Friday, August 14, 2009

Death Panels Are Out ... No Wait; They're In

Ever since Sarah Palin's Facebook post about Obama's Death Panels, the Democrats have been scrambling. (Actually, before then, but even moreso, since.) The first response, of course, was to make out Sarah Palin to be some kind of nutjob. The problem is that her post had an air of truth to it that resonated with some folks.

So the Democrats caved. Kind of.

They decided to take out the "Death Panels." Those death panels that never existed in the first place? Yeah, those.

They removed the language from the bill requiring senior citizens over age 65 to have a mandatory discussion with a counsellor or doctor regarding end of life issues.

The problem is, this isn't the language in the bill Sarah Palin was referring to when she coined the term "Death Panels."

I actually don't have a problem with discussions of "end of life issues." Even though some have complained about this provision in the bill, the intent was to give seniors information about living wills, nursing care, hospice and other issues that we all may have to deal with when we get older. I have issues with the word "mandatory" in that provision, and there is also the likelihood that when implemented, things like doctor-assisted suicide would also be in the discussion. But aside from that, removing this provision actually made a bad bill even worse, in my opinion.

Now, however, the democrats have removed the "death panel" issue from the political discussion.

The problem is that Sarah Palin was more concerned about language in the bill that suggested that our health care options might be more limited if we had a poor prognosis, language that suggested rationing (without actually using that term), and also language from administration officials that suggested that after the bill was implemented the bureaucracy would be set up in such a way that terminal patients, very elderly and even children with diseases carrying a poor prognosis might not have access to live-saving or life-enhancing treatments because of economic considerations.

The logical assumption is that if these economic choices have to be made, somebody is going to make them, and more than likely that "somebody" would probably a panel or a committee of people who will evaluate, not on an individual basis, but more likely on a diagnosis/prognosis basis, who gets treatment and who doesn't.

Hence, a "Death Panel."

The bottom line is that while the Democrats are now going to go out and talk about how they listened to "the people" and took out the "death panels" that they denied were there in the first place, they really didn't do that. Death panels are still in.


Always On Watch August 14, 2009 at 12:41 PM  

Note: I came over here via Z's site.

health care options might be more limited if we had a poor prognosis

My elderly father himself limited the kind of end-of-life treatment that he wanted in a medical directive giving me the power of medical proxy. He also filed those papers with his doctors so that they understood his wishes.

It's easy to get those papers drawn up and not terribly costly.

What I don't want is the government bureaucracy butting in -- in the name of cost effectiveness (denial of claims and treatment).

Opus #6 August 14, 2009 at 4:36 PM  

The panels should not have been in in the first place. It just shows how morally BANKRUPT the people are who put this thing together. What about them RAIDING our checking accounts for MONEY against our WILL. This entire abomination has GOT to GO.

Z August 14, 2009 at 5:51 PM  

T.C...I'm going to add this to an article I did that I'm posting a little later, if it's okay with you...I'm just going to link to your site. stay tuned!! I'd written it earlier and am waiting for more people to see my blog talk radio post and then I'll print it!! Thanks!!xx

About This Blog

This blog is about my opinions and world view.  I am a conservative, evangelical Christian.  Generally speaking, if you post a comment, I'll allow you to express your view.  However, if you say something hateful, untruthful, or just generally something I don't like, I may remove it.

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by 2008

Back to TOP