Jerry, as you may recall, said that Sarah Palin was "sort of onto something" regarding the death panels.
Uh, no. Politifact.org, a fact-checking subsidiary of the St Petersburg Times has found this to be such a huge lie, they use their "Pants on fire" label:
We have read all 1,000-plus pages of the Democratic bill and examined versions in various committees. There is no panel in any version of the health care bills in Congress that judges a person's "level of productivity in society" to determine whether he or she is "worthy" of health care.The AP has also debunked the "death panel" story, after quoting Governor Palin's description of the "panels" they say:Palin's claim sounds a little like another statement making the rounds, which says that health care reform would mandate counseling for seniors on how to end their lives sooner. We rated this claim Pants on Fire ! The truth is that the health bill allows Medicare, for the first time, to pay for doctor appointments for patients to discuss living wills and other end-of-life issues. These types of appointments are optional, and AARP supports the measure.
Nothing in the legislation would carry out such a bleak vision. The provision that has caused the uproar would instead authorize Medicare to pay doctors for counseling patients about end-of-life care, if the patient wishes.But what of the broader questions - are there any "euthanasia" issues" to the bill? The AP has the answers to those questions as well:
Q: Does the health care legislation bill promote "mercy killing," or euthanasia?Not sure where Jerry Bowyer is getting his news on this one - if he has a problem with these facts, he has them with the AP and the St Petersburg Times, not with me. But those are the facts. And spreading anything else is, well, just a lie.
A: No.
Q: Then what's all the fuss about?
A: A provision in the House bill written by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., would allow Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling sessions that address end-of-life issues. The conversations between doctor and patient would include living wills, making a close relative or a trusted friend your health care proxy, learning about hospice as an option for the terminally ill, and information about pain medications for people suffering chronic discomfort.
The sessions would be covered every five years, more frequently if someone is gravely ill.
Q: Is anything required?
Monsignor Charles Fahey, 76, a Catholic priest who is chairman of the board of the National Council on Aging, a nonprofit service and advocacy group, says no.
"We have to make decisions that are deliberative about our health care at every moment," Fahey said. "What I have said is that if I cannot say another prayer, if I cannot give or get another hug, and if I cannot have another martini - then let me go."
Q: Does the bill advocate assisted suicide?
A: No. It would block funds for counseling that presents suicide or assisted suicide as an option.
2 comments:
You know, the part of one or more of the bills that pays for optional end of life counseling when a senior citizen has a life changing event, such as when they enter a nursing home, struck me as possibly coercive. You are going into a nursing home, getting a new doctor, who sits down with you and wants to talk about your options for a living will. Mind you, there is a balance here for the doctor, who is indifferent to having you transferred to a hospital and kept alive there on machines, but does want to spend (your) money on procedures that keep you alive in a nursing home. So the doc doesn’t want a DNR, but is willing to allow you to specify you not be kept alive on a machine in a hospital. Anyway, maybe coercive.
But what I don’t get is that I believe most senior citizens like the idea of having end of life plans. Roger Ebert, who had cancer of the jaw or throat, wrote a couple of blog posts/essays on the subject that I think capture the idea perfectly (wanting to be treated if there is a reasonable chance of recovery, not wanting to be kept alive if in coma with little to no hope of revival). If the Republicans had used the term end of like counseling instead of “pull the plug on Grandma”, senior citizens would probably be entirely in favor of something being passed.
I’m not sure if the death panels thingie came from the end of life counseling part or having a panel of somebodies to do something with healthcare (find good practices, find waste in Medicare, etc). But if we are talking about putting doctors, employed by the government, to make decisions for people about good care, either for service paid for by private insurance or paid for by Medicare, or both, this seems like a good thing. Private insurance employs doctors to find medical excuses for not paying for expensive treatments, and as we know Medicare has some fraud (perpetrated by patients and doctors). Now, I don’t know that panel thingies, to the extent they exist in the various bills, will have doctors or bureaucrats, but I don’t see why we should jump to the worst conclusion.
The one thing I will say is that I wish there were pointers to more factual sites on reform. That said, I know I printed out something but I couldn’t tell you where I put it.
The long and short of this is that it is simply a political tactic to undermine any real reform. There are no nuances here.
If the GOP knows anything, it knows how to start and then run with a whisper campaign of fear and loathing -- particularly when it effects seniors. I can imagine the brainstorming sessions where a group of consultants and pols sat a round and thought, "What would really help kill this thing? How 'bout we say that that nice "end of life counseling" thing is really a death panel? I bet that would resonate!"
Seriously, that's where this stuff comes from. It doesn't emerge from nowhere. These sorts of approaches are carefully considered and developed, and then handed out to the likes of Bower and Fox and Rush...and all the rest.
Post a Comment