Sarah Palin - Death Panel is Back In!!!

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


I can't agree with you here. We're discussing the preparation of living wills and final plans. This has nothing at all to do with the viable cost of extending a life.

And yes young people do also make out living wills, I have a friend who simply does not believe in resuscitation, he carries a card stating thus on him, and has filled out a living will.

This is not a death panel, it shouldn't be viewed as such.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Actually, it was voted for by the same Republicans who are now using it as a political tactic to scare the people.

Actually, I don't think that as far as the voting public is concerned, that this is as much a partisan issue, as it is a generational issue.
First of all, only 20% of Americans put much trust in Palin. There is a great generational divide between those under 55 and those over 55, regarding this issue.
As far as partisan actions go, quite honestly, BH, I don't see much difference between the way the previous regime dealt with the truth, and the current regime. Each side colors the issues to their favor, and to the detriment of the other. I doubt that many people in America, even Democrats, believe that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are not being completely partisan, just as the Republican leaders were, when they controlled both houses. The party system in the US has become a total disaster.

reply to post by yeahright


Exactly my point, also when people needs help to deal with funeral cost because financial troubles guess who is the first one to call, family members? when they are also experiencing financial troubles, or the government.

Sometimes counseling does help a family in need if financial help is needed.

reply to post by Seiko

This is not a death panel, it shouldn't be viewed as such.

As I stated in my post, this provision ALONE is NOT a death panel. However, combined with a Health Commissioner who CAN make decisions about who gets care, the result can be a death sentence to some people.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


Then I'd say we need to find a way where this decision is left entirely to the doctor and the patient. So far I've seen no system implemented or proposed that does.

Have you a reason for the belief that this will lead to a bureaucrat deciding someone will die? I realize you say this provision will not, but with others it could lead to this. can you state your case for believing this? What makes you think this will happen?

reply to post by centurion1211

But here's the part all "government healthers" (my new label) fail to see.

It should not be done by the government! Too many slippery slopes created. Too many chances for abuse. Too many opportunities for slow-motion government bureaucrats that don't give a rats a$$ about you to make life or death decisions for you.

Are you kidding?
Are you not aware that insurance companies make those decisions eveyday? I guess those bureacrats that have financial PROFIT
as their primary motive are OK huh? And how does counseling equate to" making life or death decisions for you"?
Have you ever dealt with this situation? I have. Medical costs are insane, insurance companies love to collect premiums, but hate to pay out for anthing. It's not financially PROFITABLE to pay for people at the end of life.
Yeah I know everyone on ATS hates the government, but why in the hell you put so much trust in corporations is beyond me!
i

reply to post by Seiko

Here is one argument from the Washington Times:

The Washington Times has taken a look at Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus's health care overhaul legislation and found rationing and death panels cleverly disguised as accountants:

The offending provision is on Pages 80-81 of the unamended Baucus bill, hidden amid a lot of similar legislative mumbo-jumbo about Medicare payments to doctors. The key sentence: "Beginning in 2015, payment would be reduced by five percent if an aggregation of the physician's resource use is at or above the 90th percentile of national utilization." Translated into plain English, it means that in any year in which a particular doctor's average per-patient Medicare costs are in the top 10 percent in the nation, the feds will cut the doctor's payments by 5 percent.

Forget results. This provision makes no account for the results of care, its quality or even its efficiency. It just says that if a doctor authorizes expensive care, no matter how successfully, the government will punish him by scrimping on what already is a low reimbursement rate for treating Medicare patients. The incentive, therefore, is for the doctor always to provide less care for his patients for fear of having his payments docked. And because no doctor will know who falls in the top 10 percent until year's end, or what total average costs will break the 10 percent threshold, the pressure will be intense to withhold care, and withhold care again, and then withhold it some more. Or at least to prescribe cheaper care, no matter how much less effective, in order to avoid the penalties.

The National Right to Life Committee concludes that this provision will cause a "death spiral" by "ensur[ing] that doctors are forced to ration care for their senior citizen patients." Every 10th doctor in the country will fall victim to it. Libertarian columnist Nat Hentoff calls the provision "insidious" and writes that "the nature of our final exit" will be very much at risk.

[...] This is far from the only part of Baucus-Pelosi-Obamacare that would almost certainly lead to rationing of care, especially for the elderly. The proposed "health care exchange," along with Obamacare's independent review panels and a national health board, will be empowered to make aggregate decisions - based on statistics, not on an individual patient's needs - about what sorts of care will be allowed and what won't. As it is in Great Britain, where thousands of cancer patients each year die prematurely due to lack of treatment, the inevitable result of government care could be the same for many Americans as if an actual panel decided case-by-case to euthanize them. The Baucus provision would only exacerbate this bureaucratic preference for death by proxy.

As Brian Faughnan points out at Redstate, this is a highly arbitrary and pernicious way to cut medical care for seniors:

The Baucus approach penalizes the top ten percent every year. There is no target level of spending, after which the penalties sunset. Further, no provider ever knows if he or she is likely to end the year in the top ten percent. For that reason there is an incentive to cut costs on every patient, every procedure, every expenditure, on every day of the year. And if a doctor finishes the year in the bottom 90 percent, the average level of spending will have been reduced, and there will be a new contest to cut further, to remain in the bottom 90 percent the next year.

In practical terms, there's probably some point at which further rationing becomes politically impossible. Once Medicare expenditures and reimbursements are sufficiently reduced, once the federal government has adopted Oregon-style death panels to deny expensive care to the aged and infirm, Congress will likely have to step in to stop the 'death spiral.'

[...] Every Democrat on the Finance Committee voted to preserve the Medicare death spiral. Kent Conrad voted for it even as he recognized why it's a bad idea.

Here we go again.

My guess is she didn't say anything and someone is using her name to drum up some attention, but while were discussing it...

Originally posted by centurion1211
But here's the part all "government healthers" (my new label) fail to see.

It should not be done by the government! Too many slippery slopes created. Too many chances for abuse. Too many opportunities for slow-motion government bureaucrats that don't give a rats a$$ about you to make life or death decisions for you.

To you "Paliners" , you are speculating as to what might possibly happen. Nowhere does it say the government will be allowed to make decisions FOR you. While we're speculating, we might say that it doesn't matter because the world will end in 2012, and even those on the death panel will be.. well...

Believe what you want centurian. You are only arguing an old point that everyone knows is not true. You should find something more substantial as I'm sure there will be some real issues to be concerned about in this bill.

Originally posted by centurion1211
It should not be done by the government!

If you had it your way:
a) all fundamental research in this country would cease, because 90% of it is government funded
b) interstate system would fall into disrepair (govt funded) with likely effect of collapsing economy
c) hell, maybe the US Army should be disbanded and we should hand money over to Blackwater
d) etc

Again, the govt itself doesn't do end-of-life care. What's so damn difficult to understand.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


Very good post. Some rationing will need to happen sooner or later, because you can't have 10%-20% annual growth in costs. If I remember correctly, 40% of costs are spent in the last 3 months of life or something like that. If spent on less expensive prevention, the life spans may well actually increase!

Originally posted by centurion1211

But here's the part all "government healthers" (my new label) fail to see.

Great label!! I have been hoping someone would come along with some snarky equivalent to "birthers", ya know some way to push peoples buttons, obfuscate the issues and further degrade the debate!

It should not be done by the government!

Is it being "done by government" or just paid for by government?
Do they stick their nose in your hospital room? Or do you need to request it...while not worrying about adding to bills you might leave behind?

Too many opportunities for slow-motion government bureaucrats that don't give a rats a$$ about you to make life or death decisions for you.

I am confused...where does it say the government will make life and death decisions for you?

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by Seiko

 

This is not a death panel, it shouldn't be viewed as such.

As I stated in my post, this provision ALONE is NOT a death panel. However, combined with a Health Commissioner who CAN make decisions about who gets care, the result can be a death sentence to some people.

Oops! You just told the truth. The neolibs on this post are not going
to like that. Sarah Palin was right. The neolibs hate that.
The reason for the Death Panels is to save money.
A lot of money is spent in the final months before death.
The Death Panel lecture would simply say "Please die now
and save us money."


They changed the link.
Pelosi Death Panel
Sarah Palin Death Panel sneaks back in.

[edit on 30-10-2009 by Eurisko2012]

reply to post by Hal9000


Thanks Hal, !!!! When the big insurance pimps see something they don't like they call their minions in politics to start the propaganda.

The people in this nation is been played so well that they believe any crap that comes from the mouth of the selected ones.

Palin is a good example, she helping herself and cementing her campaign donors when she is ready to run for government again.

Wake up people.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


I was more hoping to see your opinion on the subject and was asking you directly. I've seen your posts in other threads and you seem to be someone who gives thought before typing. that said the post article makes a valid point.

This piece brings up rationing, which while not a death panel, can lead to decreased care which will lead to deaths. This is obviously just as bad. Now we're attacking the baucus bill for it's actual faults, and not a perceived one.

I for one don't believe this bill will do anything to help anyone in this country. It will just create a bigger less manageable problem. I'd like to see alternatives, real ones. Before we can point out what the faults are in this bill we should at least attack those very real faults. This was my problem with the thread, I'm not defending the baucus bill I'm trying avoid the catch phrases and subterfuge the politicians are obviously using to rile the bases. While this makes for great soundbites and headlines it does not address the real problems and that is a disservice to all of us.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by centurion1211
It should not be done by the government!

If you had it your way:
a) all fundamental research in this country would cease, because 90% of it is government funded
b) interstate system would fall into disrepair (govt funded) with likely effect of collapsing economy
c) hell, maybe the US Army should be disbanded and we should hand money over to Blackwater
d) etc

Again, the govt itself doesn't do end-of-life care. What's so damn difficult to understand.

Nice deflection attempt.

We're talking about end of life decisions, which shouldn't be decided or even influenced by the government.

Exactly how does anything you wrote relate to that? I'll answer for you - it doesn't.

Back on topic ...

Here's the previous post that cover the GOP vote for "death panels" in 2003:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

"Death Panels" is a LIE organized by a desperate GOP. They not only once voted for a similar end of life counseling language in a bill but WROTE the language for end of life counseling in that bill.

Originally posted by yeahright

Originally posted by centurion1211
It should not be done by the government!

The only role the government is taking is paying for the counseling if the patient wants it. Period.

Should people who can't afford food refuse food stamps because the government is paying for them?

Sorry since you're a super mod and all, but can you try and think about this in just a little more depth?

First, no "healther" seems to want to or be able to answer the question I posed - WHY does the government WANT to be involved in end of life decisions? There HAS to be a reason, and you must THINK (not feel) to find it. I posted what I thought were the reasons, and all I've received as responses so far have frankly been just the "fluff" given out as demo talking points so that "healthers" don't have to think for themselves.

Why is there even an argument over this issue? Could it be that many "healthers" grew up in rather narcissistic homes where their parents provided for their every whim? And now, when faced with having to provide things like healthcare for themselves, the government steps in and offers to take over the role their parents once served, it looks like a "great idea"?

I'm saying try thinking for yourselves on this issue. Take these decisions out to their logical conclusions. What do you find when you do that?

Originally posted by centurion1211
Palin wants government out of the decision. She wants only you and your family involved.

Well, I don't care what SHE wants for ME. That's MY decision, not hers. I wouldn't trust her to take care of my pet rock, let alone stick her nose into my health care.

Originally posted by OldDragger
Are you not aware that insurance companies make those decisions eveyday? I guess those bureacrats that have financial PROFIT as their primary motive are OK huh?

Excellent point! Fantastic thread about that issue here: Why the "Government Bad, Corporate Good" Attitude?

Originally posted by centurion1211
We're talking about end of life decisions, which shouldn't be decided or even influenced by the government.

And they are not being decided or influenced by the government. The government's only part in this is to pay for the counseling if a patient wants it. Why can't you get that through your head?

Originally posted by centurion1211
WHY does the government WANT to be involved in end of life decisions?

They don't. That's the answer.

Originally posted by centurion1211
Why is there even an argument over this issue?

Good question! Because Palin, Grassley, Boehner and the rest told you to argue about it.

Originally posted by centurion1211
I'm saying try thinking for yourselves on this issue.

Yeah. That's what I'm saying, too.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Sarah has a clear message.
We can take care of our own end of life decisions!



We don't need to hire people to give us "Please die now counseling."