Palin vs. Obama: 'Death panel' debate

From an interview this spring with the Times:

[[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.

DAVID LEONHARDT: 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.]]

Sounds like Obama is talking about groups making decisions, now, doesn't it? I just wouldn't call them "death panels."

Palin;'s comments do not deserve to be weighed as a viable disagreement with the president. They are blatantly false and the perfect example of fear-based politics. Everyone in the media needs to be laying out the facts on this and condemning the comments of Palin, Grassley and others who insist the president wants to kill certain Americans. Ridiculous...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

This is the most idiotic lie I've heard out of the Repubs in .... well, days. Palin couldn't handle questions from the press and couldn't handle the job of Governor of Alaska, so she quits. What a complete loser. She ran Wasilla into debt, did the same to the state, lied about the "bridge to nowhere", taking the money and who knows where that went. Is so ignorant that she thinks resigning will keep her out of jail for corruption, and now wants to be the facebook leader of a party of old white men that wouldn't know facebook from a phone book. Repubs, you already have the trifecta of stupidity in Rush, Ann, and Malkin. Do you really need one more complete imbecile speaking for you? Didn't you get tired of being represented by a moron for eight years? There is no such thing as a "death panel", but if there were, Beth, it would be very tempting to put you and the rest of these idiots on trial.

If you are serious about this debate on healthcare, here is some helpful information.
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/stephen-hawking-defends-care-in-the-uk/?pagemode=print
Stop with the lies, distortions and scare tactics. It is beneath America, to stoop to such lows, concerning people lives and health.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Beth, how dare you make a mockery of Mark Silva's attempt to spin the story for his bosses, Obama and Axelrod?
Also, at a "town hall" meeting earlier this year, Obama said that perhaps one would be better taking a painkiller than to have the surgery.
As an Illinois state senator Obama was against a bill that would let an aborted baby live. In other words, he is in favor of killing a baby that survives an abortion.
Anyway, it's nice to know that Mark still goes to Palin's facebook page to get his daily fix in.

@Beth:

Obama said 3 or 4 times in the quote that the experts would "guide" decisions -- decisions TO BE MADE BY THE PATIENTS IN CONSULTATION WITH THEIR DOCTORS. Are you so twisted up by the politics that you'd rather do violence to the English language than acknowledge the utter reasonableness of his position? The "panels" cannot make the decisions, but they can provide guidance. What's so bad about that?

Anyone who says we're now a post-racial society as a consequence of Obama's election is delusional (actually, such people are uniformly Republican). This rabid rage inspired by a valid policy question can only be explained by racism. Sane people do not go ballistic over what is ultimately a very wonkish topic. As I've said elswhere, not all Reform Opponents are racists, but I'd bet my bottom dollar that every (pro-white) racist in this country is a Reform Opponent.

Palin has moved from clueless to psychotic. Her polls are dipping steadily and I'm surprised she still garners any support.

As I understand it, counseling by a patient-chosen professional would be an OPTION that would be encouraged and provided for. If you have terminal cancer, are your affairs in order? Would you prefer chemo or a hospice? As it stands now, private insurers don't always cover this difficult decision. Similarly, neo-natal counseling would be available as an OPTION.

For her to suggest that some bureaucrats will be giving granny the thumbs up or down is lunacy.

Hey, " John D ", you can come up with better lies than that !! I know I have had the misfortune of stumbling over one or two !! Don't you get tired of the garbage you post !! I know, I do !! That is the beauty of this great country, you can get away with such nonsense !! So, knock yourself out, with all that garbage you are hauling !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Mr. Fitzgerald who are you to call someone a liar. You are not objective in your comments.
You must be a paid poster or a party hack.
You have too much time on your hands...

"Also, at a "town hall" meeting earlier this year, Obama said that perhaps one would be better taking a painkiller than to have the surgery."

Sometimes that is very much the case John D. Sadly there are times where the chances of surgery extending the patient's life are almost nil. When balanced against the additional risk and the additional suffering the surgery would bring to the patient, it simply does not make sense to proceed with it. Moving to hospice care is a very difficult decision, with many factors that must be weighed carefully. That's why it is really a very good thing that the proposed bill covers payments for patients to meet with their doctors to discuss these incredibly important issues in detail.

Palin is right. You should not be allowed to consult with your doctor about end of life issues. That sort of thing should be illegal. Hospice care should be illegal. Living wills should be illegal. We should force people to be kept alive on respirators. We need the government to intervene forcefully like they did in the Terri Schiavo case to ensure that people have no say in their treatment at the end of their life. Freedom is being kept ignorant and being forced to take medical treatments against your will!

Sorry, Don, but no lies. Obimbo has said this. Now, if you want to talk about lies, we can go into Obimbo saying AARP has endorsed his health care plan. It hasn't. Or that he says it's budget neutral. It isn't. Or that everyone will be covered for less cost. Not possible.

Don, this is what Obama said: I don't think that we can make judgments based on people's spirit. That would be a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that say that we are going to provide good, quality care for all people. End-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we're going to have to make. But understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they're not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they're being made by private insurers. At least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what, maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery but taking the painkiller.

And, Lou, I am very familiar with end-of-life decisions and moments. As this exact scenario occurred in my family last year. Surgery did extend one's life and that person was able to attend a family reunion and see all of her children, grandchildren, great children, neices, nephews, in-laws, etc. one last time. And this person had the time of her life.
Those decisions should be made by the family and the doctors, not some government bureaucrats or panel.

Those decisions should be made by the family and the doctors, not some government bureaucrats or panel.

Posted by: John D | August 13, 2009 1:47 PM

Yes, John and that's the point. There is no proposed
"government panel" in the plan when it comes to end of life issue. There is no bureaucratic involvement. The only thing the plan would do is to compensate your doctor for his/her time to discuss these issues with you. Don't you think that is a good thing? I'm happy for your family member. In my family we had relatives go through both the wrenching decisions to go to hospice and to terminate life support. These are terrible decisions. I simply don't understand the hostility from the right towards supporting doctors talking to their patients iabout these issues and letting them know what all their options are. Did your family's doctor discuss options like hospice with them? If they did, should they have been compensated for their time?

* * * * *
Posted by: Beth | August 13, 2009 9:02 AM
.
Beth,
.
I have plenty of my own reasons to dislike the House health care bill (and the rest of them), but the “death panel” spoken of by Sarah Palin isn’t one of those reasons. A fair reading of the House health care bill, in particular, reveals that there is no provision for a “death panel” to cut off a patient’s health care benefits, or euthanize him or her, based on a committee decision. It’s just not there.
.
The only “committee” the bill would create is the “Health Benefits Advisory Committee” - which is the body that would be tasked to formulate the basic “essential” (i.e. minimum) health care benefits required in any qualified health benefits plan. But they wouldn’t be making decisions about individual patients. They would be making decisions about all basic health care plans. Thus, what Sarah Palin is saying is simply false. (And since she has repeated it after having enough opportunity to learn the truth, I don’t think she is doing this innocently either.)
.
There are other problems with the bill that (IMHO) are much more troubling. I question whether Congress has the constitutional power to control health care as provided for in the bill. There is nothing in the constitution that permits control or regulation of health care - even under the rubric of regulating “commerce” or the “spending clause.” I also doubt the constitutionality of the individual mandate - as it would force people into involuntary doctor-patient relationships and contractual obligations. The former would violate the constitutional privacy and autonomy rights of an individual, and the latter would arguably violate the “taking” clause of the Fifth Amendment. (The government would be effectively confiscating property by forcing someone to pay for unwanted services. And if they can do that, what can’t they force us to buy?) If a person wanted to consent to such an intrusion, that’s one thing. When foisted upon a person against his will, it crosses the line. I also have no doubt that many people will seek to opt out of the health care program on the ground that shared medical coverage would violate their Free Exercise of Religion. (This would become especially problematic if the DHHS requires, by regulation, services or treatment for conditions arising from bad personal habits like drug use or risky sex.)
.
Then there is still the sticky subject of whether the bill will fund and/or require reproductive services like abortions and contraceptives. A substantial number of private hospitals could shut down if either are mandated or funded (and specifically those run by the RCC). The problem is, however, that the bureaucracy created by the current House bill (i.e. the Health Benefits Advisory Committee and the DHHS) could go either way on that issue unless the bill is amended to specifically prohibit it.
.
For all the pseudo-liberals out there, there are also grounds to complain about the structure of the health care system set up in the House bill. Despite the lack of a “death committee,” there is nothing in the bill to prevent the Health Benefits Advisory Committee and the Department of Health and Human Services from lo-balling the basic “essential” services package to omit, or by regulation exclude, specific life sustaining treatments or services to the elderly or other less “worthy” people. While it is true that a patient can still pay for more services than those in the minimum “essentials,” insurance companies and health care providers will have no obligation to provide extra services to those who are too poor to afford more than the minimum package. Thus, the bill could effectively enshrine and institutionalize the existing system of rationing and denial of services. Access to quality medical services will still depend on the size of one’s bank account. To those who think that social justice means equal access, this bill won’t do it. It may be a slight improvement over the current system (where people can get care by showing up at an emergency room), but not by much. Of course, we won’t even know what is covered until some time after the bill is passed because the Health Benefits Advisory Committee and the Department of Health and Human Services still have to fill in those blanks. (Are you sure you know what you are buying into?)

@ John W:

I lack the time/motivation to do the research, however I'd be all but dead certain the Court has found Commerce Clause powers on matters far more tangential than this. If this is not authorized, then what gave the Gov't power to enact ERISA ?

Re your warning to Pseudo Liberals: I agree. That's why we should have a single payer, universal care system, no questions asked. Fire protection is not a profit-making enterprise; health care should not be either.

"This would become especially problematic if the DHHS requires, by regulation, services or treatment for conditions arising from bad personal habits like drug use or risky sex."

Yeah, heaven forbid we cover those sinful AIDS victims. That would be so unchristian.

Palin is once again doing what she does best...Spreading lies and causing upheavel for what she perceives will be her political gain...End of counseling proposed by Obama is the same as what we now depend on and that is Hospice..{care and counseling for end of life patients}..How she can even look at herself in a mirror is hard to understand...

Would you prefer a panel making decisions, or some high school graduate in a cubicle at a computer terminal?

Health insurance companies favor the latter.

It leaves a lot more $$$ for the multimillion $$$ salaries the top execs make.

Add Rudy Guiliani to the "Death Panel" liars list.

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=313617

The Republicans truly have no shame. They will tell any lie , use any scare tactic.

Well. It will all come out in the wash, won't it. And I don't think Palin will come to the rise.

I'm sure she has her supporters, some of those people are just following her to keep up with the noise she makes. I followed her on twitter just so I could see the posts personally - not because I'm a fan.

Lou, all end-of-life decisions were discussed with doctors and with Hospice individuals. Believe me, no one was cheated of compensation. Anyway, these things have been going on for years (doctors and their patients discussing health, death, etc.) So what is the government doing in this business now? Anyway, didn't I just hear today on WGN radio that the Senate dropped the end-of-like panels but the House still has it?

* * * * *
Posted by: a blinkin | August 13, 2009 3:57 PM
.
ERISA is a horse of a different color. ERISA does not create or require the creation of pension plans or health care benefits. It was designed to protect existing rights in pension plans and/or health coverage plans from fraud and misuse. Furthermore, by its own terms, ERISA applies only to employee benefit plans established or maintained by employers, industries or employee organization engaged in commerce or affecting commerce. (See 29 U.S.C. § 1003(a).) The statute’s own reach is within the bounds of commerce clause jurisdiction. Also, the only court to pass on the constitutionality of ERISA was a District Court in Texas. The U.S. Supreme Court has never passed on the question. In fact, you would be surprised how many statutes have NOT been reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court concerning congressional authority. One of the reasons for this is the lack of standing to sue. A person has to be “aggrieved” by a law to have standing to challenge it. A statute passing out or protecting benefits aggrieves few. Thus, it’s not surprising that statutes don’t get properly challenged for many years after their enactment.

First appointment to Death Panel.

See:


http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/paula-abdul-named-to-obama-death-panel/

So what is the government doing in this business now? Anyway, didn't I just hear today on WGN radio that the Senate dropped the end-of-like panels but the House still has it?

Posted by: John D | August 13, 2009 11:01 PM

What are they doing in this business now? Nothing really. All they are doing is saying that they will pay for the meetings like your family had. That's it. It will be unfortunate for the seriously ill if the lying demagogues like Palin, Guiliani and yourself get this provision stripped out of the final plan. The suffering and dying will be the ones harmed. Great Job Republicans. You made the lives of cancer victims harder.

@John W:

Seems to me you're conflating your Commerce Clause argument with your 5th Amendment argument when you note that ERISA is voluntary, thus distinguishing it from Healthcare reform. The issue, of course, is whether the statute regulates interstate commerce in some identifiable way. That's very low hanging fruit.

* * * * *
Posted by: a blinkin | August 14, 2009 9:35 AM
.
I think you misunderstood what I said. It is true, as you state, that the question is whether the statute regulates interstate commerce (“IC”). The point I tried to make about ERISA is that it is actually within the bounds of Congress’ power under the interstate commerce clause (“ICC”) because, on its face, it is limited to regulating stuff that already has a substantial impact on IC - namely, the existing benefits of people who work in businesses in or affecting IC. It doesn’t create those benefits or require employers to create those benefits. I wasn’t talking about voluntariness - as much as I was drawing a distinction between regulation and creation. The interstate commerce clause (“ICC”) allows for the “regulation” of IC; it doesn’t say that Congress can create IC when there is none.
.
But now that you mention it, I also believe a valid distinction can be drawn between the power to regulate existing commercial activities in IC and involuntarily forcing people into the stream of IC who are not already there. The first is in accordance with intent of the framers. The second is not. It is beyond Congress’ ICC power to regulate activity that does not have a substantial impact on IC. If Congress could involuntarily force everyone into the stream of IC for any given purpose, its ability to regulate everything and everyone under the ICC would be unlimited. That construction is obviously at odds with the intent of the framers to create a “limited” federal government. So, in this sense, it may be legitimate for Congress to regulate the activities of insurance companies that voluntarily trade in IC, but forcing everyone into the stream of IC through the mandate, who are otherwise not engage in IC activity, would be beyond Congress’ ICC powers even if the Constitution had no Fifth Amendment.
.
I also question whether ICC jurisdiction is “low hanging fruit,” as you state. I realize that Congress thinks its low hanging fruit, but it has been wrong a number of times. The ICC provides a very specific regulatory power. The Supreme Court has been consistent in recent years in drawing the line at Congress’ power to regulate conduct that involves or affects “commerce” - i.e. the buying, selling and bartering of goods and services. Unless the regulated activity directly involves commercial intercourse, or impedes or obstructs commercial intercourse, Congress has no power under the ICC to regulate it even if it does cross state boundaries. These are not insubstantial limitations on the ICC power.

A president of The United States has but two jobs. The 1st is to provide for the best military and the 2nd is to provide for the stability of the economy. The president has no other Constitutional obligations. The other "stuff" is total crap. It is none of the Governments business if I smoke, drive a large car, use my fireplace, keep my lights burning all day and night, or if I eat 3 dozen donuts each morning. The Governments job is to spend the least amount of my money with the greatest outcome and mind it's own concerns. Those concerns do not involve placing their heads up my ass to see what I've eaten for lunch. They do not concern my driving habits or for that matter my smoking habits, and they do not ever concern what type of light bulb I use in my kitchen. Mr. Obama's Health care Bill and goal is not to provide Health Care to anyone; it is designed to remove my rights to do whatever I elect to do with my life and that is not one of his Constitutional orders. He is destroying the economy by doing what he can to destroy it. He must either stick to the two areas he is so charged to do and that is to repair the economy and strengthen our military, or he needs to be impeached. it is truly that simple. if he can do his job, perhaps he should get his 8 full years. if not, on 11/6/2012, please show him the door. As much as I find Sarah Palin a bit bothersome, she would have our economy repaired in 30 days. Know how? TAX CUTS, SPENDING CUTS, AND NO SOCIAL PLANNING BY IDIOTS IN GOVERNMENT.