RSS Feed MenuWho was the president’s speech for? It ought to have been aimed at America’s over 65s, the people most mistrustful of his plans, the people who depend on healthcare most.
Some of them may have qualms that the president intends to send out death panels to terminate them in their final illness. These people are unlikely to be reassured by the president’s fierce denial. After all – that’s just what a president bent on killing the elderly would say, wouldn’t he?
The larger worry on display at this summer’s town halls was that the creation of a major new healthcare program might jeopardize or divert money that could otherwise be devoted to Medicare. That’s why the president’s promises of deficit neutrality are so important. (Sorry, Mickey Kaus!) If his plans worsen the deficit, they aggravate the already parlous condition of Medicare and frighten the most readily frightened of healthcare constituencies.
Donald Johnson // Sep 10, 2009 at 8:50 am
President Obama’s speech before Congress Wednesday was disappointing.
There was a lot of empty eloquence. There were few specifics about what Obama wants in his health insurance bill, which really is a health spending bill and a power grab.
He provided no leadership on health reform, but he gave his backers some nasty and dishonest talking points.
He should apologize.
Obama’s backers called it a great speech. They were sucked in by the rhetoric and show.
But if you listened to the speech instead of watching it, you found that it was misleading, demonizing, inaccurate and meant to rally Democrats, not to inform Americans.
Robert Wilson was right when he impolitely called Obama a liar on the bill’s provisions for illegal immigrants. No the bill doesn’t give them insurance, it just makes sure that they will get free care and that more illegals will come to the U.S. for free care.
Similarly, Obama lied about dealth panels. No, there are no death panels, but the bill was written to provide government-funded end-of-life counseling, which would eventually become end-of-life recommendations to suck it up and die as comfortably and quickly as possible.
Like Clinton, Obama played with words to convey sincerity but actually showed that he believes as he always has in funding health care for illegals and that he believes Medicare spends too much on its beneficiaries last months of life.
As The Wall Street Journal’s editorial this morning notes, Obama gave a mean, dishonest and partisan speech.
He is willing to sacrifice control of Congress to win more power for himself. It’s all about Obama. He doesn’t care whether Reid is re-elected, Pelosi keeps her job or Blue Dogs stay in Congress.
Why that doesn’t anger Congressional Democrats is a mystery. But maybe it does anger enough Democrats to cause a backlash that will doom ObamaCare. We can only hope.
Obama blamed Republicans for opposing ObamaCare. Yes, they oppose his radicalism because they don’t believe the government can run anything or should try and for political reasons.
But, as the editorial points out, Dems and Obama have not allowed Republicans to help write health reform bills, and Obama clearly stated in his speech that if opponents won’t accept his plan, he won’t talk to them.
Obama attacked insurers’ profits. A socialist, he doesn’t believe in profits. He doesn’t understand economics nor profits. He won’t accept that political greed for power is much worse than greed for profits.
And he vastly exaggerates the problem of insurers dropping insureds who’ve become sick. He doesn’t point to millions of insureds who have been covered throughout catastrophically expensive illnesses.
Most of us know more people who’ve had their expensive recoveries covered by insurers than people who’ve lost their coverage. I don’t know anyone who’s lost insurance after becoming sick, and I know lots of people.
So, on balance, Obama gave such an obviously partisan and dishonest speech that the public will see through it, and they will continue to oppose it.
http://www.businessword.com.
balconesfault // Sep 10, 2009 at 9:52 am
the bill was written to provide government-funded end-of-life counseling, which would eventually become end-of-life recommendations to suck it up and die as comfortably and quickly as possible.
Wow. Someone is extremely cynical about the medical profession.
Donald Johnson // Sep 10, 2009 at 10:07 am
Extremely cynical about politicians. Docs go where the money is like anyone else.
balconesfault // Sep 10, 2009 at 10:40 am
Extremely cynical about politicians. Docs go where the money is like anyone else.
But see – this is about government paying for seniors to receive optional end-of-life counseling from a practicioner of their choice. There’s nothing about some nefarious program of federal end of life counselors ready to talk grandmaw into assigning over to the state the right to decide when the feeder tubes should be pulled – a senior citizen can simply schedule a meeting with their own personal physician to go over these details.
So you are being cynical about physicians themselves – in essence, declaring that we can’t trust the relationship between a patient and their physician … that our physicians are so bereft of morals that if government is paying for a counseling session, they will direct their patients to do the government’s wishes, and not the patient’s wishes.
If one is that cynical about our medical community and their relationship with their patients, there’s not much we can trust about the medical system, is there?
sinz54 // Sep 10, 2009 at 11:25 am
balconesfault: If one is that cynical about our medical community and their relationship with their patients, there’s not much we can trust about the medical system, is there?
Let’s see what REAL doctors are proposing to hold down health care costs.
This is from George D. Lundberg, M.D., and Stephen Barrett, M.D. (founder of the “Quackwatch” website):
Seven Ways to Reduce Unnecessary Medical Costs—Right Now!
1. Intensive medical therapy should be substituted for coronary artery bypass grafting (currently around 500,000 procedures annually) for many patients with established coronary artery disease, saving many billions of dollars annually.
2. The same for invasive angioplasty and stenting (currently around 1,000,000 procedures per year) saving tens of billions of dollars annually.
3. Non-indicated PSA screening for prostate cancer should be stopped. Radical surgery as the usual treatment for most prostate cancers should cease since it causes more harm than good. Billions saved here.
4. Screening mammography in women under 50 who have no clinical indication should be stopped and for those over 50 sharply curtailed, since it now seems to lead to at least as much harm as good. More billions saved.
5. CAT scans and MRIs are impressive art forms and can be useful clinically. However, their use is unnecessary much of the time to guide correct therapeutic decisions. Such expensive diagnostic tests should not be paid for on a case-by-case basis but grouped along with other diagnostic tests, by some capitated or packaged method that is use-neutral. More billions saved.
6. We must stop paying huge sums to clinical oncologists and their institutions for administering chemotherapeutic false hope, along with real suffering from adverse effects, to patients with widespread metastatic cancer. More billions saved.
7. Death, which comes to us all, should be as dignified and free from pain and suffering as possible. We should stop paying physicians and institutions to prolong dying with false hope, bravado, and intensive therapy that only adds to their profit margin. Such behavior is almost unthinkable and yet is commonplace. More billions saved.
I hope you paid particular attention to #7.
And Dr. Stephen Barrett, btw, is a strong proponent of single-payer.
indyreader // Sep 10, 2009 at 11:27 am
Frum, new reader here, I like your insights.
D-J, did you just deride partisanship by citing to a partisan op-ed?
I don’t think you know what the definition of partisanship or cooperation means if you think it includes the current Republican approach to debate/reasoning. Further, I don’t think your illegal immigrant and death panel hypotheticals (which they are as there is no bill written or pending that includes those measures, if so CITE please) would leave anyone to believe that you, nor the Republican party could be “worked with.” Not to mention the clear stand of that party, which is to say “No” to any reform. Explain exactly how you see partisanship in that position or how anyone can work together in a partisan way if that is the other parties position.
I also love your “spin” of the rescission issue: “Well, it doesn’t happen enough so that I noticed it, so its not a problem and anyone who discusses it must be making a fallacy.” Seriously?
bleyle23 // Sep 10, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Similarly, Obama lied about dealth panels. No, there are no death panels, but…
So Obama “lied” when he said there are no death panels, and then you admit that there are not death panels….but…
He’s “lying” when he says something that you admit is true?
Who’s the one “playing with words”?
greg_barton // Sep 10, 2009 at 8:38 pm
sinz, my grandfather recently died at the age of 97. He specifically had a DNR order (Do Not Resuscitate) and for the last few years told each family member what his wishes were. My father was there when he died, and my grandfather made sure he knew, again, to not perform any “heroic” measures.
Was it wrong for my grandfather to have that option?
Donald Johnson // Sep 10, 2009 at 10:10 pm
indyreader, Do you find it interesting that Sen. Conrad today said that after Obama promised to not cover illegals, the Senate Finance Committee will have to take another look at whether it has included provisions that make sure illegals don’t receive free care? I guess he sees a problem?
Partisanship is what you got from Obama Wednesday. If you don’t recognize it, millions of others do, and many are commenting on it around the web. If you don’t think Obama’s failure to consult with Republicans on health reforms since April and his assertion that he won’t talk to anyone he thinks want to kill health reforms is partisanship, most do.
If you don’t think that the GOP has been left out of the process of crafting health reforms is partisan, people who know politics do. That the GOP submitted dozens of amendments and had most turned down shows the partisanship by the Dems.
So you are willing to take a few sob stories about rescission as proof that it’s a big problem? I’m not.
You must be very literal if you don’t see Obama’s lies about illegals and end of life counseling. If so, you’ll be taken by smarter folks the rest of your life. If you’d followed the health debate closely, you’d know how disingenuous the president was.
dragonlady // Sep 10, 2009 at 11:14 pm
greg_barton, it’s absolutely fine for your grandfather to have his family and medical personnel respect his dying wishes. We just don’t want the gov’t providing financial incentives to drs, PAs, and nurses to bring up end-of-life counseling every 5 years, or everytime your health status changes. Even Dr Sanjay Gupta at center-left CNN admits to an AMA study that when the dr brings it up, the more likely it is to convince the patient to forgo life-sustaining measures. Let this be between the patient, family, and dr. Leave the gov’t out of it.
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0908/12/acd.02.html
dragonlady // Sep 10, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Just curious, who would feel comfortable with drs providing your elderly dad who may have served in the armed forces a checklist of the following to consider if it makes “your life worth living?” From the VA pamphlet that is undergoing “revision:”
a. I can no longer walk but get around in a wheelchair.
b. I can no longer get outside—I spend all day at home.
c. I can no longer contribute to my family’s well being.
d. I am in severe pain most of the time.
e. I have severe discomfort most of the time (such as nausea, diarrhea, or shortness of breath).
f. I rely on a feeding tube to keep me alive.
g. I rely on a kidney dialysis machine to keep me alive.
h. I rely on a breathing machine to keep me alive.
i. I need someone to help take care of me all of time.
j. I can no longer control my bladder.
k. I can no longer control my bowels.
l. I live in a nursing home.
m. I can no longer think clearly-I am confused all the time.
n. I can no longer recognize family/friends
o. I can no longer talk and be understood by others.
p. My situation causes severe emotional burden for my family (such as feeling worried or stressed all the time).
q. I am a severe financial burden on my family.
r. I cannot seem to “shake the blues.
http://www.ethics.va.gov/YLYC/YLYC_First_edition_20001001.pdf
I’m not against end-of-life planning or counseling at all. I think one should consider these things at the appropriate time. But don’t some of these situations come across as not particularly “end of life” with phrases like “I cannot seem to “shake the blues” or “I’m in a wheelchair”? Nevermind the writer happens to be a Dr who believes in physician assisted suicide.
indyreader // Sep 11, 2009 at 9:38 am
D-J,
-You again failed provide any evidence that any bill has any of the provisions you are up in arms about. the fact that anyone is going to go and read the language of the bill to double check himself doesn’t prove that it contains, in fact, what you are ALLEGING (and its an allegation, because you have no evidence of the claim, see the difference?). Why not allege that the bill will give swimming pools to anyone who fills out column B with an X and not a Y? Its just as wrong, but doesn’t help your political argument I guess – I’ll just wait until you concoct something else to bat down (I bet you can make up something far more incendiary than I – I’m just to literal).
-Look, let me try again: I don’t disagree with you that his speech may have been partisan (I haven’t listened to the whole thing and I haven’t analyzed it, so I say “may” – notice how I’m not over inflating a point I’m not able to substantiate). Where I disagree with you is this: what would be the point of doing anything else? Nothing from what you have written or that R. leadership currently holds as a position has anything to do with “non-partisanship.” So, what would be the point of even attempting to work with that type of position? Frankly, if you or the R. leadership are genuine about wanting to work in a non-partisan manner, you wouldn’t start out each sentence with “but the Dems are partisan”. You’d offer ideas and alternative solutions or propose alternatives to those that are currently in existence (i.e. you’d just act in a non-partisan manner). But you (collective there) do not, you write about how people who paid for health insurance, got sick (so then they’d have to actually get the benefit (right?)), made a claim, then their insurer revisited the contract (but not before the claim, see the conflict here?), found a deficiency (some known, some unknown by the insured – it doesn’t make a difference to the outcome) and then rescinded the contract are “sob stories”. If you don’t see a problem with that behavior, then I’d love to do business with you, because you are a fool.
-If you mean by literal, the ability to read and comprehend, then yes, I am literal, which you seem to be taking an issue with and why I think you have a reading comprehension problem. To your illegal issue: as I understand it, this claim arises from the fact that current versions of the bill do not contain enforcement mechanisms, such as penalties for illegals that get caught gaming the system or otherwise committing fraud. However, nowhere in any bill does it give or allow illegals the right to healthcare at U.S. Gov. expense. I think that’s a pretty significant difference – LITERALLY. Now, had that been your point, I would thought differently of you, because that is an issue that may need to be addressed (now there is some history that may be useful to review about other programs with a similar problem, but that is neither here nor there) and reasonable minds may disagree. However you did not, you stated the Pres was a liar and partisan. I would have also thought that you were an informed debater, not a blow hard who bites on what he likes to hear, because it would have shown your ability to look past rhetoric (from either party) and really analyze the issue at hand.
-Another sob story: “the dems won’t work with me” WAH! They are the majority party now, this is a majority rules country, right? Or is that a problem only now that your party is the minority. Funny how that works…
balconesfault // Sep 11, 2009 at 11:09 am
<b.Let this be between the patient, family, and dr. Leave the gov’t out of it.
But we are talking about Medicare, my dear Dragonlady.
The government is already deep in it. And every time a terminal patient opts for the most expensive treatment, even when it’s almost certain that it will barely lengthen their lifespan and will in many many cases reduce the quality of their final days … it means that we’re going to have to come to you, Dragonlady, and collect more money in taxes to pay for it.
You get that, don’t you?
dragonlady // Sep 11, 2009 at 8:16 pm
balconesfault, Medicare is what it is–are you proposing we cut costs for the elderly because you don’t want to pay taxes for their health care? What I don’t want is some govt bureaucrat to decide what the cost should be to someone who wants to live an extra year so they should or should not get a certain procedure. Maybe that person wants to live an extra year to see their kid get married. What’s the cost of that, do you suppose? And in the house bill, the Secretary of HHS decides the costs, and these procedures that are covered or not covered are explicitly EXEMPT from administrative or judicial review. Is that what you want? I think the Medicare reimbursement system can be overhauled and I think we need to have an honest discussion about what it will cost us. I may actually swallow paying more in taxes to keep Medicare sustainable since it does service a particularly vulnerable part of the population if it’s reformed correctly.
balconesfault // Sep 12, 2009 at 8:07 pm
balconesfault, Medicare is what it is–are you proposing we cut costs for the elderly because you don’t want to pay taxes for their health care?
Actually, my ideal would be Medicare for all.
I’m happy paying taxes for their health care. However, I am aware of the legitimacy of arguments that the costs of end-of-life-care within the last 6 months of people’s lives is continuing to expand at a rate which may well make Medicare unsustainable over the long term no matter WHAT we do with the rest of our healthcare costs.
What I don’t want is some govt bureaucrat to decide what the cost should be to someone who wants to live an extra year so they should or should not get a certain procedure.
So to turn this argument around – are you in favor of government providing platinum-plated coverage to every Medicare recipient in order to keep them alive, no matter what? Because that is the direct logical conclusion of pressing the argument you just made.
I may actually swallow paying more in taxes to keep Medicare sustainable since it does service a particularly vulnerable part of the population if it’s reformed correctly.
Yes, Medicare recipients are particularly vulnerable.
But then, so are the families of many millions of working class people across America who have to choose between paying for insurance or affording safe housing for their family, healthy meals, decent transportation, etc. Yes, it is a tragedy if a grandparent can’t live an extra year to see a grandchild graduate, or get married. It is perhaps a greater tragedy if a parent of three young children passes away, leaving the survivor to try to raise a family and work at the same time.