The "Death Panel" Stuff and the state and governor who already have one

[pyld]

So, I watched Chuck Grassley spew about "knocking off Grandma" on the news this evening, and it got me to thinking about a few things with this death panel stuff. I hate it when people play with people's fears in this way--it's propaganda at it's worst. So, I did a bit of digging.

The language in question in the house bill ensures that people can (not must) get paid-for counseling and information about things end-of-life related. From the actual bill:

Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:

(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.

(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.

(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.

(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning … .

(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.

(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders …

You can read more about it here..

The funnier part of this? There is a state with an actual "death panel." Texas. In Texas, the statute permits a health care provider to discontinue life-support against the wishes of the patient or guardian ten days after giving written notice if the continuation of life-sustaining treatment is considered medically inappropriate by the treating medical team and an "ethics" committee.

Want to know who signed this legislation into law?

George W. Bush.

The next time someone talks about a "death panel" in the context of the current national health care bill, you can rest assured they are full of shit. However, if they are talking about the existing law in Texas, you can refer them to "W."

Try as I might, I'm unable to find any outraged video of people at town halls in Texas, referring to Texas law as "Nazi Eugenics," or the like.

Fear mongering, IMHO, is one step above astroturfing. Stay informed out there.

[308man]

I believe this is being overblown as well. I am a stanch conserative, but I do not believe this could be true. I have read the bill, and have not found evidence that this is the desired result. I agree with Obama on this one. Lets have an HONEST debate. If we do the bill will be layed to rest, no need for lying or distortions. No matter where you stand on any issue this must start happening. We spend most of our time looking through lies, instead of seeing what we are trying to educate ourselves about. In a nutshell this healtcare bill will only make living more costly and give government more control, and that is what I am pissed about.

[Philbert]

My favorite healthcare fail is from IBD, who claimed

People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.

(sourced from the WaPo because the IBD were sufficiently embarrassed to correct it).

/Stephen Hawking was born and raised British and continues to live there.

[Morel42]

Holy crap @ the 5 month old and the life support.. Christ I can't imagine what I'd do.. But i'm sure it would involve ya know... Alot of violence..

[CarolinaGuy]

The funnier part of this? There is a state with an actual "death panel." Texas. In Texas, the statute permits a health care provider to discontinue life-support against the wishes of the patient or guardian ten days after giving written notice if the continuation of life-sustaining treatment is considered medically inappropriate by the treating medical team and an "ethics" committee.

Want to know who signed this legislation into law?

George W. Bush.

That's gonna leave a mark.

[pyld]

That's gonna leave a mark.

What leaves a mark is that he signed that legislation in Texas, and then got involved with the whole Terri Schiavo thing.

[Posit]

The problem I have with the bill is neither side is being honest and forthcoming re what it actually contains. One exageration/lie identified, and there are many more. The misinformation from both sides is unbelievable... aside from the fact the bill is still in draft and being modified daily.

As one example: In one place it states only American citizens will be covered (therefore no illegals) but in another it says proof of citizenship will not be required - opening the door for illegals. IMHO, this is clearly dissembling, and there are evidently many such questionable areas.

I would like to see clear, overriding language about things which concern the public (fat chance!).

[Philbert]

What leaves a mark is that he signed that legislation in Texas, and then got involved with the whole Terri Schiavo thing.

He did? I think that was DeLay.

[adymond]

So, I watched Chuck Grassley spew about "knocking off Grandma" on the news this evening, and it got me to thinking about a few things with this death panel stuff. I hate it when people play with people's fears in this way--it's propaganda at it's worst. So, I did a bit of digging.

The language in question in the house bill ensures that people can (not must) get paid-for counseling and information about things end-of-life related. From the actual bill:



You can read more about it here..

The funnier part of this? There is a state with an actual "death panel." Texas. In Texas, the statute permits a health care provider to discontinue life-support against the wishes of the patient or guardian ten days after giving written notice if the continuation of life-sustaining treatment is considered medically inappropriate by the treating medical team and an "ethics" committee.

Want to know who signed this legislation into law?

George W. Bush.

The next time someone talks about a "death panel" in the context of the current national health care bill, you can rest assured they are full of shit. However, if they are talking about the existing law in Texas, you can refer them to "W."

Try as I might, I'm unable to find any outraged video of people at town halls in Texas, referring to Texas law as "Nazi Eugenics," or the like.

Fear mongering, IMHO, is one step above astroturfing. Stay informed out there.

There are a few problems I see with your argument. First I am more willing to allow a state to implement this sort of thing than I am the Federal government. That said I disagree with the idea totally, but I am not a resident of the state of Texas so I don't have much of a leg to stand on bitching about a Texas law signed by a governor after it was passed by state legislature. Presonally, I think trying to discredit those who are making the point about how this opens the door to death pannels using a former PotUS's actions while he was the governor of Texas is weak.

Now to the "NAZI Eugenics"/death pannel discussion. It's not that death pannels are written into the bill. The concern comes from the Federal government having the authority to allocate resources and how they would do that. Many involved in the crafting of this bill have shown clearly that they favor some form of rationing healthcare based upon one's value to society. That can be done by using age or the presence of a disability amongst other things. This alone parrallels the early Eugenics movement.

The beginings of Eugenics sprang from the desire to create a more perfect citizen. Those who were not fit enough were denied care or were sterilized (funny how Holdren has supported forced abortion and sterilization through drinking water, but there's NO similarity to Eugenics right?). Many who have made the point that this sounds an aweful lot like Eugenics are not suggesting the government will round up undesireables. Rather we are making the point that to ignore the similarities is foolish and short sighted. do we want to open the door for the Federal government to have this sort of authority over our lives? I know I don't. All it would take is for a total nut job to come into power for this sort of thing to be totally abused.

[misterpugsly]

Charles Lane notes in the Washington Post, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones.... If it’s all about alleviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to “bend the curve” on health-care costs?”

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.

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.”

- from the blog "Atlas Shrugs"