bureaucrats and czars make the decisions for us based on political party preferences and voting habits?

    At present there is NO statement in any proposed health reform that specifically states that NON-CITIZENS will NOT be entitled to this socialized universal health care government program. WHY?

    Obama socialized universal health care and government run program, is a complete dismantling of the best health care system in the world. Other than an attempt to further control of our lives and give coverage to 15 to 20 million illegal residents it makes no sense.

    Wake up people, these Senators and House Members with their respective political parties, the media and lobbyists are not looking out for our interests, but rather the interest of 15 to 20 million illegal residents. This is yet another example of UN-AMERICAN!

  • Finrod

    “Yes, Republicans voted for end-of-life services for the terminally ill; Democrats on the other hand want to treat every senior citizen as terminally ill.”

    • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

      Someone contact the RNC – and/or Sarah Palin. It gets the point across right between the eyes.

      • Finrod

        Republicans voted for end-of-life services for the terminally ill, but Democrats want to treat every senior citizen as terminally ill.

  • cringinghere

    …we don’t need for the dems to say that they have deathcare panels. The policy they have in the bill will eventually turn into those and they know it. In fact, they can’t wait for that to happen.

  • atemely

    ‘The only difference between the 2003 provision and the infamous Section 1233 that threatens the very future and moral sanctity of the Republic is that the first applied only to terminally ill patients. Section 1233 would expand funding so that people could voluntarily receive counseling before they become terminally ill’.
    The 2003 provision is for ‘terminally ill patients’ and Section 1233 of 2009 House bill is to ‘expand funding so that people could voluntarily receive counseling before they become terminally ill’.’ The former is at death’s door and the latter are for all people, alive and well every five years and the terminally ill. The former is voluntary and the latter is only ‘voluntarily receive’ but mandatory by monetary incentive to the one giving the counseling. Section 1233 is just one of the panelist of the ‘death panels’ in the House bill.

  • atemely

    ‘The only difference between the 2003 provision and the infamous Section 1233 that threatens the very future and moral sanctity of the Republic is that the first applied only to terminally ill patients. Section 1233 would expand funding so that people could voluntarily receive counseling before they become terminally ill’.
    The 2003 provision is for ‘terminally ill patients’ and Section 1233 of 2009 House bill is to ‘expand funding so that people could voluntarily receive counseling before they become terminally ill’.’ The former is at death’s door and the latter are for all people, alive and well every five years and the terminally ill. The former is voluntary and the latter is only ‘voluntarily receive’ but mandatory by monetary incentive to the one giving the counseling. Section 1233 is just one of the panelist of the ‘death panels’ in the House bill.

  • Scope

    Found this article at American Thinker-

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/death_panel_is_not_in_the_bill.html

    My husband and I were having a conversation last night about the fact that we both try to keep up with as much as possible with respect to what this administration is up to, but, I said it is the things that are going on and happening behind the scenes that are even more freightening, such as the Czars that have no oversight, and function in the background. Today, I read the above linked article, which can easily be proven to be truth, and find just such a case. Was anyone else aware that the “rationing” organization was already in place, with funding to the tune of $1.1 billion dollars, with Dr. Death-Ezekiel Emmanuel having a prominent role? Was that one of the fill-in-the-blanks allowed in the Stimulus Bill? Are items such as this why most of the Stimulus money has been put on hold? Dumb question but, wasn’t the Stimulus money supposed to create gazillions of jobs, for shovel ready projects, that would keep the unemployment rate below 8%? Obviously we have been shoveled a bunch of bullcrap, yet again.

    • Scope

      The organization that has already been funded is called “Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research.” It’s purpose is to “empower an unelected bureaucracy to make the hard decisions about health care rationing that elected politicians are politically unable to make.” In other words, they knew that there would be a big backlash from the american people, and, they knew that the D’s trying to push this garbage would run into alot of resistence, and they were not about to allow their demented plans to be thwarted. No wonder the Senators were so willing to remove the language from HR 3200.

    • Ausonius

      Bloomberg has the article by Betsy McCaughy written in February:

      http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

      A good amount of health-care “reform” was slipped into the Porkulus Bill back in the winter.

      An excerpt:

      “Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.

      Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).

      The bill?s health rules will affect ?every individual in the United States? (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

      But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and ?guide? your doctor?s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, ?Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.? According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and ?learn to operate less like solo practitioners.? “

      • redneck_hippie
  • Scope

    can they repeal these outrageous funding bills, Czars, and any other liberal agendas put in place? Can we stop this, should it get passed in any form?

    • Xasteius

      Of course, I’m assuming that Obama would veto any common-sense legislation.

      • Ausonius

        is unlikely, but not impossible, as I have mentioned in various essays recently.

        You would have to postulate the continued dominance of leftist ideology over what I have called “practical politicking.”

        But Howard Dean’s comments on replacing wavering Dems in primaries would seem to indicate that could still happen. So a large swing back is possible, but not if Republicans run squishy candidates themselves!

  • http://www.rihadin.com Ginger Cleary

    Michael Steel said “the Democrats? new government takeover of health care legislation would offer this counseling to every senior on Medicare.?

    It doesn’t “offer” it, the bill MANDATES it.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      by paying Doctors to do so.

  • lwe6576

    I have personally dealt with Hospice and a dying relative. There was no end of life counseling. The doctor signed a prescriptioin for my stepfather to receive Hospice care and they came in and tried to make him comfortable and explained the medication protocol to us. They did not counsel us on helping to end his life, just how to make him comfortable and not to give him any medications they provided without their permission. The Hospice nurse came as soon as she could when I called Hospice to let them know he had passed away. We were very grateful for their help. He wanted to die at home with family and friends surrounding him and not in a cold hospital room.

    • janis

      As with your experience, her mom was able to die at home surrounded by family. The hospice personnel were extremely kind and gentle people. They told the family that they, as hospice workers, did not set a time for their loved one to die, that God did that, as it should be. They assisted in keeping her mom comfortable and made sure the family knew what to do when necessary.

      All in all, it was a most positive experience for my friend in a very emotional time. But it was their own choice to go this route, not something that was mandated elsewhere–also as it should be.

      • penguin2

        The issue really is the people who are going to be pushed towards that route by the rationing of care: if you cannot get a procedure done, medications/chemotherapy, hospitalizations; all of this sends you the hospice route. No new pacemaker or heart valve replacement, well your Congestive Heart Failure will kill you sooner rather than later.

        As a Home Health nurse, I’ve cared for many patients who chose to die in their own homes, surrounded by loved ones. They had reached the end-stage for their illness. The family and the patient made the choice. Not the government withholding care. Non-competitive health care will lead to rationing, there is no other way to provide all to everyone.

        That is the difference.

        • janis

          anyone who thinks for even a few minutes about how to reduce health care costs must inevitably give consideration to reducing it for anyone who doesn’t have a favorable outcome, i.e., if the treatment doesn’t prolong a “useful” life, then why bother to spend the money?

          They wish to keep denying that this train of thought figures heavily into their solutions for universal health care, yet it is undeniably true. It’s why they scream like scalded cats every time one of us nails them on it. And then they try to justify the whole thing by pointing out that the wording they use has nothing to do with “death panels.” As if our only difference consists of the language used instead of the clear intent.

  • livefreenh

    [quote]Hospice care is, by definition, for people who are already close to death.[/quote]

    To be more precise, hospice care is when the patient’s own doctor, and the hospice doctor, both agree that the patient most likely has less than six months to live.

    There are certain things that we can do for a patient when in hospice care that we cannot do before that time.

    And it is worth noting that hospice care is always less costly to everyone involved than ICU care. Plus the patient has a better quality of life. I should think that it is a Good Thing that the patient is told about this option, which any good doctor already does.

    But should the law REQUIRE the doctor to do so?