The Obama Death Panel "Rumors" - The Times Looks Everywhere But The Mirror

The always-reliable NY Times probes deeply into the question of why these death panel rumors swirl around Obama, helpfully likening them to the rumors about Obama being a Muslim or not an American:

False ‘Death Panel’ Rumor Has Some Familiar Roots
By JIM RUTENBERG and JACKIE CALMES

WASHINGTON — The stubborn yet false rumor that President Obama’s health care proposals would create government-sponsored “death panels” to decide which patients were worthy of living seemed to arise from nowhere in recent weeks.

Advanced even this week by Republican stalwarts including the party’s last vice-presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, and Charles E. Grassley, the veteran Iowa senator, the nature of the assertion nonetheless seemed reminiscent of the modern-day viral Internet campaigns that dogged Mr. Obama last year, falsely calling him a Muslim and questioning his nationality.

Let's see - as candidate and President Obama has talked endlessly about the need to reduce health care costs, although his plans for doing so are opaque.

And in the course of talking about runaway costs and ways to reduce them, Obama actually advocated end-of-life panels issuing voluntary guidelines with Timesman David Leonhardt, as reported in the Times; by way of introduction, Obama had been discussing the story of his grandmother, who was terminally ill with cancer when she had an expensive hip replacement procedure so that she would not be bed-ridden for the last three to nine months of her life:

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.

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.

So as of April 2009 Obama himself expected the final legislation to include some sort of group (but NOT a "death panel"!) that would produce voluntary guidelines for end of life care with an eye towards saving money. 

And now Obama is plagued by scurrilous rumors that his legislation will include groups that issue guidelines for end of life care with the goal of saving money.  Fortunately, the Times has looked everywhere but their own candidate and their own website and firmly concluded that the rumors are false.

That is a characteristically great effort by the Times.  We look forward to their hard-hitting coverage of the latest installment of the John Edwards debacle.

[BELATED PILING ON:  In their own coverage of the Obama interview Peter Baker of the Times wrote this on May 1:

Some conservatives have cited Mr. Obama’s story to make the case that his plan to expand access to health care and reduce costs ultimately will result in rationing, of the kind that might have denied his grandmother the surgery unless she paid the bill on her own.

“To me, Obama is laying out the intellectual case for health care rationing while acknowledging the potential human costs of such a policy,” wrote Matthew Continetti on the Web site of the Weekly Standard magazine. “He’s saying that, in order to contain costs, under a universal health care program his grandmother might have been denied that hip replacement, or forced to pay for it herself. This is the natural consequence of a universal policy, which would bankrupt the country without some form of rationing care.”

Evidently, once Sarah Palin spoke the Times forgot their own interview and their own reporting].

HOW VOLUNTARY?  And how voluntary will these imagined guidelines be?  Doctors that are currently free to prescribe painkillers volunteer not to, to avoid hassles from the DEA.  Mightn't doctors prefer to follow the "voluntary" end-of-life guidelines rather than risk Federal examination of their taxes, expenses, hiring decisions, and payroll?  That would depend in large part on how aggressively the government chose to push the "voluntary" guidelines. 

Based on the current public reaction to these "rumors" I would imagine that the Feds will steer clear of this, for now anyway.

BY WAY OF CONTRAST:  The Wall Street Journal editors think the death panel talk is "over the top" but opines that seniors have a point:

Elderly Americans are turning out in droves to fight ObamaCare, and President Obama is arguing back that they have nothing to worry about. Allow us to referee. While claims about euthanasia and "death panels" are over the top, senior fears have exposed a fundamental truth about what Mr. Obama is proposing: Namely, once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, rationing care is inevitable, and those who have lived the longest will find their care the most restricted.

They do tackle Obama's gramdmother:

Before he got defensive, Mr. Obama was open about this political calculation. He often invokes the experience of his own grandmother, musing whether it was wise for her to receive a hip replacement after a terminal cancer diagnosis. In an April interview with the New York Times, he wondered whether this represented a "sustainable model" for society. He seems to believe these medical issues are all justifiably political questions that government or some panel of philosopher kings can and should decide. No wonder so many seniors rebel at such judgments that they know they could do little to influence, much less change.

Hmm, he "seems to believe these medical issues are all justifiably political questions that government or some panel of philosopher kings can and should decide"?  He did believe some independent (and presumably wise) panel should provide guidance on end-of-life care.

Comments

[Extraneus]

Yes, and it wasn't just Section 1233 that she was talking about, either. From her facebook entry last night (H/T narciso):

As I noted in my statement last week, nationalized health care inevitably leads to rationing. There is simply no way to cover everyone and hold down the costs at the same time. The rationing system proposed by one of President Obama’s key health care advisors is particularly disturbing. I’m speaking of the “Complete Lives System” advocated by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the president’s chief of staff. President Obama has not yet stated any opposition to the “Complete Lives System,” a system which, if enacted, would refuse to allocate medical resources to the elderly, the infirm, and the disabled who have less economic potential. [1] Why the silence from the president on this aspect of his nationalization of health care? Does he agree with the “Complete Lives System”? If not, then why is Dr. Emanuel his policy advisor? What is he advising the president on? I just learned that Dr. Emanuel is now distancing himself from his own work and claiming that his “thinking has evolved” on the question of rationing care to benefit the strong and deny the weak. [2] How convenient that he disavowed his own work only after the nature of his scholarship was revealed to the public at large.

It is rationing that will necessitate "death panels," not this simple-to-remove Section 1233. That's her whole point. These are the death panels, in Obama's own words:

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.

[Thomas Collins]

TM, my concern is that the structure of any ObamaCare legislation, which no doubt will include administrative rulemaking authority, will result over time in health care regulatory authorities exercising "death panel" authority in substance, although there will not be a Panel of Death in form (even prior to the recent public outcry, there were no explicit "death panels" in proposed legislation). You have pointed out in several of your posts that doctors may steer their patient care practices to avoid regulatory hassles. One can imagine doctors "on their own" engaging in death panel counseling if they are worried that some bureaucrats will decide that they have too high a "score" of prescribing certain medications and ordering certain procedures. For this and many other reasons, the only responsible way to proceed is a careful, line by line, word by word and phrase by phrase analysis of any health care bill to be voted on, such scrutiny to be done not only by Senators and Reps, but also by all attentive publics. And if that takes until 2011 or 2012, fine.

[narciso]

They doth protest too much, don't they say Medicare and Medicaid are the big draws on the deficit, who do they cover. Whose care
is progressively more expensive, and isn't there an intergenerational obligation. How many economic and social theorists see abortion not as a necessary evil, but virtually as a panacea. We're venturing into
a "Brave New World" people

[Kenneth Ashford]

Extraneous:

You emphasize Obama's choice of words: "independent group that can give you guidance". That doesn't strike me as a "death panel" that makes life-or-death decisions FOR the patient, unless you assume (as you probably do) that Obama used those words with a wink. Especially when he says that those giving guidance will not do anything that is "determinative".

Perhaps an "independent group that can give you guidance" on things like living wells (e.g., how to get one, etc.) and hospice care (e.g., where to find one, etc.) means just what it means. You should at least open yourself up that possibility, rather than leap -- for no reason -- to the conclusion that what Obama REALLY MEANS is "death panel".

There are legitimate concerns with some of the health care proposals out there. The fact that some people are focusing on things that don't exist is a pretty good sign that they're happy with factors that actually DO exist.

Finally, Tom, it's a bit of a cheap shot to say that "Obama's plans" for healthcare are "opaque". Unlike Hillary's attempt to reform health care in the 1990's, the Obama White House is not drafting the legislation -- Congress is hashing it out. Obama has put forth, by his own admission, general guidelines. He's leaving the details up to the people's representatives in Congress. What is so bad about that?

[Thomas Collins]

Extraneus, Dr. Palin is in the process of giving ObamaCare a political enema (draining out the refuse for all to observe). Narciso, the danger of a "Brave New World" has always existed in human history. There are always folks willing to use the lastest technological developments and the fears and neuroses of humans to gain power in a tyrannical polity. The idea that all humans are on the same level of Creation and have an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is always under assault and must be defended anew each day.

[BumperStickerist]

The issue'd be settled if instead of "Single Payer" model we simply went to a "Group Risk" model.

Everybody's part of the same risk pool and premiums are set based on the claim history or using an actuarial model. (note: actuaries are one professional group noticeably absent from Obama's talks)

The upside of this is that the people living healthy lifestyles pay the same premiums as everybody else.

20 year olds pay the same as 80 year olds.

Gays pay the same as Straights.

Women the same as men.

You're paying one share out of the total.

[Janet]

"Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists." and "... some independent group that can give you guidance."

Exactly...who are these groups, and experts? I brought up the Terri Schiavo case in the other thread (some didn't like it!) - but my point was that those pushing the "no food or water" plan were presented in the WaPo as some neutral Doctors, which they most definitely were not.

From the WaPo 3/22/05 - "Medical, Ethical Questions Largely Decided, Experts Say"

"Ronald Cranford, like other doctors who have examined Schiavo, found that she cannot respond... . Cranford, a neurologist and medical ethicist at Hennepin County Medical Center in Minneapolis, has testified on behalf of Schiavo's husband."

and that was it for the background of Dr. Ronald Cranford. In reality, he is the go-to doctor if you want the no food or water plan. He was the 1992 featured speaker for the pro-euthanasia Hemlock Society. His nickname for himself is "Dr. Humane Death". He wrote a 1997 op-ed in the Minn.-St. Paul Star Tribune where he advocated starvation of alzheimer patients.

I really want to know who are the people writing these health care bills. Is Dr. Cranford helping?

Anyway, between health care, and global warming, I'm pretty much done with "experts".

[ensi]

Would you idiots just please shut up. From Amy Sullivan:

Remember the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, the one that passed with the votes of 204 GOP House members and 42 GOP Senators? Anyone want to guess what it provided funding for? Did you say counseling for end-of-life issues and care? Ding ding ding!!

Let's go to the bill text, shall we? "The covered services are: evaluating the beneficiary's need for pain and symptom management, including the individual's need for hospice care; counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning."

The only difference between the 2003 provision and the infamous Section 1233 that threatens the very future and moral sanctity of the Republic is that the first applied only to terminally ill patients. Section 1233 would expand funding so that people could voluntarily receive counseling before they become terminally ill.

[hit and run]

TM changed the JOM tagline:

Evil-Mongering 24/7

Now I feel completely at home.

[Doctors less concerned with dollars]

Los Angelenos Flock To Free Health Clinic

10:18 am

August 13, 2009

comments (1)

Recommend (5)

byline goes here

By Scott Hensley
medical marijuana california

Dental patients at a free health clinic at the Forum arena in Inglewood, Calif. (John Moore/Getty Images)

As the debate over the administration's plan to remake health care rages on, some folks are taking direct action to bring medical help to the uninsured.

Remote Area Medical, an aid outfit that got its start helping villagers in the Amazon Rainforest, is running a free, eight-day-long clinic in Los Angeles for people in need.

Hundreds of people started lining up Monday for a chance to get their teeth fixed, eyes checked and various other maladies cared for at the clinic, which opened Tuesday.

In an opinion piece, the Los Angeles Times observes, "The scene makes a compelling case for a healthcare overhaul, putting a human face on the dry statistics about uninsured and underinsured Americans."

But Stan Brock, Remote Area Medical's founder, tells the New York Times the group just wanted to offer charity for people who need it--not become part a debate on health care. Even so, he says, he's delighted about the focus the president's plans have brought to health care.

NPR's Howard Berkes reported last month on the group's tenth annual clinic in Wise, Va., where 2,700 people were treated over three days. A survey of those who came for care revealed that 51 percent were uninsured, 40.3 percent were on Medicaid or Medicare, and only 7.3 percent had employer-provided or private insurance. Fewer than 1 percent of patients had dental or vision insurance.

The clinics have had at least one unanticipated side effect. Wendell Potter, a former insurance executive turned industry critic, credits his change in thinking to seeing the RAM clinic at the Wise County Fairgrounds in 2007.
I k now all you want to focus on is the 'end' but there is healthcare desperately needed by the 'have nots'

Not that you give a shit.

[Captain Hate]

Section 1233 would expand funding so that people could voluntarily receive counseling before they become terminally ill.

How stupid were you before you became a terminal idiot?

[Birthers to Deathers]

"Section 1233 would expand funding so that people could voluntarily receive counseling before they become terminally ill."

You've obviously missed the point of these posts.

[hrtshpdbox]

Section 1233 would expand funding so that people could voluntarily receive counseling before they become terminally ill.
Like when they're feeling fine, but just old and achy and whatnot. It makes perfect sense - if 80% of health costs are a result of the final few weeks of life, just cut to the chase and remove the possibility of those weeks arriving in a natural manner. I know that I trust my government to advise me competently on these matters - why wouldn't I?

[gmax]

Would you idiots just please shut up.

You must be the speech writer for Obama! I marvel at your ability to turn a phrase. And if the polls dont show a positive response, it just takes awhile so keep it up. In fact double down and send out your minions using a townhouse memo to issue the same call on the internet. Maybe you can have the speaker and her top lieutenant sing the second verse?

[Captain Hate]

Would you idiots just please shut up.

How does our ass taste, ensi?

[Ignatz]

--Perhaps an "independent group that can give you guidance" on things like living wells (e.g., how to get one, etc.) and hospice care (e.g., where to find one, etc.) means just what it means. You should at least open yourself up that possibility, rather than leap -- for no reason -- to the conclusion that what Obama REALLY MEANS is "death panel".--

That's a strawman. Nowhere does Extraneous say that Obama is merely winking and is actually relishing the appointment of the first Death Panel Czar.
The point Ex and Palin and others are making (and it is not for "no reason", it is because of the history of nationalized healthcare in other countries) is because government health care by necessity leads to rationing which inevitably leads to life or death decisions that are currently not made in the current system. And that the risk of unaccountable bureaucrats making such decisions in a government monopoly is far greater than a system in which people are free to choose what company and what coverage they prefer.
And with the demographics as they are the pressure of withholding expensive, marginal care will only increase.

Word to the left; Death Panel is a euphemism, and apparently a rather effective one, for the consequences of government imposed waiting lists and life shortening cost controls which are inevitable under any public plan.

[Rob Crawford]

and it is not for "no reason", it is because of the history of nationalized healthcare in other countries

Not just other countries. Look to Oregon.

[Pofarmer]

Where's DoT???

Wasn't he wanting to discuss health care?

[Extraneus]

Perhaps an "independent group that can give you guidance" on things like living wells (e.g., how to get one, etc.) and hospice care (e.g., where to find one, etc.) means just what it means.

I don't think Obama was talking about that at all. Read the quotes in Tom's post. There's no "difficult moral issue" with living wills, powers of attorney, etc. What's difficult, and a moral issue, is to make "political," cost-based decisions about human lives, and what treatments society should provide. In other words, to empanel an "independent" group of "doctors, scientists, [and] ethcists" to provide "guidance" to doctors about end-of-life care.

[narciso]

This is the way it worked in Oregon, in the LUN, which is where Blumenauer who put in Sect. 1233, is from:

[Ranger]

Well, if you ask me, the line that really made the "Death Panels" resonate wasn't that over worded answer in a newspaper, it was his response to the woman who wanted to know that there would be some consideration of the person, not an impersonal set of rules making health care decisions:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/21/video-let-them-eat-painkillers/>Jane Sturm told the story of her nearly 100-year-old mother, who was originally denied a pacemaker because of her age. She eventually got one, but only after seeking out another doctor.

“Outside the medical criteria,” Sturm asked, “is there a consideration that can be given for a certain spirit … and quality of life?”

“I don’t think that we can make judgments based on peoples’ spirit,” Obama said. … “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking painkillers.“

Tough luck granny. You may be the most amaizing person in the world, but the rules say no pacemakers for people over 90.

"Death Panels" are just the means to impliment Obama's vision of end of life care. It is that vision that people are objecting to.

And on a political note, I have to say that pushing this through now, but not actually starting the new system until 2013 is one of the stupidest things I've seen. It is going to turn 2010 and 2012 into national reforendums on Obamacare. And from the looks of things, that will be a loser for the Dems. It will nationalize local politics in a way that is normally very hard to accomplish.

[raconteur]

Charles E. Grassley, the veteran Iowa senator, the nature of the assertion nonetheless seemed reminiscent of the modern-day viral Internet campaigns that dogged Mr. Obama last year, falsely calling him a Muslim and questioning his nationality.

But the rumor — which has come up at Congressional town-hall-style meetings this week in spite of an avalanche of reports laying out why it was false — 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). (2nd graf of article)

Yes, folks it's the usual panoply of degenerative liars whose history we well know.

Iraq, Executive Privilege, outing a CIA operative. It's all there.

Context is everything. Consider the source.

[caro]

There is a huge difference between meeting with family, doctors and lawyers of your choice to talk over end-of-life issues and having your case discussed by ObamaCare's ethics panel. I wonder how many conservative voices would be represented on such panels.

[Appalled]

What a slippery little article that was. Perhaps I have just gotten too used to the internets for my own good, but you'd think the NYT would at least have linked to the sources of the rumor, if they were going to talk about it.

But no. This is MSM. We just have to take their word that the way they have charactarized the "rumor" is accurate.

[Extraneus]

Major Garrett gets results.

White House Reviews Names of Recipients of Unsolicited E-Mail on Health Care

After a testy exchange between FOX News and White House spokesman Robert Gibbs over an e-mail list, the White House says it will review names of recipients who received unsolicited information to determine how they ended up on a distribution list sent out by the East Wing.

[Heavenly Host]

"Tough luck granny. You may be the most amaizing person in the world, but the rules say no pacemakers for people over 90.'

It is even more sad when you think of all those people whose life has been extended by therapies and drug innovation mostly apply to 'sypmtomatic' alleviance (while they often lead to side-effects which are as bad, or worse than the disease they are supposed to treat) rather than directly addressing the physical origin of the problem.

Such persons of advanced age are breathing, but the quality of their lives makes them even more aware of the eventuality.

We are all going to die eventually, but it is more profitable for the Medical Industry to synthetically 'keep us alive'.

[Jim Ryan]

outing a CIA operative

Richard Armitage started this death panel brew-ha-ha, too?

[narciso]

No, we don't, unless they have a link to the text in question. I know it's hard to do that on dead tree, but the links should
be cited, on their internet edition. I've noticed this with the coverage on Time, Newsweek, et al. It talks about what they think is in the bill, but they don't refer
to what's in it.

[Rich Berger]

"Omnipotent clarity" - Gibbs sure can turn a phrase. I would think that clarity can be achieved without being all-powerful. Sort of a passive gaze or well-crafted speech.

But then he's no GWB.

[Jane]

After a testy exchange between FOX News and White House spokesman Robert Gibbs over an e-mail list, the White House says it will review names of recipients who received unsolicited information to determine how they ended up on a distribution list sent out by the East Wing.

And never ever ever get back to him with a real answer I suspect.

[Porchlight]

Bet you they either claim they have no idea how that happened, or that the emails were spam.

I'm curious - did anyone "report themselves" to [email protected] and then later get an email from Axelrod?

[Janet]

caro @ 11:04 - there will be none. I cringe whenever I hear a leftist refer to "quality of life"......as defined by whom?

[hit and run]

the White House says it will review names of recipients who received unsolicited information to determine how they ended up on a distribution list sent out by the East Wing.

Well, sure. Now these names, who through no apparent fault of their own, got on the WH email list and complained about it to Fox News, will have their names handed to the WH who will now know them as Obama-opposing rabble rausers.

I'm glad I didn't send an email I got from the WH to Fox News.

I mean, what could go wrong?

[Porchlight]

I notice that the trolls are moving from "there will be no rationing" to "there will be rationing and there should be." The left always shows its true colors eventually.

[Extraneus]

What I saw yesterday was that there's a contact info form at whitehouse.gov, and a privacy policy which says that they or their "agents" [shudder] could contact you with news and updates. I bet it has nothing to do with [email protected].

[Porchlight]

hit, for what it's worth, Major Garrett told Laura Ingraham this morning that he got a bunch of new folks forwarding Axelrod emails to him and giving him (Major) permission to give their names to the WH. As in "yes, give my name to Gibbs, because I want him to explain why I got this email."

Brave souls.

[hit and run]

Hey, Porch!!! I'm leaving in 10 minutes!!!

See you soon!!!

More exclamation points needed!!! Insert here!!!

[Porchlight]

Yay!!! See you soon!!!!!!!!!!!

[Parking Lot]

((I wonder how many conservative voices would be represented on such panels.))

Even before the Obamacare chit hit the fan, I read forum postings written by liberals anticipating the happy day when all the old fogeys would be gone. It's the old fogeys, you know, who are throwing sand in the machinery of 'moderate', tolerant and progressive social changes like homosexual marriage.

[hit and run]

Extraneus:
What I saw yesterday was that there's a contact info form at whitehouse.gov, and a privacy policy which says that they or their "agents" [shudder] could contact you with news and updates.

Sure, and you can surely also (conjecture) send an email asking to be removed from their mailing list.

But, uh, you want your name on that list, the one where you ask to be removed?

[Porchlight]

Extraneus,

Perhaps, but some people are saying they got emails and have never visited whitehouse.gov or filled out any form.

FWIW a HotAir commenter yesterday said he created two new email addresses for the purposes of testing. From one address he sent a "good" "snitching" email to [email protected], reporting the "bad" "fishy" address.

He got an Axelrod email at the "bad" address, and nothing at the "good" address.

[caro]

Do libs realize that they will be out of power some day and the panels could be manned by pro-lifers that will do everything to throw sand into the engine of ObamaCare?

[Parking Lot]

((Do libs realize that they will be out of power some day and the panels could be manned by pro-lifers that will do everything to throw sand into the engine of ObamaCare?))

Going by the gloating I heard after 0 was elected, I think the 0bots seriously think they will be in power forever.

[Jane]

Caro,

That's what I keep asking - So you are okay with George Bush determining whether you live or die.

No response, as always.

[Parking Lot]

((Perhaps, but some people are saying they got emails and have never visited whitehouse.gov or filled out any form.))

I understand that people now have to register at the Whitehouse web site even if they just want to read presidential speeches. The Whitehouse site was not like that when Bush was president.

EVEN THE PRESIDENT'S **PUBLIC** SPEECHES ARE NOT OPENLY ACCESSIBLE??

WHERE IS THE TRANSPARENCY????

[Old Dad]

Frothing Lib: Nowhere in any of the proposed legislation will you find any language that directly allows the government to pull the plug on grandma.

The Mob: No, but the proposals do inevitably invite rationing of care, and the President has explicitly outlined scenarios in which care might, in his view, reasonably be withheld from the elderly. Moreover, he is proposing, voluntary or not, that bureaucrats get involved in end or life planning, a sacrosanct activity that heretofor has been the sole purview of families and of medical professionals that the families invite and compensate. You can see how a rational person might be concerned?

Frothing Lib: No you nazi wingnut.

[sylvia]

I am constantly amazed at how bad/stupid liars so many politicians are. And actually people in real life in general. But you'd expect politicians, being people who are good speakers, out in public a lot, etc, to be a little better at this lying thing.

The best thing to do when caught in something is not say anything, or say as little as possible. Be vague. Do NOT deny -because it always comes back to haunt you. He should have said, "Ms. Hunter is a good friend of mine and beyond that I have no comment on Ms. Hunter".

Being vague is what I try to do in my life, seems to work for me. But I've had friends who were chronic liars and always got caught.

I'm starting to think that many people enjoy the lies. They know they will get caught but they don't care. They just enjoy the game playing that goes with the lying. I think it's a milder, more common symptom of sociopathy. Sociopaths love to lie and play little games to fool people. Makes them feel powerful. And variations of this psyche disease may be more common in politicians. They are often little sociopaths. So that might explain their constant inept behavior in these matters.

[Lesley]

Shannon Love over at the Chicago Boyz has an interesting post up on "The Dangers of Decompartmentalized Health Care Spending." Key graf: Seniors have another reason to be nervous. Obama’s plan will put them in direct competition with everyone else for health care spending.

Chicago Boyz/Shannon Love

Mark Levin quoted part of Shannon's article on his radio show yesterday.

[sylvia]

I'm talking about John Edwards above, just to make it more clear. Forgot to put his name in there.

[Janet]

O/T

Squeaky Fromme is out of prison...where she was serving a LIFE SENTENCE LUN

We have become lawless...

[Ignatz]

--The best thing to do when caught in something is not say anything, or say as little as possible. Be vague..........Being vague is what I try to do in my life, seems to work for me.--

Not sure if you meant to admit that but it does seem to speak volumes.

[sylvia]

I meant to admit it. Everyone does wrong things once in a while. Sometimes you confess, sometimes you don't. It depends who you are dealing with and what level of disclosure you owe them. Sometimes it's just none of people's business. But it's better than an out an out lie.

[matt]

So how would the Obamacare juggernaut have dealt with the AIDS crisis in the early 80's?

At the time, a new a very scary disease was identified in the gay bathhouses of San Francisco. The mayor, Dianne Feinstein, refused to follow the recommendation of her public health officials, who had identified the bathhouses as the nexus of the disease.

There was a national firestorm of fear, and yet it was determined fairly early on that the disease was transmissable via unprotected sex or transfusions.

There was a massive public relations campaign to promote HIV/AIDS research funding. Many billions of dollars were redirected from other programs into AIDS research, and yet the fact was that it affected only a small minority of the population.

Breast cancer research was deeply affected, and many researchers found themselves without funding. Breast cancer kills 40,000 -45,000 individuals per year. AIDS kills 10,000 - 12,000 individuals/year. AIDS is preventable.

So who makes the call, Mr. President?

[Tom Maguire]

Finally, Tom, it's a bit of a cheap shot to say that "Obama's plans" for healthcare are "opaque". Unlike Hillary's attempt to reform health care in the 1990's, the Obama White House is not drafting the legislation -- Congress is hashing it out. Obama has put forth, by his own admission, general guidelines. He's leaving the details up to the people's representatives in Congress. What is so bad about that?

Cheap shot? I'll show you a cheap shot!

Well. Obama can't have it both ways. If he doesn't have a plan, but just guidelines, well, per the April chat with the Times he expected the final legislation to include panels giving guidance on tough end of life decisions.

I assume the marketing team won't be calling them "death panels", but since the context was his grandmother's decision to get a hip replacement despite a terminal cancer, I don't think we are just talking about counseling on living wills.

But when pressed on this point his defenders (e.g., at the Times) claim that the current House bill has no such language, so the whole rumor is false.

Now you see it, now you don't, or, when is a plan not as plan?

It's too bad - Obama's comments to the Times were a perfectly plausible attempt to tackle a difficult question. But end-of-life care is an issue which lends itself to demagoguery, and having Obama's side pretend he said nothing at all on the topic does not exactly restore that lost trust.

[sylvia]

"and having Obama's side pretend he said nothing at all on the topic does not exactly restore that lost trust."

See, that ties in to my lying theories above. I can't say Obama is a really bad liar, as far as politicians go. He seems to well versed in the art of the slip and slide and the back track and the half truth, as compared to the usual blatant lie. He is def good at being vague. Maybe too much so, which is why he is such a mystery. But he is definitely trying to have it both ways here. He's looking for the reaction, and then he's adjusting.

[bgates]

Hm. It's a "cheap shot" to say Obama has plans for health care, when in fact he's left it to Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy('s sober staff) to create the vast nation-warping legislation he's announced is his top priority.

Of course, Obama is involved in health care planning at some level, witness the secret deal with PhRMA he (and they) lied about having.

[Extraneus]

Rudy Giuliani weighs in.

“The reason for the concern about the death panels is the legislation and the claim by the president that he will cover thirty to fifty million people without cost, and any time you say it’s without costs you raise a number of concerns.”

“It has to be with cost, because it costs money with every single person that is covered. That cost has to come from somewhere, which means something has to be cut,” the former Republican presidential candidate explained. “So where are you going to decrease services? There is a great fear that it will be by cutting off care for the elderly.”

Like former Alaska GOP Gov. Sarah Palin, Giuliani insisted that some of the president’s “closest advisors” have advocated for the creation of “death panels” to determine the course of treatment for some elderly and infirm Americans.

“If they’re concerned that they’ve created this massive groundswell that is worried about death panels, the only ones they have to blame are themselves,” Giuliani said of the Obama administration. “If they would like to end it, they should change the legislation, remove all these end of life panels, remove these czars and come clean with the American people that it is going to cost them a lot of money.”

[Klink]

OK, Bottom line comes down to this. The govt. runs 2 different types of health care plans now. Medicare/medicade, which we all know is going bankrupt as we speak. Good job of running things there wouldn't you say. The other is the VA. Being a disabled vet I have first hand knowledge of this system. While wait list for treatment are very long, over a year in most places, The treatment is poor, and this is not blaming the doctors or nurses as the funding just isn't there. In all reality the VA fails most vets and make most like me have to pay high insurance premiums so that I can get appropriate care in the private sector and yes treatment in the VA is subjective to what they think you need not necessarily what will improve your life. With the Govt's failure in the small piece of health care they now run how is even remotely possible they would be successful here.
The idea of health care reform is a good one. We need to look at things that will actually lower the cost not change who we are paying our monthly premiums to. BTW when they say our debt will increase by 250bil. That's just unpaid premiums that we still have to pay which will actually make this more expensive than the current system. Just wait till 2020 when the actual cost of health care will be triple what it is now and your federal taxes will be about 25-30% your gross income. Why do you think the European countries are trying to get rid of their socialized health care and opening up medicine to privatization.

[Extraneus]

This today from the ever fisk-worthy Paul Krugman...

Some pundits claim that Mr. Obama has polarized the country by following too liberal an agenda. But the truth is that the attacks on the president have no relationship to anything he is actually doing or proposing.

This was in the context of the swiftboat-like, totally discredited "death panel" thing.

[Fresh Air]

This discussion reminds me of the Joe The Plumber moment. Little slips reveal a lot when your entire agenda is hidden.

Or was hidden.

[bgates]

One nice thing I can say about the presidebt: he's not ducking the criticisms, he's willing to face the press.

[PeterUK]

"Let's go to the bill text, shall we? "The covered services are: evaluating the beneficiary's need for pain and symptom management, including the individual's need for hospice care; counseling the <<>> with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the <<>> regarding advanced care planning."

Beneficiary sounds so much better than "Those who are about to die".

[Pofarmer]

And on a political note, I have to say that pushing this through now, but not actually starting the new system until 2013 is one of the stupidest things I've seen. It is going to turn 2010 and 2012 into national reforendums on Obamacare. And from the looks of things, that will be a loser for the Dems. It will nationalize local politics in a way that is normally very hard to accomplish.<;i>

Aw, geez Ranger, I hate this, but I have to disagree. Not starting the new system till 2013 is a very shrewd move. Get it passed EARLY so people can forget about it. Don't enact it before the 2012 Presidential elections so people don't have a chance to fully hate it yet, or see the repercussions. It's the best chance to get it enacted, plus get another 4 years.

[Xanthippas]

"So as of April 2009 Obama himself expected the final legislation to include some sort of group (but NOT a "death panel"!) that would produce voluntary guidelines for end of life care with an eye towards saving money."

Add this to the endless list of blog posts that go with the "Okay so they're not really death panels but STILL" rationalizing of this ridiculous meme.

Also, I like how a serious and completely warranted discussion about the cost of end of life care, and the willingness of most Americans to either willfully or out of ignorance cling to every last bit of treatment to live even hours, days or months longer, even if it's a vegetative state, now becomes a warning about "death panels." You people are a joke, you know that? Right now we have people dying in agony in hospitals because they don't know any better (or health care workers or relatives won't let them die) but because you've got some kind of paranoid fantasies about the government providing a public insurance program to people who don't have any insurance, we're not allowed to even talk about this subject.

Look, do us a favor. If you can't have a serious discussion about this, then put down your signs, quit showing up to meetings yelling about things that aren't going to happen, and let the adults take care of this problem, okay?

[en friend]

Sen. Johnny Isakson (R) of Georgia said this week that the "death panels" talk is "nuts," but has spent the rest of the week trying to convince reporters that his own support for end-of-life planning is far different than House Democratic proposals for end-of-life planning. It was put in the bill at his and other Republicans urging

But more important is the fact that if we look at the original Isakson plan on voluntary advance care planning, we find that the conservative Georgia Republican actually proposed mandatory end-of-life counseling for Medicare beneficiaries. In other words, Isakson wanted to go further than House Democrats on this. Under his proposal, "If you turned 65 and failed (or refused) to file a living will, you simply wouldn't be able to use Medicare."

And as long as we're on the subject, let's also not forget that Sarah Palin, who introduced the ridiculous notion of "death panels" into the lexicon, has some experience on this issue: "April 16th 2008, then Gov. Sarah Palin endorsed some of the same end of life counseling she now decries as a form of euthanasia."

Palin, it seems, was for end-of-life counseling before she was using it to scare the bejesus out of confused conservative activists. So now you know the truth. Start twisting!

[Ignatz]

Missed it by one key, Po.

[Pofarmer]

I just italicized the page, sorry.

[Good Lt.]

How about a panel of wise Latino bureaucrats whose richness of experience in life is superior to that of a typical American and whose judgments on matters of end-of-life care would be better than, say, a white bureaucrat's decisions on end-of-life care for our seniors?

Hey, if that "logic" was good enough for admission to SCOTUS, surely it must be good enough to work for a simple little thing like everyone's end-of-life care!

ALL HAIL OUR ALL-KNOWING PHILOSOPHER KINGS IN GOVERNMENT!

[Ignatz]

--we're not allowed to even talk about this subject--

By all means talk all you want about administering pain pills rather than pacemakers and doctors coveting our childrens precious tonsils.
And continue to call those concerned about the government expanding it's reach confused and ignorant children, mobs, nazis or any other of the effective "serious discussions" your side is having.
Your talk is a very effective public emetic so by all means talk up a storm.

[Janet]

Ha! Great point Good Lt.

[Jane]

Hm. It's a "cheap shot" to say Obama has plans for health care, when in fact he's left it to Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy('s sober staff) to create the vast nation-warping legislation he's announced is his top priority.

~~~

OT but since Ted was unable to go a mile or two to his sister's funeral, I would guess he has about 30 days before following suit.

Wanna bet Deval Patrick names himself as a replacement? (actually I probably wouldn't take that bet.)

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

I have never been to the whitehouse.gov page nor ever signed up for any kind of email notices from the Obama campaign. However, I began to receive emails from Obama after he was elected and not long after Hillary made her deal with Obama. I think part of that deal was to turn over her email contact list. I had signed up during the primary for Hillary updates. That is the only explanation I have for how I got on the Obama/Axelrod list.

[Jim Ryan]

They're not death panels. They're just bureaucrats charged with reducing the costs of expensive end-of-life care in a government insurance program that will always be straining not to go bankrupt. And they provide counseling on hospice and palliative remedies. No one's saying death panels. They're not death panels. England and Canada don't ration patients to death, do they? Well, okay maybe fifteen years out, they'll be death panels but right now, they're not death panels. At least not literally in the bill, as such.

[PeterUK]

"willingness of most Americans to either willfully or out of ignorance cling to every last bit of treatment to live even hours, days or months longer, even if it's a vegetative state".

Xanthippas,Like everyone else,"You will not go gentle into that dark night". So stop talking tough, you miserable little excremental worm.

[Fresh Air]

Zero is the one who insisted this health care plan would reduce the deficit. How that's supposed to happen without reducing the costs on the end-of-life treatments (that comprise what, 80 percent of total medical costs?) is beyond me.

He's the one who made the stupid argument to begin with. Now perhaps Sherlock can explain how that's supposed to happen.

[Thomas Collins]

Xanthippas, which adults are you talking about? Those who support a British style system? Those who are shocked at any assertion that ObamaCare will lead to single payer when Obama has been quite explicit in the past that single payer is what he thinks is the best system but that, given what we have now, we have to move in steps? Steps to where, Xanthippas? Or should we right wing nuts just shut up and let the "adults" such as you figure out the steps.

Regular commentators on this blog have suggested such steps as tort reform, removing barriers to insurers selling across state lines, expanded reliance on health savings accounts, and eliminating mandated coverages. You may in good faith disagree with some or all of these proposals. But to expect folks who support these proposals and oppose Obama's to stop carrying signs and shut up is to expect them not to take advantage of rights which Bush's opponents readily used. And, Xanthippas, to talk about not yelling about things that aren't going to happen belies either an unwillingness to confront the logic of legislation that moves us closer to single payer, or an ignorance of the relevant literature. I suspect from your post, Xanthippas, that you are not ignorant, but are simply being clever. I suspect that you fully realize that the direction in which Obama and the Dems are leading will eventually lead to "death panels" in substance if not form. If you support this, fine. People of good faith often disagree. Simply have the intellectual honesty to confront the consequences of the continued socialization of health care and the eschewing of market reforms.

By the way, Xanthippas, I realize that market reforms aren't perfect, because people aren't perfect under any framework. But going the way of the market reformers will lead to a better health care framework than the one leading to single payer. If you disagree, speak up. But don't expect those of us who oppose the direction in which Obama is going to be intimidated by the childish scoldings of you and other "shut-uppers" who have posted comments.

[Appalled]

X:

Also, I like how a serious and completely warranted discussion about the cost of end of life care, and the willingness of most Americans to either willfully or out of ignorance cling to every last bit of treatment to live even hours, days or months longer, even if it's a vegetative state, now becomes a warning about "death panels." You people are a joke, you know that? Right now we have people dying in agony in hospitals because they don't know any better (or health care workers or relatives won't let them die) but because you've got some kind of paranoid fantasies about the government providing a public insurance program to people who don't have any insurance, we're not allowed to even talk about this subject.

Look, do us a favor. If you can't have a serious discussion about this, then put down your signs, quit showing up to meetings yelling about things that aren't going to happen, and let the adults take care of this problem, okay?

OK, you want a "serious discussion" about how Americans cling to life without regard to cost, and then complain that certain folks have paranoid delusions about what the government might do in this arena?

Can you at least retain some internal consistancy in what you are trying to say? Either you want protocols about end of life care overruling the wishes of thae family or the patient, or you don't. But please do not argue that the public needs to sit down and let the adults take care of them, if you aren't willing to say that I want to substitute my judgement (or a committee of wise folk's jusgement) for the status quo approach to end care. If I read you right, you want to flip the switch earlier than it is currently flipped by most family members...

I guess I'm trying to find how a "death committee" charge would be unfair, when launched against your viewpoint...

[PeterUK]

"They're not death panels. They're just bureaucrats charged with reducing the costs of expensive end-of-life care in a government insurance program that will always be straining not to go bankrupt."

Anyone who has made a claim through a government bureaucracy will go cold reading that. Bureaucrats are the last species that should be involved at the end of a life.

[Extraneus]

And just as phony charges arise anew of a resurgent malitia movement in response to a black man being elected president (same schmoe released almost identical study on 11/15/08 out of the same Southern Poverty Law Center), we get this:

Black Man Pleads Guilty to Posing as Obama-Hating White Supremacist on Facebook

Speaking of which, I heard Mark Levin tell a story about Saul Alinski last night. It seems that when G.H.W. Bush had been nominated U.N. Ambassador, he was to speak at some college, and the students wrote ol' Saul to ask what he thought of their plan to protest and shout Bush down. Alinski chided them for an unimaginative and potentially risky plan (since they might face school disciplinary action). Instead, he suggested that they don KKK sheets and carry signs in support of Bush.

I hadn't ever heard about that, but it apparently went well for the low-life lying scum agitators.

[Jim Ryan]

Anyone who has made a claim through a government bureaucracy will go cold reading that.

Precisely. Apologies if my sarcasm was too dry.

[DougS]

There was an interview by Jack Tapper with Dr. Emanuel today for ABC. Emanuel said that he no longer thinks we have to ration medical care and make those decsions because the amount of waste in the system will make health care a non-scarce resource if we can just stop the waste. He concludes that he no longer believes in the Complete Lives system for allocating health care to the most productive. Oh My!! What a stupid way to backpedal with even more nonsensical rationalization. Will Obama have the guts to say this nutty response?

I did not make this up. Check ABC and the link from Hot Air.

Is it getting hot for ObamaCare?

[Thomas Collins]

I think we should give Xanthippas a round of applause, because he or she has provided a useful window on some of the talking points to be used by those making another attempt to push ObamaCare through. The main thrust of the talking points will be to try to marginalize those supporting market reforms and opposing further socialization of US medicine as right wing crazies who do nothing but yell and screech about non-existent death panels. An attempt will be made to suppress discussion about the inexorable logic of going the socialization route instead of the market reform route.

By the way, are any of those complaining about yelling and screeching going to address TM's calm point, made in many of his posts on health care, that administrative rules may give doctors incentives to counsel avoidance of certain treatments or medicines? Certainly those calling we commenters crazies must recognize TM as a sane adult. Or is anyone now who doesn't march in lockstep with the Obama/Reid/Pelosi Axis of Statist Theology a crazy?

[Ranger]

Get it passed EARLY so people can forget about it.

Posted by: Pofarmer | August 14, 2009 at 01:54 PM

Normally I would agree with you, but not about health care. I think the fear of what will actually happen when it goes into effect combined with the mounting deficit numbers will cause people to keep thinking about it and give the Rs an issue to nationalize the local (house and senate) election and a powerful issue in 2012. Add to that what will keep being discovered in the 1000+ page monstrosity that eventually passes. Each new discovery will fule further debate, thus keeping the issue alive for a long time. 2012 will be the "last chance" to stop Obamacare, and I bet that brings a lot of seniors out to the polls. Just my take though.

[Thomas Collins]

See LUN for another right wing crazy screecher ranting about health care. :-))

[PeterUK]

Jim
I thought so.But you have to spell it out for the "adults".

[Janet]

"Ms. GAIL ANDERSON (Forensic Entomologist): We've clearly shown that it's not unusual, certainly for ankles, legs, feet, to become detached."

That's a quote from an NPR article- LUN

A commenter at Powerline (Joecotton)was wondering if the cost of amputation was a bit high seeing that it isn't unusual for them to just become detached on their own.

[EBJ]

The Dems have spent decades scaring Grandma about Repubs taking away her social security and medicare. And now the Dems say they want to have a serious conversation? Dude?

[TG Chicago]

And now Obama is plagued by scurrilous rumors that his legislation will include groups that issue guidelines for end of life care with the goal of saving money. Fortunately, the Times has looked everywhere but their own candidate and their own website and firmly concluded that the rumors are false.

Well, when you're figuring out whether the legislation contains "death panels", where else would you look other than the legislation?

What does it matter what Obama has said previously? If it's not in the bill, then people who say it is in the bill are liars.

By the way, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich both supported end-of-life counseling before they decided to demagogue the issue for political purposes:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_08/019481.php

In fact, all Republicans who voted for the Medicare prescription drug benefit supported it as well:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_08/019488.php

[Elizabeth R.]

You know what's so cute about all the "let's kill off the fogeys" posts? The fact that these idiots don't even realize there's another batch of fogeys coming up right behind in a big assembly line--and that they'll be there themselves in fogeydom in what will seem like the blink of an eye.

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

My Mother celebrated her 90th birthday standing on the Great Wall of China. 6 mo. after returning from that 3 week trip to China, she had a hemorrhagic stroke in the occipital lobe of her brain which caused the loss of her vision on the left side, called "left side neglect." While she was at a therapy session to learn how to compensate for this "left side neglect," a distracted aid allowed her to walk into a wheelchair left in the hallway, she fell and broke her hip. She didn't need a replacement, but she did need surgery and 4 pins in her hip. I am absolutely convinced by other remarks and recommendations that had the hospital not felt responsible, they never would have done the surgery. I'd already been told to "just put her in a nursing home and come visit once a month on Sundays."

Anyway, they did the surgery and 4 months later, this is my Mother setting our table for a big Thanksgiving holiday meal.

And here she is with me 2 years later as we take a hiking break at Yosemite.

So instead of being relegated to lying in a bed, subject to all kinds of secondary problems from bed sores, to muscle atrophy and even more brittle bones, and the biggest killer of all of bedridden patients, pneumonia, she was leading a happy and active life.

Was she productive? My son says he wouldn't have gotten through his college English and Lit classes without her tutelage and editing skills for his papers, my Granddaughter says that it was "Grandma who first told her she should think about a singing career because she has perfect pitch." Mother noticed her talent and then did everything she could to encourage her to go for it. She is now performing at both DisneyWorld and Universal while she pursues her degree in music as a college freshman. And I have the satisfaction of getting to know my Mother one on one as two adult women and not just as her child. Something I wouldn't trade for anything. And my d-i-l, who dropped out of h.s. at 16 to run away from a home where she was subjected to both physical and sexual abuse from her father and brothers, credits Grandma for convincing her to go get her GED and then register at the local community college to get her AA.

So maybe she wasn't productive in the go to work each day sense, but her contributions after her stroke were many and many lives were touched by her still being with us instead of left to die because she had the bad sense to wait until 90 to have her first major medical problem.

[EBJ]

Your Mom sounds like a cool lady, Sara, with lots more to do on this earth.

[Parking Lot]

bgates ... meeting the press .... lol!!!!!!

[narciso]

Obama's been stalked by his own statements to Leonhardt (who talked up the Nazi stimulus last spring) those of OMB advisor
Emmanuel, Cass Sunstein, regulatory czar,
John Holdren, science czar, and the experience in Oregon, not to mention the NICE commission in England, and the track record out of Holland. None of this was made up, no matter how deep you want to memory hole it

[Jim Ryan]

TG, still waiting for the link proving that Palin was in favor of government health insurance that would need to control costs of end-of-life health care before she was against it.

Thanks for the link about how she was in favor of providing information about end-of-life planning, though. Good for her!

[PeterUK]

Barack Hussein Obama - Unplugged.

[Extraneus]

Do they really think old people won't understand that distinction, Jim? They must be in a complete panic now, especially over the fact that it could become common wisdom that it was an incompetent, uneducated (yet still pretty scary) rube from Alaska who applied the coup de grâce, with a few facebook posts.

[Extraneus]

Great LUN, Thomas!

[Thomas Collins]

See LUN for an article on the health care views of Tom Daschle, Obama's preferred pick for HHS Secretary. Keep in mind that Daschle's nomination was withdrawn because of tax problems, not because Obama had lost confidence in Daschle's views on health care.

Yes, Daschle's Federal Health Board was not named "Death Panel." However, the logic of Daschle's views, which one may reasonably think reflect Obams's given Obama's prior statements and preference for Daschle for HHS Secretary, would lead to "death panel" type decisions.

Although I think that market reforms are the way to go, I respect the good faith of those who support socialized medicine. What I don't respect is the current "What, me favor socialized medicine and death panels?" talking points of those who clearly are simply executing a temporary retreat before the next onslaught.

[Jim Ryan]

Peter's link is very good.

[bgates]

"If it's not in the bill, then people who say it is in the bill are liars."

This reminds me of the Iraq debate. Democrats voted for a bill that gave the President the authority to use military force. Nowhere in the bill did it say we would invade. When it turned out that as a consequence of the bill's passage we did invade, Democrats were astonished. How could something happen as a result of legislation that was not explicitly stated in the text of the legislation?

They seem to have trouble with that concept still.