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

[Extraneus]

Thanks for the link, narciso. Another excellent piece by her. I wonder what the Connecticut ladies will think.

[Porchlight]

Exactly right, Cecil, about the conflation in your post at 8:26.

[PD]

So its so unfair to call them "Death Panels" its really end of life counseling sessions.

My response?

The Nazis called them showers, too.

Careful, gmax. The other day I began to explore a comparison between Obama and Hitler, and my sanity was called into question.

[boris]

Seems Andy McCarthy has sanity issues also.

The point was to show that if Pelosi wanted to engage in Nazi comparisons, the health-care policies of Nazi Germany had far more in common with the health-care policies of the Democrats than with those of the conservative opposition, which wants health care kept private and reforms to be market-based.

[O Bloody Hell]

> 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.

...And how is this different from what they already deserve, praytell?

[CJC]

Aside from hysterically jumping to conclusions based on a couple of remarks, and badly-spelled, poorly referenced weblogs, does anyone have any actual evidence of anything? I would bet that not a single one of you has even read so much as a sentence of the proposal.
I've read that Republicans tend to be more gut-driven and gullible than Democrats. I can see now that it is absolutely true.

[clarice]

Here's the known right winger Nat Hentoff on the subject,CJC
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff081909.php3
Tell Axel to send better spammers.
As for "the proposal"--my understanding is there are 5. What kind of dingbat insists we immediately sign on to a >1000 pp. document no one has seen?

[susan martin]

1. It started way back more than a year ago: breaks campaign promise that he would accept public financing for his presidential campaign

2. Obama signs earmark-laden spending bill, yet promised to be a different kind of politician in Washington

3. Obama blocks lists of visitors to White House

4. let's not forget the promise: "no more secrecy" and "when there's a bill that ends up on my desk as president, you the public will have 5 days to look online to find out what's in it before I sign it." But does he keep promise?...NOPE!

5. Obama closes door on openess

6. told voters on the campaign trail that he would not raise any taxes on middle class voters making less than 250k/year (but the reality is setting in on that one)

7. Obama promised to work on the "complete repeal" of DOMA (defense of marriage act); yet there's nothing about it on the White House website on civil rights issues

8. advocated pay-as-you-go system, but now on drunken spending spree with Dems and Speaker of the House.

9. White House secret deal with BIG PHARMA and here.

10. Obama falsely claims AARP endorsement

I'm sure I have forgotten some of the *broken* promises, so feel free to add more.