Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

  • Don't miss out on all the fun! Register on our forums to post and have added features! Membership levels include a FREE membership tier.

"Death Panels"

By Joseph Ashby

"Former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin has come under fire for her Facebook post accusing President Obama and the Democrats of including a "death panel" provision the health care bill. The Associated Press recently ran a ‘Fact Check' article rebutting Palin's claim.

AP argues that the bill's end-of-life counseling provision has been mistaken as a promotion of euthanasia and thus the death panel assertion by Palin and many other conservatives is false and misleading.

The New York Times has joined in the death panel bashing. Jim Rutenburg and Jackie Calmes assert the following:

There is nothing in any of the legislative proposals that would call for the creation of death panels or any other governmental body that would cut off care for the critically ill as a cost-cutting measure.

The AP is technically correct in stating that end-of-life counseling is not the same as a death panel. The New York Times is also correct to point out that the health care bill contains no provision setting up such a panel.

What both outlets fail to point out is that the panel already exists.

H.R. 1 (more commonly known as the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, even more commonly known as the Stimulus Bill and aptly dubbed the Porkulus Bill) contains a whopping $1.1 billion to fund the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The Council is the brain child of former Health and Human Services Secretary Nominee Tom Daschle. Before the Porkulus Bill passed, Betsy McCaughey, former Lieutenant governor of New York, wrote in detail about the Council's purpose.

Daschle's stated purpose (and therefore President Obama's purpose) for creating the Council is to empower an unelected bureaucracy to make the hard decisions about health care rationing that elected politicians are politically unable to make. The end result is to slow costly medical advancement and consumption. Daschle argues that Americans ought to be more like Europeans who passively accept "hopeless diagnoses."


McCaughey goes on to explain:

Daschle says health-care reform "will not be pain free." Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them.

Who is on the Council? One of its most prominent members is none other than Dr. Death himself Ezekiel Emanuel. Dr. Emanuel's views on care of the elderly should frighten anyone who is or ever plans on being old. He explains the logic behind his discriminatory views on elderly care as follows:

Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years.

On average 25-year-olds require very few medical services. If they are to get the lion's share of the treatment, then those 65 and over can expect very little care. Dr. Emanuel's views on saving money on medical care are simple: don't provide any medical care. The loosely worded provisions in H.R 1 give him and his Council increasing power to push such recommendations.

Similarly hazy language will no doubt be used in the health care bill. What may pass as a 1,000 page health care law will explode into perhaps many thousands of pages of regulatory codes. The deliberate vagueness will give regulators tremendous leverage to interpret its provisions. Thus Obama's Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein will play a major role in defining the government's role in controlling medical care.

How does Sunstein approach end of life care? In 2003 he wrote a paper for the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies arguing that human life varies in value. Specifically he champions statistical methods that give preference to what the government rates as "quality-adjusted life years." Meaning, the government decides whether a person's life is worth living. If the government decides the life is not worth living, it is the individual's duty to die to free up welfare payments for the young and productive.

Ultimately it was Obama himself, in answer to a question on his ABC News infomercial, who said that payment determination cannot be influenced by a person's spirit and "that at least we (the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research) can let doctors know and your mom know that...this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/death_panel_is_not_in_the_bill.html

Then there was Palin's note was well written and made some good points. Next thing you know the senate is "removing" the "death panel" crap (that didn't exist in the first place)

You gotta be careful with these guys though, they tend to sneak stuff back in the bills at 3 a.m. before the prez signs it.

I [Fluff] read through Section 1233 (end of life issues) of HR3200 and there are some pretty interesting things in there given what Obama has said and what Rahm Emmanuel's brother Ezekiel has said (he is a "medical ethicist" and oncologist who advises President Obama). There's lots of mentions of the "Secretary" and what is established by the "Secretary" as in Secretary of Health and Human Services who of course is a gvt appointee, currently Kathleen Sebelius who is a baby killer.

Article quoting Ezekiel Emanuel:

"Betsy points out a 1996 Hastings Center article in which Emanuel wrote this:

This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just alloca- tion of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future genera- tions, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.

So, according to Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, health care advisor to President Obama, the elderly with dementia and the young who have neurological disorders should be sacrificed for the common good. I can tell you that as a mom to a four year old girl with severe speech apraxia that prevents her from being able to speak intelligibly, this scares the living hell out of me. If you have a child with autism, cerebral palsy, Downs syndrome, or any other neurological disorder or chromosomal defect that prevents him or her from participating in society in the manner Dr. Emanuel or the government thinks they should, that neurological care would not be guaranteed as basic and would, therefore, not be covered in a government takeover of health care."

http://www.wizbangblog.com/content/...elderly-and-disabled-for-the-greater-good.php

So when you hear talk about death panels, now you're more informed than you were before.
 
Last edited:
How does Sunstein approach end of life care? In 2003 he wrote a paper for the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies arguing that human life varies in value. Specifically he champions statistical methods that give preference to what the government rates as "quality-adjusted life years." Meaning, the government decides whether a person's life is worth living. If the government decides the life is not worth living, it is the individual's duty to die to free up welfare payments for the young and productive.
socially guaranteed as basic.

Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed.


I don't know Fluff, I'm starting to like this "death panel" thing. I think we could apply these definitions to multi-generational welfare families. Or, people that spend their entire lives as Rainbow People, prison lifers, or extreme environmentalist (heck, maybe even politicians). Hummmmm, the possibilities. Of course, the flip side of that, is a person with a hopeless mental condition, say "conservative thinking" might get post-birth-aborted. Hard to say.
 
I don't know Fluff, I'm starting to like this "death panel" thing. I think we could apply these definitions to multi-generational welfare families. Or, people that spend their entire lives as Rainbow People, prison lifers, or extreme environmentalist (heck, maybe even politicians). Hummmmm, the possibilities. Of course, the flip side of that, is a person with a hopeless mental condition, say "conservative thinking" might get post-birth-aborted. Hard to say.

What I'd like to know is, if old people and people with physical disabilities and the pre-born are disposable, adding to that the "physician-assisted suicide" that's getting more popular, what about the hundreds of thousands who are suicidal/mentally ill who WANT to kill themselves and TRY to kill themselves and we go to all the trouble and exorbitant expense to save them medically and THEN pop them in the behavioral health units for therapy and meds and taxpayers pay for them? Letting them off themselves would save SO much money. :p

Seriously, who in the gvt should decide when someone's "quality if life" is "bad" Some people die in their 70s, others in their 90s.
 
This is obviously one of those "10 foot pole" subjects.
But you all know I lack the self restraint to exercise the "10 foot pole" philosophy.....:confused:

This truly has no right and wrong sides, even middle of the road compromises would be
protested heavily by both ends of the spectrum.

I believe we do not do justice to people who have fought the good fight and are at
peace with the fate that lies ahead for them and are ready to exit the world with dignity.

Whether it be illness, disease, accident, trauma, age or whatever....
What gives anyone the right to keep another human here against their will?

Bringing this issue to the table for discussion is indeed progress in my opinion.
 
This is obviously one of those "10 foot pole" subjects.
But you all know I lack the self restraint to exercise the "10 foot pole" philosophy.....:confused:

This truly has no right and wrong sides, even middle of the road compromises would be
protested heavily by both ends of the spectrum.

I believe we do not do justice to people who have fought the good fight and are at
peace with the fate that lies ahead for them and are ready to exit the world with dignity.

Whether it be illness, disease, accident, trauma, age or whatever....
What gives anyone the right to keep another human here against their will?

Bringing this issue to the table for discussion is indeed progress in my opinion.

I believe in Dr Jack

kevorkian1.jpg
 
I believe in Dr Jack

kevorkian1.jpg

Kevorkian pizzed me off because he sought the spotlight.
Had he kept a low profile, he could have taken Dr. assisted suicide to public acceptance.
He was in it for himself, not his patients, which obviously brings every procedure under scrutiny.
 
Another smoking gun when you hear about "death panels."

Chris Wallace interviewed this guy today about this booklet for Veterans (all Veterans, not just older ones). The primary author of the book is Dr. Robert Pearlman, who has been an advocate for assisted suicide and was a contributor in a book on physician-assisted suicide.

In the back of the booklet, they refer you to Compassionate Choices, which is the Hemlock Society (a euthanasia society - my grandma was a member) and The American Euthanasia Society. Both of those references will be removed in the version coming out this year because so many people made a stink, but the testing and other questions in the book are clearly encouraging people to "not be a burden on society."

There has been July 2009 directives to VA health care practitioners where they are told to refer all veterans to this booklet.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/23/sen-specter-calls-hearings-end-life-care-guide-veterans/
 
Last edited:
Would this have gotten rid of Ted Kennedy a long time ago? Looking for a bright side here......call me an eternal optomist ;)
 
These Gov't bean counters and politicians have no idea of what's going to come of forcing this plan through. There will be a lot of people that work hard and pay into this would-be crock of **** plan and expect treatment.

They aren't gonna go home and just die if some bureaucrat tells them they're to costly to try and save. They really have no idea of the monsters they'll create and the terror they'll be bringing down on themselves when they take the hope of life from ordinary people.
 
This is rich.
==========

Obama: This irresponsible talk of “death panels” offends me

posted at 2:00 pm on August 22, 2009 by Allahpundit

I can’t decide which part I like best. The ode to “vigorous debate” from a guy who wanted a bill rammed through Congress before the recess? The tut-tutting about divisive rhetoric from the leader of a party that’s spent the past month demagoguing its opponents as evil-mongering political terrorists? Or the demand from Captain Deficit that we stop putting off until tomorrow the big problems that need solving today?

Actually, this part’s my favorite. From the man who famously told the AFL-CIO in 2003 that he was a big proponent of single-payer:

We’ve all heard the charge that reform will somehow bring about a government takeover of health care. I know that sounds scary to many folks. It sounds scary to me, too. But here’s the thing: it’s not true. I no sooner want government to get between you and your doctor than I want insurance companies to make arbitrary decisions about what medical care is best for you, as they do today. As I’ve said from the beginning, under the reform we seek, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your private health insurance plan, you can keep your plan. Period.

Totally true. And if that private plan you like so much ends up going under because it can’t compete with Uncle Sam’s bottomless pit of taxpayer funding, hey. Exit question: Does he really think running through the same stale talking points week after week is finally going to change the public’s attitude about this? As Fred Barnes notes, this day-in day-out garbage about keeping your plan, etc, has practically devolved into shtick at this point. It’s almost as if he can’t quite believe people might disagree with him, and that if only he keeps repeating himself, eventually his shining logic will seep into their brains. Hmmmm."

video and article here:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/22/obama-this-irresponsible-talk-of-death-panels-offends-me/
========

Obama BS Versus Chris Wallace and Secretary Duckworth after she denied the booklet was there.

WALLACE: I just — I have a problem here. And too often on these shows we say one person said, and another person said.

Secretary Duckworth, I don't know if we're able in the control room to put up the first — the full screen of the VHA directive, but I'd like you to put up the first full screen, if you can.

In the VHA directive of July 2nd, 2009, it says the following on page 8, "Primary care practitioners are responsible for giving patients pertinent educational materials, e.g. refer patients to the 'Your Life, Your Choices' module." I mean, it's just there in black and white on the VHA directive of July 2nd."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,541820,00.html
 
Premium Features



Back
Top