I was thinking about a column that I recently read from Dean Baker. He was angry at the Washington Post, and the rest of the media, for printing obviously wrong items, without comment, because they were said by someone of note. For instance Sarah Palin’s “death panel” posting. It reminded me of something I saw during the Reagan administration, which I am adapting here.
I believe that Palin’s comment was irresponsible. If you feel that it was a legitimate expression, helpful to a policy debate, you should stop reading now, because what comes next might upset you.
Monday: Associated Press, “Ex-Governor Palin asserts, in a new posting on her Face book page, that ‘up’ is ‘down.’”
“Both liberal and conservative spokespeople have refused to make an immediate comment, saying only that they want to ‘study’ the matter.”
Tuesday: Washington Times, “We are sure that many on the left will give little credence to former Governor Palin’s new pronouncement regarding ‘up’ and ‘down.’ We, however, think that the always thoughtful and provocative Palin may have caught something of the angst of America’s silent majority who for months now have had the feeling that something is out of whack. We predict that many, who previously thought the matter was closed, will give verticality a new look.”
At town meetings throughout the country angry citizens questioned their congress people about this new allegation. Protesters had signs that said variously “Wazzz “up” Obama?” “What are you “up” to?” and “Up with Palin, Down with Obama.”
Wednesday: Washington Post, “President Obama today addressed the issue of ‘up’ and ‘down.’ ‘This administration has always maintained that ‘up’ is ‘up’ and ‘down’ is ‘down.’ I will not sign a bill that changes this.”
Looking directly at the assembled reporters he went on to say, “Come on people, some statements are just plain silly. I didn’t even want to speak to this, but Rahm told me that many seniors who have always depended on ‘up’ being ‘up’ are scared now and don’t know how they will be able to adapt if there world is suddenly turned ‘up’ side ‘down.’”
Mitch McConnell, Senate Republican Minority Leader, responded, “The President needs to keep an open mind on the issue. If you just look at the charts that graph our socialist, mismanaged economy the advantages of changing ‘down’ to ‘up,’ in the stock market alone, are obvious. If this change becomes widespread the liberal, east-coast elites will no longer be able to look ‘down’ on those of us who live in ‘fly-over’ country. You know that part between the coasts, where the real Americans live.”
Thursday: Associated Press “A spokesperson for Governor Palin today has stated that what she meant to say was that ‘up’ could be a very slight incline, and ‘down’ could be a very slight decline, so that the differences between ‘up’ and ‘down’ are so small as to be indistinguishable.
Rush Limbaugh weighed in: “People let’s just remember who else took the orthodox, liberal position that ‘up’ is ‘up’ and ‘down’ is ‘down.‘ Hitler, that’s who, and Stalin felt that way as well. The parallels between these liberals and the Second World War dictators just go and on.”
I’ll bet that if Ted Kennedy had said that we should look at this up/down business Obama wouldn’t have been so quick to call it ‘silly.’ He’s just saying that because Palin is a woman, and Obama is secretly a sexist.
You know we should take our hats off to Sarah Palin. I think she nailed it, and the response of the liberals proves she is on to something.”
Friday: Denver Post: “A Gallup poll today indicates that 32% of respondents believe that ‘up’ is ‘down.’ This is an increase from the previous poll conducted in May, where only 21% of respondents held this view.”
Sunday morning: This Week with George Stephanopolous. “Hello, I’m George Stephanopolous . Today our distinguished panel of experts will discuss the issue of direction on the x-axis… Their opinions may surprise you.”
I believe that Palin’s comment was irresponsible. If you feel that it was a legitimate expression, helpful to a policy debate, you should stop reading now, because what comes next might upset you.
Reactions to Former Governor Palin's Recent Remarks
Monday: Associated Press, “Ex-Governor Palin asserts, in a new posting on her Face book page, that ‘up’ is ‘down.’”
“Both liberal and conservative spokespeople have refused to make an immediate comment, saying only that they want to ‘study’ the matter.”
Tuesday: Washington Times, “We are sure that many on the left will give little credence to former Governor Palin’s new pronouncement regarding ‘up’ and ‘down.’ We, however, think that the always thoughtful and provocative Palin may have caught something of the angst of America’s silent majority who for months now have had the feeling that something is out of whack. We predict that many, who previously thought the matter was closed, will give verticality a new look.”
At town meetings throughout the country angry citizens questioned their congress people about this new allegation. Protesters had signs that said variously “Wazzz “up” Obama?” “What are you “up” to?” and “Up with Palin, Down with Obama.”
Wednesday: Washington Post, “President Obama today addressed the issue of ‘up’ and ‘down.’ ‘This administration has always maintained that ‘up’ is ‘up’ and ‘down’ is ‘down.’ I will not sign a bill that changes this.”
Looking directly at the assembled reporters he went on to say, “Come on people, some statements are just plain silly. I didn’t even want to speak to this, but Rahm told me that many seniors who have always depended on ‘up’ being ‘up’ are scared now and don’t know how they will be able to adapt if there world is suddenly turned ‘up’ side ‘down.’”
Mitch McConnell, Senate Republican Minority Leader, responded, “The President needs to keep an open mind on the issue. If you just look at the charts that graph our socialist, mismanaged economy the advantages of changing ‘down’ to ‘up,’ in the stock market alone, are obvious. If this change becomes widespread the liberal, east-coast elites will no longer be able to look ‘down’ on those of us who live in ‘fly-over’ country. You know that part between the coasts, where the real Americans live.”
Thursday: Associated Press “A spokesperson for Governor Palin today has stated that what she meant to say was that ‘up’ could be a very slight incline, and ‘down’ could be a very slight decline, so that the differences between ‘up’ and ‘down’ are so small as to be indistinguishable.
Rush Limbaugh weighed in: “People let’s just remember who else took the orthodox, liberal position that ‘up’ is ‘up’ and ‘down’ is ‘down.‘ Hitler, that’s who, and Stalin felt that way as well. The parallels between these liberals and the Second World War dictators just go and on.”
I’ll bet that if Ted Kennedy had said that we should look at this up/down business Obama wouldn’t have been so quick to call it ‘silly.’ He’s just saying that because Palin is a woman, and Obama is secretly a sexist.
You know we should take our hats off to Sarah Palin. I think she nailed it, and the response of the liberals proves she is on to something.”
Friday: Denver Post: “A Gallup poll today indicates that 32% of respondents believe that ‘up’ is ‘down.’ This is an increase from the previous poll conducted in May, where only 21% of respondents held this view.”
Sunday morning: This Week with George Stephanopolous. “Hello, I’m George Stephanopolous . Today our distinguished panel of experts will discuss the issue of direction on the x-axis… Their opinions may surprise you.”
37 comments:
This is the magic of the "echo chamber"--something that the conservative media (NewsCorp) have mastered. Regardless of how ridiculous the claim, put it in the echo chamber and it soon becomes "truth." Speed, repetition, and variety of media give it credence. When someone says that cookies really are made by elves in trees, as long as it is repeated quickly and on a variety of sources, a section of the population believes it.
I say this in hopes that people of all political stripe will use their valuable critical thinking skills. I do wish journalists would do the same.
TO Ken Gordon, et al.
RE: Did You....
I believe that Palin’s comment was irresponsible. -- Ken Gordon
...even READ HR 3200? Pages 424-430?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Inquiring minds want to know.....]
P.S. Same question to Tad_S....
Do either of you, or anyone else for that matter, need a url to download the document?
TO: Ken Gordon
RE: Another Fisking....
....for you over the weekend.
Same place as last.
Same linkage as last.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Maybe you should consider providing links to these various sources you cite. You know....
.....just so we can read the article in context. After all. As a semi-pro politician, I'm sure you're all too familiar with how certain types of people love to take thinks out of context and twist them around to confuse other people.....{nudge-nudge, wink-wink}
UP is Down? is that like The Fairness Doctrine, The Patriot Act, etc.. Congress and others have shown over the years the great ability to claim up when they mean down.
A good example is "Democracy Now" which claims they serve the silent majority when they actually represent the extreme Left. And the press is always a willing participant no matter what the issue. How much coverage was given to the faked documents about G W Bush's military records before the bloggers pointed out the obvious errors?
Ken,
Sometimes you seem like a sensitive guy and other times you don't have a clue what people are concerned about.
A year ago Palin was taking some heavy fire for bearing a Down's Syndrome child and not having had an abortion.
The same political class who were doing that now wants to rewrite the healthcare rules of the land.
Palin comes out with guns blazing about the clause in the House bill which would encourage doctors to have heart-to-heart talks with their patients about their future care.
It's not a big jump to conclude that one of the topics of such a talk would be about how the expense of end-of-life care or the care of a Downs Syndrome baby like hers will be a direct burden on the federal budget. And maybe the faceless ruling class in Washington D.C. will take it upon themselves to provide guidelines on just such conversations (as they do in the UK and other places with single-payer nationalized healthcare systems).
You can rip Palin all you want. It says more about your own insensitivity than it does about her.
Chris
Very entertaining post!
I like to think that on November 5th of last year, the rest of the world found a healthy dose of respect for us. But I suspect they're watching the same clips that now make the nightly news and thinking they should take that respect right back.
I like to think that the completely ridiculous comments made about health care reform will backfire, and only serve to expose those who make them as untrustworthy. But I fear it is having some effect in their favor. Everything I've read lately says that Section 1233 will be crossed out simply because members of Congress are tired of trying to teach people that Advance Care Planning, living wills, and DNR orders are standardized in every state and in every private insurance policy.
I think the most astute commentators recognize that most of the foaming at their mouths has little to do with health care reform. There are millions of Americans who have a deep-seated anger that a black man is now our President. Republican ringleaders and their friends in the insurance industry are using health care reform as a proxy to channel that hatred to serve their respective agendas.
I think the most important point which is getting lost in the health care debate is this.
The majority of U.S. citizens (~80%) are satisfied with their health care coverage. The majority of U.S. citizens do not support the health care plan. End of story. But our elected officials on both sides have morphed what is supposed to be a representative democracy into - we'll decide what's best for those who elected us and tell them what we're going to do. No, that's not the way it's supposed to work. The majority tell those they elect what they want and as long as it's not unconstitutional the elected official should vote accordingly. This became extremely obvious to me when watching Arlen Specter's town hall. He wasn't there to listen. He was there to defend the bill. His response to those who opposed the bill was not to give what the person said reflective contemplation, but to oppose what they had to say. That's not his job. That's not Senator Gordon's job.
I grew up in the 60s, where there were well educated, thoughtful people questioning government policies from both parties. They demostrated against the Democrat President Johnson. Demostrated for civil rights against Southern Democrats. Demonstrated against President Nixon. They had a goal, a vision in mind. They didn't tow the party line. Now I'm so amazed that so many of these people have turned into liberal radicals who so easily are willing to turn their lives over to government control through health care, bailouts and the destruction of their wealth through the printing of money. Amazing!!! You've become the very thing we used to protest against in the 60s and what you accuse the conservatives of being - mindless robots. Let's do what Senator Gordon alludes to. Let's take emotion out of this and look at the facts. Research or think about what you saw in regards to protests, dialogue, discussion, etc. during the President Bush years. Compare that to the well educated, thoughtful and mostly calm questions posed to Senator Specter. Suddenly people who question government are mobs, un-American. Please don't convince yourself that it's payback for the Bush years. It's the elected officials who are dividing us, because in the end, neither side really wants to listen. Hold them all accountable. Especially Senator Gordon. He is your local elected official. He should be doing what you say and not trying to lead you towards what the majority of us say, "we don't want". Senator Gordon and his type are trying to demonize those who disagree with the plan, disagree with Obama, disagree with Senator Gordon and disagree with you. Rush Limbaugh is a demon. Sarah Palin is a demon even though what she wrote about was withdrawn from the plan. How do you withdraw something which doesn't exist.
I'm sure I disagree with the majority of people on this board, but I don't think you're evil. I think you're concerned with those who are uninsured. We differ on how to address that. I appreciate your concern, I just disagree on how to solve it. Two weeks ago the Church I go to served over 1300 people with free health care screenings, school supplies, etc. Again, what I believe the important point here is that the majority has decided that government run health care is not the best option and it's up to our elected officials to vote accordingly. I'm sorry if you like the idea of government run health care, but the majority don't. Just remember, if you allow your elected officials to ignore you, the next time it may be you in the majority and being ignored. Stop it now!!!
Let Senator Gordon know that if he doesn't stop telling us what government should do for or to us, instead of listening to what we say, then he won't be back to listen after the next vote.
TO: Ken Gordon, et al.
RE: Another Day....
....another fisking.
Enjoy,
Chuck(le)
[Can't stop the 'signal'..... -- Mr Universe]
TO: Anonymous
RE: Ah!
You found 'the new thread'.
Shiny!
Let's be 'bad guys'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[I aim to 'misbehave'. -- Malcolm Reynolds]
TO: All
RE: A Sense for 'Debate'
Ken Gordon seems to want to 'debate' the issue of Health Care Reform. However, in the last week, given the opportunity in two threads, he has failed to come out to debate the proposed measure of HR 3200.
Instead he has stooped to the tried and true method of demonizing those who speak on the NEGATIVE team. In this thread's case, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. This is an ad hom argument that does not gain any points with anyone with more than two synapses to rub together.
However, it DOES gain points with other people who are like minded in their unwillingness to engage in honest discussion of the matter at hand.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[This country needs more unemployed politicians.]
TO: All
RE: Another 'Indicator'
It seems that Senator Spector (D-PA) may have introduced a proposed bill in the Senate. I say 'proposed' as it has not been given a 'bumper number', just yet. But it IS available on the web if go GO HERE and click on the link. You'll get a PDF download of the proposed bill.
Pay particular attention to pages 113-114, starting with line 22 on 113: Qualified Individuals. Pay SPECIAL attention to the verbiage in lines 12-24 of page 114.
Notice how the proposed bill EXEMPTS federal employees, i.e., Congress, their staff, the military, etc., from the provisions of this 'Health Care Reform'.
Think about it.....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....and there's no need for 'debate'....unless someone wishes to be severely 'thrashed' in such by taking the AFFIRMATIVE on this matter.....]
I have posted a couple times now and I would like to add a comment to the beginning of each post.
I apologize in advance to any non-elected official who derives negative connotations from my comments. I do not want to offend you. I encourage you to read the bill, educate yourself, think through the unintended consequences and wake your elected officials up.
Chuck(le), I have read through your posts and there's not much I can add. Thank you for taking the time to do what our esteemed elected officials WILL NOT do - READ THE BILL. They don't have the time to read bills they vote on!!!!? How did they get through law school? I can't believe how so many people gave them a pass on that response. Don't have time to read the bill? Give me a break. I wish I could say that at my job. Sorry boss, I don't have time to do what you pay me for. Wow, how these people (i.e Senator Gordon) are scared to death of an educated public. Every time you post, Senator Gordon must pee his pants. Sorry Ken, at your age, I do not believe that would be covered under the bill. Not to put words in Obama's mouth, but you might want to consider Depends.
TO: Anonymous, et al.
RE: Education....
Wow, how these people (i.e Senator Gordon) are scared to death of an educated public. -- Anonymous
....IS essential for a people to remain free.
Hence, my comments about the quality of education being received from the vaunted American public education system being so shoddy. Dumb the people down and you can more easily pull the wool over their eyes.
Just look at all those interesting comments without any discussion on the previous thread. Then again, look at all those interesting comments from the naysayers on every controversial thread at Pajamas Media. There is no cogent discussion from their ilk. Just ad homs, like Ken Gordon is attempting with his article here. [Note: Ken has YET to come into the discussion in a give-and-take form of discussion, as far as I can tell. And I think it highly indicative of an unwillingness to do so for lack of a defensible position. Hence the subtle ad homishness of this thread's article.]
As we agree. A GOOD education is essential. Not this slip-shod PC garbage that has being given to anyone coming out of high school after 1980.
Education makes a people easy to lead, but difficult to drive; Easy to govern, but impossible to enslave. - Lord Henry Brougham
Again....
....hence my suspicions about the vaunted American public education system.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet. - Aristotle]
TO: Anonymous
RE: Our Elected Officials
....our esteemed elected officials WILL NOT do - READ THE BILL. They don't have the time to read bills they vote on!!!! -- Anonymous
There is a method to their 'madness'.
They make the bills so large and convoluted that nobody has the time to read them, let alone comprehend their content.
Doing that, these 'legislators' have 'plausible deniability', something of an 'excuse' they can tell their constituents. And, sad to say, a number of their constituents will be 'sympathetic' to their excuse. Why? Because THEY wouldn't have the time to read the bill either.
Again, a complaint against our vaunted American public education system.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty. -- Thomas Jefferson]
P.S. Wasn't Jefferson a Democrat? What every happened to them that we have come to this?
Chuckles,
Strange, I did read pgs 424-430 of HR 3200 and there is no mention of a "death panel" or of anyone in government ordering the execution of citizens. http://search.house.gov. In reality, it all sounded pretty reasonable--one can have consultations with one's doctor about whatever your wishes are in a grave, terminal illness situation. And that consultation is covered/reimburseable through an insurance program.
Please enlighten us as to your plan for improving the health system. Keep in mind:
- 50 million people without health insurance
- Insurance companies invent ways to keep from paying legitimate claims.
- About half of all bankruptcies are due to health bills.
- Premiums have more than DOUBLED in the past 8 years. How can we sustain doubling of cost every 8 years?
- Many companies have to go out to bid every single year for a new insurance plan. This often means that employees get worse plans and have to switch doctors because of who is "in-network" or "out-of-network." A lot of companies have stopped offering health insurance all together.
- Thousands of people lined up to receive necessary medical procedures offered in horse stalls at a fairground in Virginia. They had no other way to get care. This is America??
I also had a good, ahem, chuckle at your statement that most of the people who have insurance are content with their coverage. But think about it: the only people who still have coverage, who are not a horrible financial liability to insurance companies, are relatively healthy people who have not had a major flare-up with their insurer. The insurers have an algorithm to determine precisely how much a claim can be before that person is eliminated from the rolls or is denied any further reimbursement for procedures.
I am open to a private insurance solution, as long as it is fair, comprehensive, affordable, and addresses all these concerns. I have yet to find one that is.
Thanks Tad S. for responding to Chuckles. Chuckles the word column in the blog is a link to the column. It is a different color but may not have stood out on the page enough for you to notice. There may be good and reasoned arguments against the various health care proposals but calling them "death panels" is not one. In fact the hyperbole and breathless
indignation in the comment shows a weakness in the criticism. If there were reasoned objections I suppose you would have made them yourself. AS Tad S. has pointed out there is nothing in the bill that allows a fair or responsible person to assert that there are death panels contemplated. There are people who look at any administration proposal with the idea the it must be bad in spite of the fact that it isn't and so they allow their imagination to run wild. I think that these people are who Sarah Palin was reading or talking to when she came up with the Death Panel comment.
TO: Tad_S and Ken Gordon, et al.
RE: Responses
Glad to see some responses here.....at last.
I'll have a reply for both of you—and anyone else who cares—tomorrow. Maybe even later tonight.
Right now....got work to do....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Debate thy cause with thy neighbour himself. -- Proverbs]
Ken says:
"AS Tad S. has pointed out there is nothing in the bill that allows a fair or responsible person to assert that there are death panels contemplated."
what is in the bill, coupled with other information:
+ statements of administration advisor Ezekiel Emanuel
+ history of the Democratic party in promoting assisted suicide and pro-abortion legislation
+ the implication of resource rationing in cost-containment statements by the President and others
+ practices in other countries
Maybe the aggregation is not enough to bother you. There are "fair and responsible" people who are bothered.
The right way to solve the problem is to come to a compromise: put language in the bill which specifically addresses the concern.
Here's what the President said in the NY Times in April about chronic and end-of-life care expenses:
THE PRESIDENT: So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?
I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.
NYT: So how do you — how do we deal with it?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.
Excellent posts Chris and Chuck(le). I'll stick with one topic for now - "Death Panels".
Comments by Tad and Chris provide a perfect example re: Chuck(le)'s point in regards to the U.S. educational system. Tad wrote, "I did read pgs 424-430 of HR 3200 and there is no mention of a "death panel" ". Really Tad? Really? It doesn't actually read "death panel"!!? So in order to come up with death panel, you would have to do what Chris did, read it, think about unintended consequences, consider the only the way the bill will be successful - reduce costs and understand wherein lies the biggest opportunity to reduce costs - reduce care for the elderly. Senator Gordon, you actually thanked Tad for this mindless response? Exactly what Chuck(le) alluded to, "There is no cogent discussion from their ilk. Just ad homs".
And again, Ken Gordon demonstrates his unwillingness to listen to those he represents. Why did you thank Tad instead of Chuck(le) or Chris? Isn't the answer obvious? You're towing the party line, can't intelligently discuss the bill (have you read it?) and don't intend to represent those who oppose the bill. That is not a representative.
Speaking of the educational system, it's actually funny that my children are the highest performers at their schools. The liberal teachers often call on them to get the conservative view. But the teachers love them because my kids are informed and engaged. From the descriptions of the discussions, it's like taking candy from a baby when the other kids in the class, who get their opinions from their parents, who get their opinions from main stream media, try to debate my children who have the facts - not the emotions. Speaking of which Tad, how did we now grow the uninsured rate to 50 million. Did another 10 million uninsured just cross the border since last week?
TO: Tad_S
RE: Having Read It
Strange, I did read pgs 424-430 of HR 3200.... -- Tad_S
Great! You're one of the few who have admitted to taking the time to read the document. Good for you.....and I mean that....sincerely.
RE: Can't 'See' It?
....there is no mention of a "death panel" or of anyone in government ordering the execution of citizens. http://search.house.gov. In reality, it all sounded pretty reasonable--one can have consultations with one's doctor about whatever your wishes are in a grave, terminal illness situation. And that consultation is covered/reimburseable through an insurance program. -- Tad_S
I'm not surprised that you can't 'see' it in there. After all, I doubt if the people drafted this abomination (HR 3200) would be so stupid as to put the actual Title of a Section as "Death Panel". Don't you think?
And I can understand that you haven't learned how to read legislation in order to see pit/pratfalls in it. I think I've had a tad more experience than you at it. But I'm rather 'surprised'....not....that Senator Ken Gordon can't read it. But I'll address THAT in another missive, addressed to him.
So. Allow me to explain something of it to you.....and others who might read this.
See the part where it reads....
(1) 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. -- HR 3200 starting at line 21 of page 424
This REQUIRES people over 65 year of age to go get a 'consultation' from a government official. It's not 'voluntary' at all. Albeit, I have yet to find the penalties applied against someone who does not go for the 'consultation'. But I'm sure they'll come up with SOMETHING later. After all. It might be too blatant and somewhat upsetting to the general public to put them in THIS piece of legislation.
Now. You see the 'consultant' in there? Good.
Then we have this bit of information.
An advance care planning consultation with respect to an individual may be conducted more frequently than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or a hospice program. -- HR 3200 starting on line 17 of page 428
Notice here that the legislation allows for 'Advance Care Planning Consultation' OUTSIDE of the 5-year for 65-year olds and older. If you don't see that, then understand that any good lawyer could take this into court and argue that a child diagnosed with childhood-onset diabetes or someone who is diagnosed with multiple sclerosis or cancer of the liver would qualify for such 'consultation', as they have contracted a "life-limiting disease". No matter what their age.
Are the pieces beginning to fall into place for you? If not, don't worry. I'm certain that other people who read this will begin to see the BIG 'picture'.
[Continued in next missive....]
[Continued from previous missive....]
Here's where it starts getting 'interesting'....
A consultation under this subsection may include the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order. -- HR 3200 starting on line 1 of page 429
Here is where the concept of the 'order' being written starts to blur between the idea of an order written by an individual into an order written by the government 'consultant'. How so? Because it doesn't say the individual is supposed to SIGN the 'order'....at this point. Instead, we have THIS....
is signed and dated by a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professional's authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the individual and be followed by health care professionals and providers across the continuum of care; -- HR 3200 starting on line 8 of page 429
Notice that it is someone whom the 'Secretary' [of HHS] deems appropriate.
Next we have THIS....
effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual; -- HR 3200 starting on line 17 of page 429
But it doesn't say the individual or that person's legal guardian or representative signs anything approving this 'order'. It might be elsewhere, but I've not found it yet. Maybe YOU could point it out to me.
Here's the 'kicker'. And it's VERY subtly accomplished....
The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items-- -- HR 3200 starting on line 4 of page 430
Notice the use of the words "MAY range".
Does not say WILL range. But "may". In legalese this means the writer of the 'order' has the latitude to put in or leave out ANYTHING they want.
That includes leaving out treatment for an expensive, but proven, medical procedure, if the writer of the order feels that it will be an overly burdensome strain on the budget. Or perhaps they consider the person 'uneconomically repairable'.
Remember they're working on a government budget. And when I managed the P2 Mission funds at Fort Carson, the largest pot of money on the installation outside of payroll, I was told if I exceeded the budget I'd be attending the Long Course at Fort Leavenworth, i.e., the US Disciplinary Barracks.
So what happens to people if the budget for government-based healthcare is about to be exceeded? Do they get treated? Properly?
I have SERIOUS doubts as to that. I've worked with government bureaucrats before. They don't care as much about people as many people would like to think. From experience, I witnessed that with my own Father when the VA tried to do a 'Death Panel' on him in the early 70s.
He was hospitalized with a liver condition. I came back on emergency leave to find him near death. I asked what was going on and he told me that they had not given him food or water in the last two days. Nor was there an IV in him.
I asked the head nurse on duty what was with that. She told me, "Doctor's orders." Being a young sergeant of paratroopers in class-A and jump boots, I went into high-hover mode. Found the doctor. Threatened him with immediate violence to his person. Got my Father OUT of that VA 'death camp'. I and my younger sister nursed him back to health.
So. Are there 'death panels'?
Based on MY experience? You betcha. And this bill, if passed as is, will formalize them, based on my understanding of it.
[Continued in next missive....]
[Continued from previous missive....]
RE: My Plan
Please enlighten us as to your plan for improving the health system. Keep in mind:
- 50 million people without health insurance
- Insurance companies invent ways to keep from paying legitimate claims.
- About half of all bankruptcies are due to health bills.
- Premiums have more than DOUBLED in the past 8 years. How can we sustain doubling of cost every 8 years?
- Many companies have to go out to bid every single year for a new insurance plan. This often means that employees get worse plans and have to switch doctors because of who is "in-network" or "out-of-network." A lot of companies have stopped offering health insurance all together.
- Thousands of people lined up to receive necessary medical procedures offered in horse stalls at a fairground in Virginia. They had no other way to get care. This is America?? -- Tad_S
I enumerated my counter-plan on the earlier thread on this site.
But here are the key points....
[1] All insurance companies will offer health insurance.
[2] No citizen of the United States or a legal alien will be denied health insurance by any insurance company.
[3] There will be no exclusions of any medical condition on any health insurance policy.
[4] All procedures and drugs approved of by the FDA and/or HHS will be allowed for any individual on a health insurance policy.
Let the market place compete under those terms. I'm certain they could become much more efficient and I suspect there would be little trouble with unfilled claims. Maybe late-filled....but not unfilled.
It would be a piece of legislation easily written and easily understood, as opposed to HR 3200.
RE: A 'Chuckle' On Me?
I also had a good, ahem, chuckle at your statement that most of the people who have insurance are content with their coverage. -- Tad_S
And WHERE, exactly, did I say THAT?
Or are you putting words in my mouth? You'd better learn better. People take umbrage at people doing that sort of thing. I'm one of them.
RE: That Depends....
But think about it: the only people who still have coverage, who are not a horrible financial liability to insurance companies, are relatively healthy people who have not had a major flare-up with their insurer. The insurers have an algorithm to determine precisely how much a claim can be before that person is eliminated from the rolls or is denied any further reimbursement for procedures. -- Tad_S
....on the terms of the policy.
Maybe you should take a course in business law.
RE: Gee....
I am open to a private insurance solution, as long as it is fair, comprehensive, affordable, and addresses all these concerns. I have yet to find one that is. -- Tad_S
....really?
Then you should LOVE the proposal I offered above.
If you don't, then what does that make you?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[That it is stupid, does not mean that the government will not do it.]
TO: Senator Ken Gordon
RE: Blogging Techniques
Chuckles the word column in the blog is a link to the column. It is a different color but may not have stood out on the page enough for you to notice. -- Ken Gordon
No. It doesn't 'stand out' as a link. You might want to adjust your CSS to make such links a tad more obvious.
RE: Stop Me....
There may be good and reasoned arguments against the various health care proposals but calling them "death panels" is not one. -- Ken Gordon
....if you've heard this one before....
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....it's a duck.
RE: Not....
In fact the hyperbole and breathless indignation in the comment shows a weakness in the criticism. -- Ken Gordon
....if it's accurate. And, as I believe I pointed out to Tad_S, it IS 'accurate'.
RE: Actually....
If there were reasoned objections I suppose you would have made them yourself. -- Ken Gordon
....I HAVE made them myself. But for some very odd reason, you and Tad_S and some others refuse to recognize them.
And whereas I can understand someone like Tad_S not being able to 'read between the lines' of a legislative bill, I'm rather surprised that your 16 years of experience doing such in the state senate of the great state of Colorado has failed you in this instance.
There are some possible explanations for this. Some of them related to advancing age. And I can appreciate them, as my age is advancing too. Others are more nefarious.
RE: Tad_S
AS Tad S. has pointed out there is nothing in the bill that allows a fair or responsible person to assert that there are death panels contemplated. -- Ken Gordon
Tad_S, based on my observation of his comments, would have trouble trying to understand what is written in as convoluted a piece of legislation as HR 3200.
You and I, in our experiences shouldn't have that kind of trouble.
I see the 'death panel' in there. So do others. And more and more see it too, as they grasp the implications of the Advance Life Planning Consultation aspects of the bill.
As I understand it now, 52% of the country opposes this piece of legislation.
RE: Critical Thinking, Anyone?
There are people who look at any administration proposal with the idea the it must be bad in spite of the fact that it isn't and so they allow their imagination to run wild. -- Ken Gordon
And there are many people who can see the 'bad' of a piece of legislation and they are, in fact, correct in their understanding.
What's your point here?
That this bill is 'good'? Just because YOU say so?
Hey!
Aren't you a consummate 'politician'?
I've learned that one has to look VERY closely at what politicians say.
After all.....look at Obama.
RE: Heh
I think that these people are who Sarah Palin was reading or talking to when she came up with the Death Panel comment. -- Ken Gordon
I saw the 'Death Panel' in HR 3200 before I even HEARD Sarah Palin use the term.
As I related to Tad_S in my missive posted earlier today, I've ENCOUNTERED the 'death panel' at work in the VA system back in the early 1970s.
And if I had not been right about it, I'm certain that the doctor and hospital staff would have had me put in jail for assault. But to have me arrested would have brought the whole situation into the public record via a trial. And THAT would have made interesting reading in the newspaper.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Warning: Politicians can be hazardous to your health.]
So, the premise of this argument against HR 3200 is that it will require people with terminal/life-shortening illnesses to go before a panel of bureaucrats who will decide their fate.
Please post the section of HR 3200 where it states that advance care planning consultations are REQUIRED, or even encouraged. The earlier post only quotes part of the bill's definition of advance care planning consultations.
Please post the section of HR 3200 where it defines the practitioner who will lead these consultations. I've only found the section where it states that these consultations are between you and your doctor (or between you and your doctor's PA or NP, where allowed by state law).
Under your proposals, everyone will be required to buy health insurance, correct? Otherwise, describe how your proposed plan will deal with millions of people who will only sign up for health insurance after finding out they're going to need major care. If I'm generally healthy, pinching pennies in a down economy, and I know I can't be turned down for health insurance, why shell out the $300/month for insurance until I need it?
And if everyone is required to buy health insurance, how will you handle low wage earners and the unemployed? Won't you also need regulated price controls and government subsidies for them?
TO: dKt
RE: Heh
Please post the section of HR 3200 where it states that advance care planning consultations are REQUIRED, or even encouraged. -- dKt
I DID....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[For additional information, please re-read this message.]
P.S. Or are you attempting to Bork me?
Senator Gordon,
I'm still waiting to see you thank Chris and Chuck(le) for informing you as to the contents of HR3200. Now you don't have to read it. Why do you only thank those who mindlessly follow you? I thought the idea of this blog was to examine and discuss the bill. I guess you really only wanted to discuss whether you agree with the bill or REALLY agree with the bill.
Senator Gordon,
As a Colorado citizen, I am asking a favor of you. Could you ask your contacts in Washington why they closed down the email account flag@whitehouse.gov? I was working hard reporting all the misinformation I was hearing from liberal politicians and fishy behavior by the like. I felt I was doing President Obama a huge favor and yet they shut it down with notifying me. Please get back to me on this. I'm sure that within about 5 minutes your contacts will be able to provide you with my home phone and address due to the fact they are engaged in activities which are now illegal after the Nixon enemies list activities. Shhhh. Please don't tell anyone that the Obama White House staff are engaged in illegal activities. Liberals may miscontrue the activities as ........ "hey wait a minute, isn't that the stuff we used to protest against?"
Thanks,
Anonymous (wink-wink, as if you don't know who I am).
TO: Anonymous
RE: [OT] Don't.....
Liberals may miscontrue the activities as ........ "hey wait a minute, isn't that the stuff we used to protest against?" -- Anonymous
....count on it.
My experience.....which I can document rather well....is that so-called 'liberals' are actually 'progressives', i.e., latter-day bolsheviks.
Hypocrisy, is their stock and trade.
Case in point....
Look at THIS!
In this instance, it is wrong for people who disagree with the 'Democrat' agenda to declare their opponents "evil". But perfectly okay for the US Senate Majority Leader to declare his opponents such.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Where there is no religion, hypocrisy becomes good taste.]
TO: All
RE: Even Britian's NHS has....
....{HORROR!} a 'death panel'.
The most emotive areas of the U.S.-UK debate — and the issues seized on in Republican attacks on the NHS — concern rationing of care and “end of life” provisions. There’s no disputing the fact that care is rationed [15] in Britain — mostly for the chronically-ill elderly, but increasingly too for smokers, the obese, and others whose lifestyles are deemed “unhealthy.” It’s going too far to call the entire NHS “Orwellian,” as some U.S. critics have, but the acronym for the NHS body which decides [16] whether particular treatments are cost-effective — and thus how long [17] certain patients can live — certainly has an Orwellian ring to it: NICE.
As for whether bodies such as NICE constitute “death panels” … well, my dictionary defines a panel as “a small group of people brought together to discuss, investigate, or decide on a particular issue.” If that issue is whether or not to provide certain drugs or treatment to an individual and that person’s life depends on whether or not they get that treatment, then I’m with Sarah: “death panel” isn’t that much of a stretch. -- Mike McNally @ THIS ARTICLE
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Yes, Virigina. There IS a 'Death Panel'.]
P.S. Please read the whole 'bloody', thought article by this articulate Brit of Scottish descent. Just click on the link of "THIS ARTICLE".
Or....
....take Senator Gordon's advice and "Stop Reading Now"!
I went to Rep. Markey's healtcare discussion event in Fort Collins on Tuesday.
I thought she handled the questions fairly well. The crowd was about 1/3 for Obamacare, 1/3 strongly against and the last third leaning against. She handily dodged questions about why taxpayers should trust the federal government to do any better with a government-option healthcare agency than their track record with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
One thing she raised which I have not seen much discussed was the role of the federal employees health benefits expenses as being part of the driving force for "healthcare reform".
Most employers these days are in the spot of having to raise the employee cost of any health insurance benefit and/or trim back on the benefit itself.
I should have asked: How much of the current push is because of unionization of federal employees and the pressure on the federal government as an employer?
TO: Chris, et al.
RE: Hmmmm
One thing she raised which I have not seen much discussed was the role of the federal employees health benefits expenses as being part of the driving force for "healthcare reform". -- Chris
My understanding of the proposed bill, that Senator Specter allegedly submitted to the US Senate staff for processing, is that the highly praised federal employee medical care will not be under the strictures of the proposed healthcare 'reform' legislation working its way through the US Congress.
If it IS so expense for the federal employees, I can see why they would want to tap the rest of US to help pay for them. One SHOULD look after ones employees.
And I'm not surprised at the idea that federal employees would be 'above the law' the rest of US have to abide by.
Why is that?
Well.....
....history has shown that when law enforcement and military personnel find themselves in the same basket as the peasants, they tend to identify with said peasants. They become less willing to enforce the laws.
Doubt this?
Look at the Russian Revolution of the Spring of 1917. [Note: Not the Bolshevik Revolution of October-November 1917, which overthrew the democratic interim government.]
In the Spring of 1917, the Czar's commissioners ordered troops to put down a demonstration of peasants and workers in St. Petersburg.
The soldiers, fed up with being treated like peasants themselves, REFUSED.
Shortly thereafter, the soldiers, whole regiments, JOINED the protesters. At that point the Czar abdicated.
Hope that helps....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Those who were never taught history {nudge-nudge, wink-wink} are doomed to relive it.]
Chuck and Chris,
Thanks again for all your hard work and research on the subject of health care. I still don't understand why your representative Gordon hasn't shown the courtesy to thank you as well. Didn't he start this blog for this very purpose?
How about this for a quick and common sense way to pass either or any of the proposed health care plans:
1. Health care bill will apply to Federal employees (i.e. Congress, President, etc.)
and Union employees ONLY.
2. Federal and Union Employees will pay for any increase in premiums.
3. Bill will be in force until December, 2012 (after the 2012 election).
Let's let the Federal Employees and Unions try it out first and see if it works.
TO: Ken Gordon, et al.
RE: Yes, Virginia.....
....there ARE 'Death Panels' in HR 3200.
Check out THIS statement.....
Obama, for example, would have to hush up Rahm Emanuel’s brother Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, one of the president’s health care advisors. He too is all in favor of cutting off care to those whose days are limited and whose medical expenses are high. The Wall Street Journal reported on Dr. Emanuel:
True reform, he argues, must include redefining doctors’ ethical obligations. In the June 18, 2008, issue of JAMA, Dr. Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the “overuse” of medical care: “Medical school education and post-graduate education emphasize thoroughness,” he writes. “This culture is further reinforced by a unique understanding of professional obligations, specifically the Hippocratic Oath’s admonition to ‘use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment’ as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others.” -- ARTICLE @ Pajamas Media
Rahm, himself, is too clever to say it in a public venue where he could be quoted. But his brother seems to say it all.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....it appears to me that Ken Gordon, and those who support this monstrous legislation want to kill your parents.....or your disabled children....]
Post a Comment