Posts Tagged ‘death panel’

Our friends on the left continue to call it the “lie of the year” but for some reason these non-existent death panels are being protected by specific and extraordinary legislative language:

“it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.”

What does that section deal with? The Independent Medicare Advisory Board. These guys are going to determine what will be covered and what will not, who will get treatment and who will not. Dare I say it a “death panel”?

Sarah Palin dares to say it. Explicitly:

In other words, Democrats are protecting this rationing “death panel” from future change with a procedural hurdle. You have to ask why they’re so concerned about protecting this particular provision. Could it be because bureaucratic rationing is one important way Democrats want to “bend the cost curve” and keep health care spending down?

The Congressional Budget Office seems to think that such rationing has something to do with cost. In a letter to Harry Reid last week, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf noted (with a number of caveats) that the bill’s calculations call for a reduction in Medicare’s spending rate by about 2 percent in the next two decades, but then he writes the kicker:

“It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care.”

Though Nancy Pelosi and friends have tried to call “death panels” the “lie of the year,” this type of rationing – what the CBO calls “reduc[ed] access to care” and “diminish[ed] quality of care” – is precisely what I meant when I used that metaphor.

Amazing how this stuff that doesn’t exist keeps being propped up by the democrats in legislation. Her willingness to stand out front and say these things aloud is the primary reason why she is so hated and why she must be destroyed.

BTW look at google news, isn’t it odd that a a readers survey of a web site is being trumpeted as fact in paper after paper?

When Sarah Palin referred to death panels she was called a liar, or ignored and is still hit for it, even as the section was pulled.

When examples from England’s NIS of brought up we were told that is had nothing to do with the US.

When the mammograms recommendations came out we were told that it isn’t an example of how Government health care would work.

We were told all these things, but there is one important thing about reality, it exists whether or not you want to acknowledge it:

New York used to screen women of all ages, but this year the budget crunch has forced them to focus on those considered at highest risk and exclude women under 50. “It’s a scary thought. It really is,” said LaBarge, who fears she’s at a higher risk because her grandmother died of breast cancer.

Well that is just one state that is on the brink, it’s not like a bunch of states are doing it…oh wait:

At least 14 states cut budgets for free cancer screenings this year: Colorado, Montana, Illinois, Alabama, Minnesota, Connecticut, South Carolina, Utah, Missouri, Washington, Ohio, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Arkansas.

Via Gateway and Say anything who got to it yesterday.

This story should be a whole lot bigger than it is.

Let me tell you something, if we as a society give the power of life and death to government bureaucrats, we better not be surprised when they will use it.

Maybe we should ask Dorene Wilson…

Posted: November 19, 2009 by datechguy in opinion/news
Tags: , , ,

…about death panels and government recommendations:

“If I had waited until I was 50, I would be dead,” said Dorene Wilson, a Waterford Township mother of three who was diagnosed with breast cancer Sept. 11 at age 42.

Well that’s government recommendations for you.

…when describing the government sponsored report concerning Mammograms. In addition via Glenn the Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen (we “Catholics” love Abortion) Sebelius says ignore it:

“Our policies remain unchanged,” she said of the federal government. ” Indeed, I would be very surprised if any private insurance company changed its mammography coverage decisions as a result of this action.”

I wonder why she would be surprised? The government issues “guidelines” concerning health and companies to ignore them when those guidelines can save them money? What planet does she live on?

If the health plan was passed you think the government bureaucrats that would be running the plan would be ignoring it? RedState Elaborates:

Who here thinks that an insurance company already grimly aware that they exist on governmental sufferance might feel the need to ‘change its mammography coverage decisions’ to reflect current state medical policy? Particularly if there are consequences for not being in compliance with all the laws, regulations, rulings, and opinions that bureaucracies generate more or less automatically.

And republicans congressmen have noticed too.

But Republicans are drawing parallels between the advisory panel recommendations and so-called “comparative effectiveness efforts” that would be employed under Democratic health plans to control skyrocketing costs. The idea is that panels would study different treatments would be studied to determine which are the most effective.

Panels? Hmmm what KIND of panels.

Jayden Capewell could not be reached for comment.