It’s about time that the left finally gets what’s going on with ObamaCare, but I have to say it took them long enough! Obama may be trying to hide the fact that he aims to save money by pushing the elderly and terminally ill out the door but it is blatantly obvious from the bills that are before Congress and from the stimulus bill that’s already been signed into law (as Henoff notes):
I was not intimidated during J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI hunt for reporters like me who criticized him. I railed against the Bush-Cheney war on the Bill of Rights without blinking. But now I am finally scared of a White House administration. President Obama’s desired health care reform intends that a federal board (similar to the British model) — as in the Center for Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation in a current Democratic bill — decides whether your quality of life, regardless of your political party, merits government-controlled funds to keep you alive. Watch for that life-decider in the final bill. It’s already in the stimulus bill signed into law.
The members of that ultimate federal board will themselves not have examined or seen the patient in question. For another example of the growing, tumultuous resistance to “Dr. Obama,” particularly among seniors, there is a July 29 Washington Times editorial citing a line from a report written by a key adviser to Obama on cost-efficient health care, prominent bioethicist Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel).
Emanuel writes about rationing health care for older Americans that “allocation (of medical care) by age is not invidious discrimination.” (The Lancet, January 2009) He calls this form of rationing — which is fundamental to Obamacare goals — “the complete lives system.” You see, at 65 or older, you’ve had more life years than a 25-year-old. As such, the latter can be more deserving of cost-efficient health care than older folks.
If you have a parent or grandparent on Medicare with chronic disease (what senior citizen doesn’t have a chronic disease? Very few, I’m sure), this is a really fearful piece of legislation.
Here’s the money quote:
“Remember that legislation itself is only half the problem with Obamacare. Whatever bill passes, hundreds of bureaucrats in the federal agencies will have years to promulgate scores of regulations to govern the details of the law.
And anyone who has dealt with the IRS knows what it’s like to deal with a federal bureaucrat. I certainly wouldn’t want my life in their hands.
Go read the rest of the article because he recaps all that there is to fear in this legislation and the reason for the number of seniors at these town hall meetings. Any seniors who will be attending a town hall meeting, ask your representative about the death panel language in the stimulus bill that’s already been signed into law.
Update: Here’s the article from Betsy McCaughey on the language of the stimulus bill that sets up a council that controls what your treatments are appropriate:
The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.
But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”
posted August 19, 2009 at 11:00 am
If you have a parent or grandparent on Medicare with chronic disease (what senior citizen doesn’t have a chronic disease? Very few, I’m sure), this is a really fearful piece of legislation.
How embarrassing for you.
posted August 19, 2009 at 12:08 pm
um, i hate to point out the obvious here… none of the legislation talks about changing medicare or medicaid (which i should mention are also GOVERNMENT run health plans that people are happy to have).
also, it’s fine for mr. hentoff to form and maintain his own opinions – the right wing media can influence many people with their talking points – but he’s not “the left” by any stretch of the imagination, so don’t misrepresent the fact that there is great support from the left, center-left, and center for health care change in it’s current various forms.
“ask your representative about the death panel language”
yes, michele, feed them your lies and your fear-mongering language, put the words into their mouths so they don’t have to read the legislation and understand it for themselves.
posted August 19, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Anonymous reincarnate: You did nothing whatsoever to address the “Quality-Adjusted Remaining Years” formula that is central to Obama’s plan. Feel free to elaborate.
PS: Please be specific about the fact that essentially as you reach maximum life expectancy you wont get any care at all because your formula approaches zero…
posted August 19, 2009 at 2:10 pm
rjflorida, you did nothing whatsoever to show us all where exactly this plan of obama’s is, and where said formula exists. please feel free to provide links of actual legislation written by obama or even by the house (and not right-wing speculation) with quoted text to such a formula.
i can’t elaborate on something that doesn’t even exist. nice try though.
if you would like to discuss QALY in theory, that’s fine. but we must also discuss the growing ranks of the uninsured within the same picture. if we should ever get an additional government option that offers affordable health insurance to the many uninsured, how many more will be fully covered compared to some who might have to buy generic stool softeners instead of a brand name?
“Please be specific about the fact that essentially as you reach maximum life expectancy you wont get any care at all because your formula approaches zero…”
hm… have you ever heard of medicare, medicaid, or personal health plans??? you’re talking about a plan that doesn’t even exist yet, and should it eventually exist, you’re assuming that everything that is available today going away. based upon what? not upon reality, not evidence.
the nightmare scenarios are great for scaring people, but are just not realistic.
posted August 19, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Nat Hentoff wasn’t that afraid of Dick Cheney who wanted to send tanks into the streets to arrest some amateur terrorists whom the FBI took down without a shot…and he’s afraid of Obama and this silly death panel stuff?
When are people going to realize that such decisions are already made by insurance companies, and with far less transparency and no perceptible accountability????
Michele talks about government bureucrats on “death panels” who can’t be fired. Can she tell me the name of a single insurance company bureaucrat who was fired for denying someone care because it cut too deeply into company profits?
C’mon Michele…give us a name!
posted August 19, 2009 at 4:01 pm
“Can she tell me the name of a single insurance company bureaucrat who was fired for denying someone care because it cut too deeply into company profits?”
are you kidding? these are the very same corporate bureaucrats who move up in the ranks to become VPs, presidents, and executives of those companies. i’ve watched reports of how the insurance companies have incentivized this activity of denying to pay for needed care.
“When are people going to realize that such decisions are already made by insurance companies, and with far less transparency and no perceptible accountability????”
robert, here’s an investigative report that exposes exactly what you’re saying: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/23/cbsnews_investigates/main2843007.shtml
posted August 19, 2009 at 4:08 pm
and another: Insurers shun those taking certain meds
this one is a great read, by the way.
posted August 19, 2009 at 4:21 pm
a congressional investigation found that,
face it, HMOs and other “free enterprise” for-profit insurance companies have an obligation to their shareholders to maximize profit by minimizing pay-outs.
posted August 19, 2009 at 5:12 pm
hear it from a long-time insurance company insider turned whistleblower.
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.LiveStream&Hearing_id=6f02dcc8-ad5b-445c-81ca-36c9b06ebdd5 (jump to 30:30 to hear just his testimony) i apologize in advance for the long “cut-and-paste” and i strongly encourage you to watch the video.
Testimony of Wendell Potter, Philadelphia, PA Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
June 24, 2009
posted August 20, 2009 at 5:44 pm
An answer to Nat Hentoff, Michele, and the others who are so paranoid on this point…
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/08/really-there-will-be-no-death-panels-volume-7846.html