There He Goes Again (Just Don't Call Them "Death Panels")

Somebody call White House flack Linda Douglass at Fishy-1-1 - Mickey Kaus is circulating discouraging arguments suggesting Obama's risky health reform scheme might actually lead to "death panels", and yet again he is relying on Obama's own words:

If, as Harold Pollack argues, "rationing of life-saving or life-extending care" would not really be a priority for the "effectiveness" panels--such as the Obama-endorsed IMAC--then it was all the more stupid to bring the topic up, no?  Here's the first graf from a Bloomberg account of an early Obama health care foray back in April:

April 29 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said his grandmother’s hip-replacement surgery during the final weeks of her life made him wonder whether expensive procedures for the terminally ill reflect a “sustainable model” for health care.

Gee, where could the misinformed town hall crazies have gotten the idea that Obama was thinking about saving money by denying expensive procedures toward the end of life? ... [via Dish]  ... 1:49 P.M.

Ha!  Folks who really want to stick it to Obama and sow hysteria about "death panels" will extract this from Obama's same fateful interview with David Leonhardt of the Times (my emphasis):

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.

So Obama "suspects" that the legislative process will produce some sort of independent group that can give non-determinative "guidance" on end-of-life care for the chronically ill, with an eye towards saving money.  Just don't call them death panels!

Well, as are friends on the left will surely chant in unison, it's not in the bill right now so it is calumny and perfidy to suggest we might end up there.  Even though Obama "suspects" we will.

HOW "NOT DETERMINATIVE" IS NOT DETERMINATIVE: Just how voluntary will Obama's voluntary guidelines be?  If the government posts suggestions on a website and leaves it at that, that is one thing.  But suppose government watchdogs decide that a doctor who routinely fails to comply with the voluntary guidelines ought to be subjected to a full examination of his billing practices, treatment decisions and hiring practices.  How many doctors will "volunteer" to comply with the guidelines rather than deal with that?

Think it can't happen?  There is a cottage industry in helping people with chronic pain get prescription medicine; doctors hate the paperwork and the risk of a DEA investigation.  Obviously this is not a perfect example - some people do get high on opioid pain pills in a way that probably would not apply to end-of-life care. But I stand by the point that doctors will allow a government hassle factor to guide their treatment decisions (and if they followed the voluntary guidelines, how are you going to sue them?).

Comments

[centralcal]

Oh, TM, we know exactly where he is going with these remarks.

Sad thing is, Big O ain't getting any younger himself.

[clarice]

There are five bills--each is different. Obama is not telling us which version he's pimping--just asking voters to support and trust him. No thanks.

This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen and if Congress goes along with this legislation written in the sand, they all deserve to hang from jibbets around the Capitol.

[Barry Dauphin]

End of life care can cost a lot but "...80% of the total healthcare bill out there"? If Bush had said that,... well nuff said.

[bgates]

"...80% of the total healthcare bill out there"?

Potentially, Barry.

Like, if doctors realize Grandma's so high off the blue pill they can do all kinds of amputations and tonsillectomies and no one will notice.

[Sue]

http://patterico.com/2009/08/12/roxana-mayer-im-not-a-doctor-but-i-play-one-at-town-hall-meetings/comment-page-1/#comment-536921>Patterico busted a woman pretending to be a doctor at Sheila Jackson Lee's townhall. The Houston Chron quoted her as one of the pro-Obamacare people asking questions. She also was photographed with Mrs. Jackson-Lee herself.

[RichatUF]

The former governor really got under his skin with "death panels". Good grief, it was a comment on her facebook page. I thought the cool people followed what Meghan McCain writes on twitter.

[Neo]

I'm not a doctor but i play one on television

[narciso]

In her defense, Suzanne did stay at a
Holiday Inn Express once (lol)He'sforgetting
basic Alinsky, you never focus on your own weak point, unfortunately for him it's what
he really believes, so he regards it as his strongest point.

[Melinda Romanoff]

I hate this laptop!

That said, the Owebaminator only means things while he says them. After that, you can't hold him to them, they're the past! Things have changed! 'Cause I said so!

No narcissism here, move along, Thank you.

I also hate Comcast, for the moment.

I'll be in touch.

Congrats DrJ, that is huge! I have a question for you, but I'll follow up in my own oblique manner, noting critical, just curious about what you're trying to measure.

G"Night all.

[narciso]

It's Roxanna btw not Suzanne, I don't know where I got that from, but 'were through the looking glass people, black is white
. . ." I really hate that film with a passion.

[tryggth]

There are five bills--each is different. Obama is not telling us which version he's pimping--just asking voters to support and trust him. No thanks.

Well, its going to be the one with the death panels, right?

[maryrose]

RichatUF:
You are so right.Obama wanted single payer as far back as 03 and we have him on tape. In feb. he was talking a public option as the only answer.
He continues to claim he has support from Caterpillar to reinstate jobs, AArp in favor of his plan -they are not and that these plans will help the economy when they just increase the amount of debt. Anyone else would be called a serial liar- but because he's Obama he gets a pass. He has totally marginalized his opponent Hillary by outsourcing her job and trumping her with her husband. No wonder she's pissed.

[Jim Ryan]

Frame of reference has shifted to the left. A lot of commotion about death panels and end-of-life counseling when the point is this is an attempt to socialize the medical insurance industry entirely, which will result in rationing and which is an enormous infringement of liberty.

Congress proposes socialism. It's best not to get bogged down in whether it will be socialism with or without death panels. Dems could simply take that stuff out of the bill, make it look to the muddle like any conservative who didn't support it after that was simply being churlish.

[narciso]

This bill is like the proverbial 'box of chocolates, you never know what' you're gonna get, but you know it isn't good, Chuck Norris, discovered the visitation procedure, SArah the 'death panels' with
a little more elaboration in the LUN

[Pofarmer]

From Fox News Politics.

News outlets that are focusing on the incendiary rhetoric of conservatives outside President Obama's town hall meeting Tuesday ignored the incendiary rhetoric -- and even violence -- of liberals outside an appearance by former President George W. Bush in 2002.

When Bush visited Portland, Ore., for a fundraiser, protesters stalked his motorcade, assailed his limousine and stoned a car containing his advisers. Chanting "Bush is a terrorist!", the demonstrators bullied passers-by, including gay softball players and a wheelchair-bound grandfather with multiple sclerosis.

One protester even brandished a sign that seemed to advocate Bush's assassination. The man held a large photo of Bush that had been doctored to show a gun barrel pressed against his temple.

"BUSH: WANTED, DEAD OR ALIVE," read the placard, which had an X over the word "ALIVE."

Another poster showed Bush's face with the words: "F--- YOU, MOTHERF---ER!"

A third sign urged motorists to "HONK IF YOU HATE BUSH." A fourth declared: "CHRISTIAN FASCISM," with a swastika in place of the letter S in each word.

Although reporters from numerous national news organizations were traveling with Bush and witnessed the protest, none reported that protesters were shrieking at Republican donors epithets like "Slut!" "Whore!" and "Fascists!"

Frank Dulcich, president and CEO of Pacific Seafood Group, had a cup of liquid thrown into his face, and then was surrounded by a group of menacing protesters, including several who wore masks. Donald Tykeson, 75, who had multiple sclerosis and was confined to a wheelchair, was blocked by a thug who threatened him.

Protesters slashed the tires of several state patrol cruisers and leapt onto an occupied police car, slamming the hood and blocking the windshield with placards. A female police officer was knocked to the street by advancing protesters, badly injuring her wrist.

The angry protest grew so violent that the Secret Service was forced to take the highly unusual step of using a backup route for Bush's motorcade because the primary route had been compromised by protesters, one of whom pounded his fist on the president's moving limousine.

All the while, angry demonstrators brandished signs with incendiary rhetoric, such as "9/11 - YOU LET IT HAPPEN, SHRUB," and "BUSH: BASTARD CHILD OF THE SUPREME COURT." One sign read: "IMPEACH THE COURT-APPOINTED JUNTA AND THE FASCIST, EGOMANIACAL, BLOOD-SWILLING BEAST!"

Yet none of these signs were cited in the national media's coverage of the event. By contrast, the press focused extensively on over-the-top signs held by Obama critics at the president's town hall event held Tuesday in New Hampshire.

The lead story in Wednesday's Washington Post, for example, is headlined: "Obama Faces 'Scare Tactics' Head-On."

"As the president spoke, demonstrators outside held posters declaring him a socialist and dubbing him 'Obamahdinejad,' in reference to Iran's president," the Post reported. "People screamed into bullhorns to protest a bigger government role in health care. 'Nobama Deathcare!' one sign read. A young girl held up a sign that said: 'Obama Lies, Grandma Dies.' Images of a protester wearing what appeared to be a gun were shown on television."

On Sunday, The New York Times reported that a Democratic congressman discovered that "an opponent of health care reform hanged him in effigy" and was confronted by "200 angry conservatives." The article lamented "increasingly ugly scenes of partisan screaming matches, scuffles, threats and even arrests."

No such coverage was given to the Portland protest of Bush by The New York Times or the Washington Post, which witnessed the protest.

[Steve]

That Obama sure loved his grandmother. Didn't he also call her a racist?

[Steve]

>>"Patterico busted a woman pretending to be a doctor at Sheila Jackson Lee's townhall. The Houston Chron quoted her as one of the pro-Obamacare people asking questions. She also was photographed with Mrs. Jackson-Lee herself."

The pretend-doctor was also an Obama delegate.

[AL]

I am kind of lost here. Please, explain me what I’m missing.

Most of end-of-life patients (older than 65) are already under single payer system, that is federal government via Medicare or VA. VA care even is administered by federal government run hospitals (like GB health care).

So how on Earth Obama is planning to reduce end-of-life care spendings by extending single payer system and government-run hospitals to the rest of population?

[liontooth]

So Obama "suspects" that the legislative process will produce some sort of independent group that can give non-determinative "guidance" on end-of-life care for the chronically ill, with an eye towards saving money. Just don't call them death panels!
Well, as are friends on the left will surely chant in unison, it's not in the bill right now so it is calumny and perfidy to suggest we might end up there.

HUH? It is already in the bill.
With Obama's track record of picking malecontents, can you imagine your Doctor being guided (aka ordered) by Bill Ayers on what kind of treatment a non-liberal should be receiving?

SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION.
Pg.427-428
‘‘‘(iii)A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a States described in this clause is a program that

‘‘(IV)is guided by a coalition of stake-holders includes representatives from emergency medical services,emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association,home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association.

[PeterUK]

"‘‘(IV)is guided by a coalition of stake-holders includes representatives from emergency medical services,emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association,home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association."

Who speaks for the dying?

[Extraneus]

Thanks for the link, narciso. Sarah's kicking butt on facebook, isn't she?

But Jim's right. They'll just take that part out of the bill and claim that "We heard you, America. It was never our intent to suggest reducing end-of-life costs with this provision, but we've decided to eliminate it from the bill anyway."

[Parking Lot]

((Congress proposes socialism. It's best not to get bogged down in whether it will be socialism with or without death panels.))

Generic and intellectual references to socialism don't move people as effectively specific applications of socialism. Only the latter makes people understand what a Pandora Box socialism is.

[verner]

If you want to cut down on end of life expenses, all you have to do is implement tort reform. Physicians are afraid of grieving families who want "everything" done on a dieing loved one, even when they are told that it will be a wasted effort. That's why so many old people die in an ICU with all the bells and whistles instead of in their own beds at home with hospice nursing and their families around them, as it should be.

[Janet]

Sorry if this has been posted on another thread...it is video of Leah Wolczko - the CNN caller that did such a good job articulating what the town hall protesters stood for. She does a great job.

LUN

[Captain Hate]

Smart move on Sarah's part to make her points on Facebook. There are tons of Obots there; if you listen closely you can hear them stomping their widdle feetsies.

[Parking Lot]

((.. how on Earth Obama is planning to reduce end-of-life care spendings by extending single payer system and government-run hospitals to the rest of population? ))

I am at a loss about that as well. An editorial from The Christian Science Monitor LUN seems to think that eviscerating Medicare will make Obamacare cost effective.

((By far the largest contributor to the country's ballooning debt is Medicare, the federal program for seniors. New healthcare legislation is the perfect place for lawmakers to commit to sopping up red ink from unmet Medicare obligations of nearly $40 trillion...

... lawmakers can, and should, lock themselves into Medicare reform. They can do this by including in their legislation the establishment of an independent commission to recommend comprehensive changes to Medicare payments and services.

...The White House is pushing expansion of an existing Medicare commission (called MedPac) or the creation of a new one to control health costs. Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller, from West Virginia, is pushing the commission idea in the Senate
))

[sam]

A commission to study Medicare, yet again, is a cop-out, yet again.

Didn't the Breaux Commission do this about a decade ago? And didn't Bill Clinton reject the recommendations?

A commission is the politicians' way of pushing off the tough choices.

[Jane]

So how on Earth Obama is planning to reduce end-of-life care spendings by extending single payer system and government-run hospitals to the rest of population?

Rationing. (you really don't want all that pesky cancer treatment now, do you. Think of your kids and how hard it will be on them. Die baby die.)

[BB Key]

Steve.
Ibama is mad at his grandmother for making up the phony story that he was born in Hiwaii.

[Jim Ryan]

Generic and intellectual references to socialism don't move people.

PL, I agree. Leave out the word "socialism" and make a detailed case that:

1. Individuals have a right to for private insurance contracts without undue interference by federal and state government. These rights are already being violated and will be even more seriously violated under the proposed enormous increase in government interference.

2. Insurance companies have a right to do business without having to compete against a government insurance agency which sells its product cheaper and at a loss and which funds the program by forcing Americans who don't want it to pay for it against their will. People will pay for it against their will every April 15 via the IRS, which will use force to collect, even from Americans who do not participate in the government insurance plan.

3. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are broke, so it would be foolish to create yet another big government welfare program and expect it not to go broke.

4. As in Canada and England, U.S. government health insurance will have to ration health care because of the enormous pressure to avoid bankruptcy. After the government has driven private insurance out of business through unfair practices, this means that all Americans will have their health care rationed. It follows that Americans will suffer and die as a result of government infringement of their liberty to form private contracts.

I'm sure many people could make a much better case than this. But in any even, you're right, there is no need to mention socialism. It's not important.

[Jim Ryan]

Individuals have a right to FORM... ugh.

[adrianne]

I wouldn't be so concerned about this, except Obama's made some pretty odd comments/had some odd policy positions. When you add those all up ... the total's really scary. For example: he voted against the Born Alive Act (twice, IIRC), meaning that an infant who survived an abortion would be denied medical care and left to die; his comments about his own grandmother (as above); his comment to a woman at a town hall meeting a few months back that her 99 y.o. mother should have received a *pill* instead of a pacemaker (which has extended her life another 5 yrs); the comparative effectiveness funding that was shoved into the boondoggle stimulus bill, etc. Once is odd, twice is coincidence, three times is a belief system. Notice, however, that these various bills being tossed around in Congress would NOT cover Obama's family or Congress -- just us.

[jimmyk]

This whole "end-of-life" expenses thing is a bit of a red herring. It doesn't distinguish between extraordinary measures to extend a truly terminal patient's life for a few more days, versus measures that have a chance of prolonging someone's life substantially. Of the latter, many will die but some will go on to live many years. For those who died we call them "end-of-life" expenses, but that's hindsight. I suspect many so-called end-of-life expenses fall into this category. They can't significantly reduce those without causing a lot of people to die.

[jimmyk]

what a Pandora Box socialism is.

The key thing about socialism that has to get driven home is the lack of freedom and choice. Once power is ceded to the government, it's very difficult to take it back, very difficult to control how it evolves, and you will be putting your life in their hands. If you're unhappy with your private insurer you do have options; with the government your only option is to emigrate.

[fdcol63]

I see others on YouTube have already made the same connection I did between ObamaCare and the movie "Logan's Run", where everyone over a certain age (30, in LR) get zapped in a celebratory ritual for the "greater good":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSnLU9nyFSA

Oh, surely Obama and his liberal friends will extend the maximum to 70 or 80 .... for now.

[Old Lurker]

What news re DrJ did I miss per Mel's post above? I have looked and looked but amongst all the troll droppings it is hard to find intelligent life!

[Porchlight]

Good point, jimmyk. In countries where waiting lists are long and the elderly (and others) are forced to wait, like Canada, many of those procedures are not at all extraordinary measures. They are simply expensive ones.

Some, however, are life-extending, and people will die while waiting for them, thus saving the state money. Saving the state money is the point of the waiting lists, whether it is explicitly stated or not.

Great post, Jim Ryan.

And now a little teaser from Drudge:

RASMUSSEN POLL: Obama Approval Rating Falls to New Low: 47 %… Developing…

[centralcal]

Old Lurker, I would answer but it is all over my head! He got a grant from NIH? NHI? for a study? of protein. I am happy for him, just don't have a clue what it all means :)

[fdcol63]

I bet Congress's approval ratings are sinking faster than Zero's.

These town halls are showing just how out of touch ... and elitist ... these Congress people are.

[Adam]

Hey if medical companies (replace with federal government if Obamacare should pass) were to deny you care you can always pay for it out of your own pocket like the other 30+ million Americans else who can't get health insurance. Right? It's no big deal. I don't understand why this is shocking. Deathpanels exist already and they don't base thier decisions on saving taxpayer money. They base thier decisions on how big a cash bonus they wish to receive at the end of the quarter. More death = more profit!

[centralcal]

OL - also, I think the thread about DrJ's news is the "As the debate winds down.." thread.

[fdcol63]

"More death = more profit!"

This is silly. Insurance companies can't continue to collect premiums from dead people. Thus, they'd prefer that you live rather than die.

[Extraneus]

...with the government your only option is to emigrate.

Or...

[Porchlight]

Hey if medical companies (replace with federal government if Obamacare should pass) were to deny you care you can always pay for it out of your own pocket like the other 30+ million Americans else who can't get health insurance. Right?

Wrong. Why do you think Canadians travel to the US to have procedures they can't get in Canada for love or money? They are paying out of pocket.

[Old Lurker]

Thanks!

[Adam]

exactly. Wealthy Canadians travel to the USA to pay cash for healthcare so they don't have to wait. If you have money already then I don't care about your opinion of healthcare. You can afford it. You are fine and stop whining.

People who can't afford healthcare are the problem in our country. They need government assistance.

No American citizen should ever have to choose between healthcare and something else because of lack of money.

[Janet]

You know that send us "fishy" info. website is still up (began Aug.4). The print WaPo hasn't even mentioned it. Hard to believe there hasn't been a shaming of the Admin. to take it down.

[fdcol63]

But most of us don't like the idea of being forced to pay TWICE for care:

1) First, through taxes into a government -run system.

2) Second, so that we can get the care we SHOULD be getting from Step 1.

[Adam]

More death = more profit!"

This is silly. Insurance companies can't continue to collect premiums from dead people. Thus, they'd prefer that you live rather than die.

LOL are you that dense? They aren't going to collect premiums from them anyway because they are going to die and old people don't have incomes. If they deny them care and they die they save money. Giving and 80 year old person a 25,000 dollar procedure means you are literally giving away 25 grand to an old person which you will never get back. If you don't realize that then you are really, really dumb.

[Old Lurker]

Centralcal...I found it where you said.

Belated congrats, DrJ! That really is great news. Be sure to keep us in the loop as the research goes on.

[fdcol63]

And you really, really aren't worth my time.

[ConsDemo]

Hey, if you clowns want to waste gobs of money keeping someone in very ill health "alive" for a short period of time, spend your own. Don´t demand the rest of us do the same. Sarah Palin is a socialist, Medicare financed by the taxpayers, it isn´t "the patients´s money." We face certain bankruptcy if we spend every last cent on the most hopeless causes.

[Original MikeS]

At a glance it appears that the 5 health-care bills under consideration would all do more harm than good, just like the misnamed 'stimulus' bill. That is even before considering the trillion dollar cost of the legislation. Conservatives, on the other hand have some very good, cost free reform plans they have been trying to get passed for years. A much lower cost plan that is already working successfully at one company was outlined by John Mackey in WSJ yesterday.

[fdcol63]

Isn't it interesting that the same people who won't pay for Granny's hip replacement because it's "too expensive" are the SAME people who are willing to pay to keep supporting convicted murderers and child rapists on Death Row and Muslim jihadists in American prisons?

[Captain Hate]

Pretty good troll contest going on: Who is dumber, Adam or ConsDemo? It's almost enough to make me miss that nit NotSean. Almost...

[Pofarmer]

"...with the government your only option is to emigrate.

Or...

Secede"

I'm still thinking that secession may become a lifesaving measure for the States as the Feds run up 8 - 10 Trillion in debt over the next few years and taxes and interest rates skyrocket. It may be a simple act of self-preservation that drives it. Don't know if it will ever happen, but as the U.S. govt starts ramping up costs and fees and ever more regulation, it's going to be more and more tempting.

[Pofarmer]

They aren't going to collect premiums from them anyway because they are going to die and old people don't have incomes.

Those people are already on medicare.

PLUS, if they were on private health insurance, they were probably paying 12k a year for several years, anyway. That would be the actuarial part of the insurance biz, cover future costs with current premiums.

[Jim Ryan]

Adam, can you provide links showing that insurance companies don't cover what they promise to cover in their contracts? There are laws against breach of contract. Are they not being enforced? Please provide links, thanks.

[DrJ]

Thanks, OL!

[What is on that boat?]

Sink the Bismarck! Er, I mean Find the Arctic Sea!

[Jim Ryan]

Heh.

[Highjacking a Russian crewed vessel in European waters for 1.3 million in wood? Iggy?]

More likely, what WAS on that boat?

[Jane]

Ex,

I suspect we will all be Texans soon.

OL - are you on vacation yet?

[Rob Crawford]

If you have money already then I don't care about your opinion of healthcare. You can afford it. You are fine and stop whining.

Not a strong believer in equality, are you?

No American citizen should ever have to choose between healthcare and something else because of lack of money.

Why?

What if they're choosing luxuries -- cell phones, new cars -- over health care? What if they're choosing illegal drugs over health care?

Shouldn't people be responsible for their own choices? Why should responsible people be required to subsidize the irresponsible?

And you are aware that no one is denied medical care merely for lack of money, aren't you?

[Pofarmer]

Today's email from David Axlerod.

Dear Friend,

This is probably one of the longest emails I’ve ever sent, but it could be the most important.

Across the country we are seeing vigorous debate about health insurance reform. Unfortunately, some of the old tactics we know so well are back — even the viral emails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions.

As President Obama said at the town hall in New Hampshire, “where we do disagree, let's disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that's actually been proposed.”

So let’s start a chain email of our own. At the end of my email, you’ll find a lot of information about health insurance reform, distilled into 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about reform and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now.

Right now, someone you know probably has a question about reform that could be answered by what’s below. So what are you waiting for? Forward this email.

Thanks,
David

David Axelrod
Senior Adviser to the President

P.S. We launched www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck this week to knock down the rumors and lies that are floating around the internet. You can find the information below, and much more, there. For example, we've just added a video of Nancy-Ann DeParle from our Health Reform Office tackling a viral email head on. Check it out:

8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage

Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.

Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.

Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.

Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.

Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.

Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.

Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.

Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

I don't see anything here that's going to decrease costs,and, in fact most of these are going to tend to increase costs to insurance companies, and ignore the reasons some folks are charged more than others.

[Liz, you go girl.]

There is a nice article about Cheney in the WaPo with a mention of the Libby case.

[Original MikeS]

Palin calls them "death panels," because they may decide who is going to die from lack of medical care.

Obama insists they should be called "life panels."

Tomato, To mah to.

[Rob Crawford]

Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.

Unbelievable. Twenty-effing-six. An extra eight years of adolescence!

[Extraneus]

Well Jim, it wouldn't be surprising if they're all in breach of contract. After all, Obama has said that insurance companies aren't honest. That's why we need the public option.

"as I've said before, [that] one of the best ways to bring down costs, provide more choices, and assure quality is a public option that will force the insurance companies to compete and keep them honest."

I'd still like to hear the specifics of this dishonesty, though, just to be sure.

[Pofarmer]

Here's the rest.

Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/

8 common myths about health insurance reform
Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.

We can’t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.

Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.

Vets' health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.

Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.

Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.

You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.

No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.

I see most of this as simply spin.

What big subsidies do the insurance companies get?

I thought we just heard through 8 years of the Bush administration how terrible the VA system was?

Maybe I missed something about "end of life" consultations, but around here at least, most Dr's are gonna do that anyway as part of normal care. The Hospitals all already have Social Workers who do this sort of thing everyday.

This whole segment seems to be knocking the stuffing out of strawmen.

[Extraneus]

Ouch.

[Captain Hate]

Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.

This is hilarious. As if regular checkups and test should be done gratis; that doctors and medical technicians should just bend over and work for nothing and insurance companies are eeeeeeeeevil for charging people for this.

When did the concept of "insurance" mean giving stuff away for free? As if the DMV gives me my license plates for nothing when I go in to have them renewed.

[Jim Ryan]

Ex, yes, and if the government can't enforce a simple breach of contract law, how can it be trusted to be honor its own health insurance contracts competently?

Rob brings up personal responsibility, liberty and just deserts. This gets very messy. Can't we just make our decisions based upon our envy and resentment of rich people? It's easier and provides a certain catharsis.

[Captain Hate]

LOL @ LUN. File under "With Friends Like This..."

[Joe]

I saw CNN go absolutely bonkers this morning when Chuck Grassley at a town hall in Iowa said the government should not be involved in end of life decisions. The reporter mentioned about 17,000 times that there are no death panels in Obama's plan, and how could Grassley who is one of the more reasoned Republicans say such a lie...

THE PRESIDENT: ... I don't know how much that hip replacement cost. I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she's my grandmother. Whether, sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else's aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they're terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question. If somebody told me that my grandmother couldn't have a hip replacement and she had to lie there in misery in the waning days of her life - that would be pretty upsetting.

LEONHARDT: And it's going to be hard for people who don't have the option of paying for it.

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.

Kaus quoting Obama on death end of life planning panels.

Given Obama's pattern of throwing friends and family under the bus politically, is it really such a stretch he might support pulling or reducing care for non-Obama contributors strangers who are consuming too many resources?

[Old Lurker]

Jane, "OL - are you on vacation yet?"

You betcha, Jane.

Mrs. Lurker and I are hoping to buy you dinner at Black Eyed Susan's between now and Sep 9.

Without getting too specific, our pals on Nantucket include folks at the top of the Harvard liberal food chain, particularly including some doctor types. We have always enjoyed our polar opposite points of view (I play nice since they own the sailboat)...but this August it's actually fun to kid them about the mess their guy is making.

[sharon]

I told my daughter to start keeping a journal..These are historic times and I don't mean the president..

[Extraneus]

Between all the "present" votes during his tenure as an Illinois state legislator -- which allowed him to substantially avoid taking sides (i.e., do his job) in legislative debates -- Obama took a strong stand on the "Born Alive" Act, not once but twice. Curiously, he's now taking a stand on another death-related issue.

Does Obama have a fetish about death?

[narciso]

He 'threw his grandmother under the bus' than balked at her hip replacement, that alone was a disqualifier for me. When my
grandmother fell and broke her hip, it was a very strong blow for her. Are we dealing with a human being, didn't she raise and nurture him, how does he repay her. More consideration to the father that abandoned
him. Barak Sr and this acquaintance, Frank
Marshall Davis.

Axelrod, yadda, yadda, he forgets when you break people's trust, it doesn't matter what you tell them next. specially if you don't have specifics. Will there more or fewer of these easter eggs in the bill.

[sylvia]

This is a joke. We have MEDICARE people already. It is run by the government and it is a single payer system.

First demand the government rescind Medicare and demand that private insurers expand covering people over 65. Then demand some sort of tax free medical savings account for younger people so that they can save and then pay for their own insurance after age 65.

THEN I will respect your cries for the government not to take over healthcare and end of life decisions. Because right now, people, it's a joke. You are protesting against the very thing that exists and has existed for years.

[sylvia]

And don't give me any wimpy mushy "well we want the Feds to reform Medicare first".

No, that is cheating. Either give up Medicare totally. Or give up this bogus protests against any Fed intrusion on healthcare.

[Bandit]

Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists.

The gov't appointed "ethicist" is here to see you. "Well hello Mr. Reaper."

[CashHog]

"Twenty-effing-six. An extra eight years of adolescence!"

WTF have you been? The vast majority of today's adolescents have extended their teen years to age 40. (Emotional Retardation)

[Rob Crawford]

WTF have you been? The vast majority of today's adolescents have extended their teen years to age 40. (Emotional Retardation)

Ah, but this grants them a government subsidy!

[ben]

"We face certain bankruptcy if we spend every last cent on the most hopeless causes.z'

Who paid for your education??? I would certainly agree that was a waste of money.

[CashHog]

"Ah, but this grants them a government subsidy!"

I'm a little more concerned over the future when this place is being run by co-dependent sociopaths. Taxes will be the least of your worries, my friend.

[Porchlight]

We face certain bankruptcy if we spend every last cent on the most hopeless causes.

So you admit that there needs to be an entity to decide which causes are hopeless and which are not? As in, who will be given life-saving treatment and who won't?

[ben]

"Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists."

Guided means they can write the policy. Obamabot committees will of course be in charge of implementing the policy. Republican grannys will have the plugs pulled first, trial lawyer grannys last.

[Captain Hate]

Maybe the trolls can inform us of how Obastard said we can't have an economic recovery without massive health care reform yet we purportedly have one going on now without Deathapalooza?

Thanks for printing that email, Po since it got me a h/t @ AoS. Also thanks to whoever sent me a link for KLO-AM so I can finally listen to Laura Ingraham w/o massive static.

[Porchlight]

Either give up Medicare totally. Or give up this bogus protests against any Fed intrusion on healthcare.

Give me a break, sylvia. Medicare is horribly inefficient and heading toward bankruptcy. Why wouldn't people protest at the idea of expanding an inefficient, soon-to-be-insolvent program to cover the entire population?

[Original MikeS]

No, that is cheating. Either give up Medicare totally. Or give up this bogus protests against any Fed intrusion on healthcare.

Medicare is not sustainable whether we want it to go on or not. It has gone bankrupt. It is an illusion supported by deficit spending.

There are already insurance companies who offer coverage for things Medicare doesn't cover. No need to "demand" that they cover seniors. Simply allow fair competition.

Our private health-care system is not in crisis. There is a problem with the way we pay for it. (employer provided health insurance) This problem was caused by too much government regulation. Private health care does pay for itself and even makes a profit!

LESS government and more COMPETITION in health insurance and health care will drive the costs down. Competition always works.

[ben]

"You are protesting against the very thing that exists and has existed for years."

Sylvia gets the "non-sequitur" award.

[BumperStickerist]

The other side of the scissors works, too.

Make it a lot easier for people to become doctors.

The increase in supply will lower prices.

[Ron Victor]

Obama's in free fall on this health care issue. The fact that he said on Tuesday that he wasn't for death panels, in itself is an admission that this is an issue. I don't know who's advising him, but I hope they keep it up......http://cooperscopy.blogspot.com/

[Harvey]

"Republican grannys will have the plugs pulled first, trial lawyer grannys last."

THAT's what the hub-bub is all about?

Talk about projection. Just as 'Everyone wants to go to Heaven, but nobody wants to die" the Republicans fear their just-desserts as badly as they fear standing before St. Peter to answer for all their sins.

[Captain Hate]

Yeah Harvey, that's what it's all about you stupid invisible rabbit.

[Pofarmer]

Maybe it's all the HTML in the last part of the email that's killing the post. I'll try to snip that and repost.

More Axletoady goodness.

8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now

Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill.

Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage.

Roadblocks to Care for Women: Women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more:

Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities.

Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured – 13 million people – are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spouse.

The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone.

From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people - one in every three Americans under the age of 65 - were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families.

The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance - projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform.

[ben]

Sylvia is trying the bullshit baffles brains approach.

Medicare has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, except maybe that it is bankrupt.

Sylvia has failed to make one good point against all the objections to Obamacare and instead keeps repeating ad nauseaum "government health care must be good if Canada has it" when we have long past the conceptual discussion on private vs public plans and have been dealing in the specifics for weeks.

[Janet]

"Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists."

Yeah, their expertise worked out well for Terry Schiavo. No food and water was their recommendation.

[Harvey]

"The other side of the scissors works, too.

Make it a lot easier for people to become doctors.

The increase in supply will lower prices."

Are you joking?

There were 885,000 doctors in the US in 2004.

That means a doctor for every 300 people, about the same as the lawyer/population ratio.

It's done a lot for the cost of legal representation, hasn't it?