Gay Patriot Header Image

Sarah Palin Was Right. . .

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 1:18 am - December 27, 2010.
Filed under: Obama Health Care Tax/Regulation

 . . . . about Obamacare’s “death panels”?!?!?

From the Administration’s paper of record:

When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

So, we’re going to have unelected bureaucrats instituting a policy that even an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress rejected (under much duress from the president and its leaders to pass) before being rejected themselves, in part, for passing Obamacare.  

Ed Morrissey unpacks it for us:

There is, however, something at least vaguely disturbing about a government incentivizing doctors to do so as part of an expansive regulatory program that has, as one of its primary goals, cost reduction.  The process used by Obama and Kathleen Sebelius to get this into ObamaCare is more disturbing, and in a very specific way.  Congress made it clear that it didn’t want this incentive as part of the new law.  However, thanks to the miles and miles of ambiguity in the final version of ObamaCare, with its repetitive the Secretary shall determine language, Congress has more or less passed a blank check for regulatory growth to Obama and Sebelius.

Read the whole thing because CPAC’s blogger of the year puts this issue in context and understands why discussions of contingency planning may be necessary.

Share

228 Comments

  1. People that don’t have insurance die at a faster rate.

    Everybody dies at the same rate: once.

    Some people have shorter life expectancies. Dumb people. Addicts. People who are obese. People with STD’s. People who didn’t dodge quick enough. People who HAVE insurance but play with tigers. People who irritate gang members. People who stand under falling coconuts. People who do not have insurance and sleep in shopping carts parked on steep hills.

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 28, 2010 @ 8:58 pm - December 28, 2010

  2. Heliotrope, did you even look at the link I posted. It accounted for many many common risk factors. It compared people with similar risk factors, the only difference being whether or not they were covered. The study found that people who weren’t covered were at a higher risk for death. Of course all those things are the case, people who are at higher risk die quicker like you stated. Turns out being uninsured is also one of those higher risk factors, like playing with tigers or whatever else u want to say.

    But again I ask, where are these new death panels Obama and co created? I’m curious. I thought you were so convinced they existed, yet you don’t seem to want to discuss it.

    Comment by AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 9:07 pm - December 28, 2010

  3. Correlation is not causation, but Heliotrope makes a good point; one of the effects of socializing health care (as with all welfare) is that people who make good choices are punished (economically) in order to subsidize the bad choices of less responsible people.

    Comment by V the K — December 28, 2010 @ 9:23 pm - December 28, 2010

  4. The foregoing, of course, results in an increased incidence of bad choices.

    Comment by V the K — December 28, 2010 @ 9:24 pm - December 28, 2010

  5. Yea, correlation doesn’t alway mean causation, that is very correct. But if you read the article, in this case the factor was statically significant and there were no significant interactions. Lack of insurance increased the hazard ratio in a statistically significant manner, aka it caused you to be at a higher risk for and increased your rate of death.

    Comment by AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 9:31 pm - December 28, 2010

  6. Isn’t that weird?

    Weirder still is that tools like AJ can’t see the correlation between increased government involvement in health care and the higher costs. Therefore, he/she/it(?) demands more of the same because government can’t possibly be bad.

    Weirder than that is the fact that liberal policies KEEP people in poverty.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 28, 2010 @ 10:17 pm - December 28, 2010

  7. I’m sure that’s what your savior taught. Screw the poor and the sick!!

    Mine said absolutely nothing about forcing people into enriching liberals at the risk of fine and/or imprisonment. I can’t find anything in my Bible where Jesus said that the government should ignore the Constitution and get into the charity business. Nor does it say anything about governments turning their citizens into slaves.

    Guess what, sweetheart. We’ve spent 40+ years and trillions of dollars in a “war on poverty”. We still have poverty. However, through our “evil greed”, we have the richest poor in the world and the poor have gotten richer over the past 25 or so years.

    Our great liberals who’ve created the illusion that they give a damn more than you do have spent more money in this Congress than the first 100 Congresses combined. We STILL have poverty, we still have massive unemployment, massive debt, massive deficits, people are still losing their homes etc.

    How much longer do we go on flushing money down the shitter before we realize that doing the same thing over and over just isn’t doing a damn bit of good?

    You can take your Screw the poor and the sick!! and shove it straight up your six.

    Comment by cxThatGayConservative — December 28, 2010 @ 10:31 pm - December 28, 2010

  8. Where did I demand more healthcare. I’m just in search of these mythical death panels.
    And why am I a tool for disagreeing with you? Isn’t demeaning opponents instead of engaging them in civil debate exactly what loony leftists supposedly do? I thought conservatives respected people with different point of views.

    Comment by AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 10:39 pm - December 28, 2010

  9. Know a stepping stone when you see one.

    Comment by Blaster84 — December 28, 2010 @ 11:14 pm - December 28, 2010

  10. False ‘Death Panel’ Rumor Has Some Familiar Roots

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/health/policy/14panel.html?_r=1

    But the rumor . . . was not born of anonymous e-mailers, partisan bloggers or stealthy cyberconspiracy theorists.

    Rather, it has a far more mainstream provenance, openly emanating months ago from many of the same pundits and conservative media outlets that were central in defeating President Bill Clinton’s health care proposals 16 years ago, including the editorial board of The Washington Times, the American Spectator magazine and Betsy McCaughey, whose 1994 health care critique made her a star of the conservative movement (and ultimately, New York’s lieutenant governor).

    . . .
    “I guess what surprised me is the ferocity, it’s much stronger than I expected,” said John Rother, the executive vice president of AARP, which is supportive of the health care proposals and has repeatedly declared the “death panel” rumors false. “It’s people who are ideologically opposed to Mr. Obama, and this is the opportunity to weaken the president.”

    at the end of the NY times article
    Correction: August 15, 2009
    An article on Friday about the origins of the false rumor that President Obama’s health care proposals would create government-sponsored panels to decide which patients were worthy of living referred imprecisely to the stance of The Washington Times, which shortly after the election published an editorial comparing some positions of the incoming administration to the euthanasia policies of the Third Reich. In describing the newspaper as “an outlet decidedly opposed to Mr. Obama,” the article was referring to its opinion pages, not to its news pages.

    Comment by rusty — December 28, 2010 @ 11:20 pm - December 28, 2010

  11. I’m just in search of these mythical death panels.

    No you’re not. You’re being a dick because you know damn well that the government has no business pushing death cleverly disguised as “end of life discussions”.

    Comment by cxThatGayConservative — December 28, 2010 @ 11:32 pm - December 28, 2010

  12. You also know damn well that Dr. Berwick is all for it. That’s why he was recessed appointed and THAT’S why his decree came down on Christmas Day when nobody’s paying attention.

    If it’s not that big of a deal, AJ, why are they sneaking around and hiding?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 28, 2010 @ 11:34 pm - December 28, 2010

  13. Yea, rusty, no one seems to be able to point out how these supposed death panels actually exist. They may not like what Sebelius did, but it in no way created death panels. Still waiting to see how this bill created anything close to something that resembles government panels or bureaucracies that will decide whether or not people are worthy of living or to deny people certain healthcare procedures.

    Comment by AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 11:37 pm - December 28, 2010

  14. I’m right here, thatgayconservative. How is the government pushing death in these end of life discussions? Doesn’t the patient still have the choice of what they do or to even have the discussion at all? Because according to the source quoted in this post, they do:

    “This new regulatory effort at least puts the conversation where it belongs, in routine wellness visits, rather than as a five-year set conversation. It also appears to make this a voluntary conversation (at least for now), one the patient can decline without any repercussions.”

    So please tell me how the government is pushing death by letting people opt of of end of life counseling that is already happening every 5 years. Does increasing the frequency of this useful discussion really resemble “pushing death”? Especially if patients can opt out of it?

    Comment by AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 11:41 pm - December 28, 2010

  15. and they’re sneaking around and hiding it because Democrats have no fortitude. They know that the policy is a good one, but they lost the battle of public opinion thanks to Palin’s successful misclassification of it. Essentially they’re scared. That doesn’t make Palin right though. Fear often wins out over facts, and this is one instance. Hiding something doesn’t prove guilt. Maybe you could show what the government is doing to deny care to individuals or push death upon them in a way they weren’t doing before as a result of this bill.

    Comment by AJ — December 28, 2010 @ 11:45 pm - December 28, 2010

  16. […] Sarah Palin Was Right. . . […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Obamacare to limit our health care choices — December 29, 2010 @ 12:09 am - December 29, 2010

  17. Doesn’t the patient still have the choice of what they do or to even have the discussion at all?

    Do they? What choices do they have when the government forces them to buy insurance? What choices do we have when the liberals wad up the US Constitution, wipe with it and hand it to you?

    And I wasn’t saying you were hiding, schmucky. I said that Obama recess appointed Berwick so he wouldn’t have to stand scrutiny and answer any questions and they slid out this dictate on Christmas Day when nobody’s paying attention.

    No wonder you can’t find the death panels when you can’t even read.

    They know that the policy is a good one, but they lost the battle of public opinion thanks to Palin’s successful misclassification of it.

    And what did they do to teach people that it was a good idea? Attacked and smeared Palin, as usual. Hate is how the left believes they can win friends and influence people. If that doesn’t work, there’s always the fear or race card in hand.

    Hiding something doesn’t prove guilt.

    Perhaps no, but if it’s such a great idea, why sneak around? Why not show the people how great your idea is instead of smearing everybody who’s suspicious? Because you know it’s no damn good. Throw in the fact that Washington has a knack for dropping a turd when nobody’s paying attention and the suspicion is even greater.

    Maybe you could show what the government is doing to deny care to individuals or push death upon them in a way they weren’t doing before as a result of this bill.

    Why waste my time? In all the bandwidth you’ve robbed from Bruce & Dan, all you’ve proven is that you’ll ignore it and demand somebody else prove it. You don’t want to know and you don’t give a damn. Plain and simple.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 29, 2010 @ 3:08 am - December 29, 2010

  18. Fear often wins out over facts

    That’s why we’ve been saddled with health care deform, the porkulous and taxpayer money laundered through the unions.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 29, 2010 @ 3:10 am - December 29, 2010

  19. TGC, I notice AJ, also can’t defend where I shred his ‘who but a fat cat has a cadillac health plan’ argument.

    Why does AJ hate firefighters and police officers?

    He also won’t address that the ‘end of life discussions’ go from a bundled service dones once to a yearly seperately payable service. How does that ‘save costs’?

    So we have a government plan now that will withhold life saving treatment. We have a government plan that requires and will pay for doctors to ask medicare patients every year “Thought about dying?” (Yes, the patient can decline, the doctor is still required to initiate the conversation) We have a government plan that requires a person to buy a service. We have a government plan that punishes cities for giving their policemen and firefighters benefits.

    We also have liberals who whistle in the dark and like to focus on two words of Sarah Palin’s quote, rather than the entire thing and how this is yet another step to show that she is right. We also have a President who calmly talks about denying people medical procedures because we have to evaluate if granny really will be worth that life saving procedure.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 29, 2010 @ 6:49 am - December 29, 2010

  20. thelivewire, The excise health plan tax is only on employers. Any individual can purchase their own insurance without paying any sort of excise tax. Fat cats, poor people, it doesn’t matter, they can purchase the plan without the tax.

    Obama doesn’t hate firefighters, they have raised the coverage threshold for high risk professions before the tax kicks in on employers.

    If you read the article you just quoted, you’ll see that they initially rushed approval of the drug and upon further, more conclusive study, they realized it is not as effective as they initially believed. The healthcare bill is not denying anyone anything, just the FDA doing their job.

    Again, you bring up the conversation you don’t like, which is fine. It may not sit well with you, but it is not the government pushing death upon people. It’s a meaningful and important conversation to have that they can opt out of if they choose.

    The only reason I’m focusing on what Palin said and the general idea of death panels is because that is what this blog post is about! Is that such a hard concept to grasp? I’ve never said the healthcare bill was perfect or that some of your concerns weren’t valid. I’ve just said that this bill didn’t create any death panels or bureaucracies charged with rationing healthcare or denying people the right to coverage. Please show me some new entity or in this bill charged with rationing healthcare or denying people coverage they once had.

    Comment by AJ — December 29, 2010 @ 9:18 am - December 29, 2010

  21. Yes, they raised the cap to 12k As I shows, my HDHP, low risk plan already can push that. You’re telling me the High Risk plans somehow won’t have premiums that are more than 1000 a month, as paid by the employer and the employee

    Have you looked at COBRA rates? Or individual insurance rates?
    a PPO plan in my state, with an in network deductable of 5K is $86.00 a month. With a 2500 ded it’s 187.00 a month. That’s for a 39 year old male. *before* factoring in any risks.

    Add a wife and it’s 180/309. How much is the penalty for not enrolling again? And how often will that penalty be enforced?

    We’ve already seen people flocking to the high risk pools. Oh, wait

    So far Obamacare has raised costs, made less people insured, and decreased providers. SP’s statement leading to the ‘death panels’ comment has proved to be true. No matter how much you’d like to deny it.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 29, 2010 @ 10:25 am - December 29, 2010

  22. After weighing the evidence, I think the assertion of the post that Sarah Palin was accurate in predicting that ObamaCare would bring back ‘Death Panels’ is, on balance, more accurate than the accusation that people are dying from lack of health insurance.

    Granted, the Orwellian “Wellness Visits” seem to be more the nose-in-the-tent than the whole camel… it is reasonable, given the history of Government… to predict where this is headed.

    Comment by V the K — December 29, 2010 @ 10:55 am - December 29, 2010

  23. Any individual can purchase their own insurance without paying any sort of excise tax. Fat cats, poor people, it doesn’t matter, they can purchase the plan without the tax.

    But if people have to purchase their own insurance, you called that denial of coverage and insisted that it meant they didn’t have access to health care.

    Remember?

    81.V the K, Based on that logic, everyone has access to a car or hosue.

    So if private insurance companies require you to pay for coverage, that is denial of access, but if the Federal government does via Obamacare, it isn’t.

    Once again, the only consistency in AJ’s argument is that the government is always right and that private industry and anyone who criticizes the government is wrong.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2010 @ 11:16 am - December 29, 2010

  24. Also, the problem here is that AJ simply refuses to abide by the Obama Party definition of death panels, which state that anything that denies care, limits care based on whether or not it’s medically necessary, and requires people to pay additional amounts for additional coverage has death panels.

    The Obamacare bill has all of those. It authorizes the government to mandate via unelected bureaucrats to doctors and private insurers what is and isn’t medically necessary. It authorizes unelected bureaucrats to limit care and payment based on whether or not said bureaucrats think something is medically necessary. It requires people to pay additional amounts for additional coverage and forces cost increases for anything that unelected bureaucrats deem unnecessary.

    Hence, it has death panels, just as Barack Obama and the Obama Party scream that private insurers have death panels.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2010 @ 11:35 am - December 29, 2010

  25. Based on that logic, everyone has access to a car or hosue.

    And everyone does, provided they make appropriate and responsible lifestyle choices.

    Unless, of course, Barney Frank and a bunch of community organizers order the banks to hand out mortgages to deadbeats. That worked out real damn well.

    Comment by V the K — December 29, 2010 @ 1:29 pm - December 29, 2010

  26. Obama doesn’t hate firefighters

    Of course he does. Just the other day he lamented that they weren’t able to unionize fire and EMS. He has fewer people to exploit and launder money through. Not to mention that he hates people that fire and EMS serves as they will be held hostage to their demands.

    Remember the kerfuffle about the TN family who’s house burned because they didn’t pay for fire service? The IAFF whined about “pay for play”, but there’s not a damn bit of difference between that and paying the union’s protection money.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 29, 2010 @ 2:48 pm - December 29, 2010

  27. Like I said:

    The regulatory process isn’t supposed to be a black-ops exercise, but expect many more such nontransparent improvisations under the vast powers ObamaCare handed the executive branch.

    The affront is that Medicare needs to sneak around in order to offer a type of care that is routine in private insurance. If the medical experts in Congress haven’t decided that some treatment or service is worthy of the fee schedule, then the program won’t pay for it even if it is in the best interests of patients.

    Indeed.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203731004576045702803914780.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 29, 2010 @ 2:52 pm - December 29, 2010

  28. […] have not followed the extended threads to some of my recent posts, in large measure, because I prefer not to get involved in such shouting matches (but from my […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » On Dan Savage & Civil Discourse — December 31, 2010 @ 7:37 am - December 31, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.