Conservative Sources Spread Death Panel Rumors as Early as 1994

by Karen Hatter | August 14, 2009 at 05:41 am

525 views | 37 Recommendations | 38 comments

Highlighting the relationship between various Right Wing Conservative sources that vigorously lobbied against health care reform during the presidency of Bill Clinton in 1994, noting some of the same sources as being at the heart of the death panel rumors during this, the current Obama administration, this article reveals the strategy, that showcased a specific program implemented by the Nazi regime, with many Republicans today, during the Obama administration, asserting the public has reason to fear health care reform, when comparisons to Nazi Germany are false and unfounded.

The article notes that the Washington Times, in November of 2008, 13 days after the election of President Obama, reminded its readers of the specifics of one Nazi program that targeted those with disabilities, young and old, citing "administrative predilections", referring to the incoming Obama administration, as the basis for raising the spectre of euthansia.

Please read False Death Panel Has Some Familiar Roots .

Also at NowPublic :

The Politics of Fear

The 'Right Wing' Conspiracy

5 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

dunkelberg

at 08:00 on August 14th, 2009

What in God's green earth makes people unable to see that "death panels" already are in place with the insurance companies?

The "death panel" argument about reform efforts is specious nonsense, started by one of the GOP's most talented liars, talented at lying that is.

Insurance companies are killing for more people with denial of care than any government sponsored medical problem.

Blue Crush

at 13:58 on August 14th, 2009

I'm in complete agreement here! Ya think maybe if "some" had a brain, they'd be dangerous?!?!

Education is the key here, and you can't get educated by screaming down speakers, etc.

mudricky

at 08:56 on August 14th, 2009

I can't believe the stuff coming from America regarding their 'health service' listing to all the rich people going against it - just mental!

The NHS is free at point of just about everything, but the thing for me that let it down were prescriptions charges but where I live, most government like mine the Scottish government have set plans to abolish prescription charges by 2011 meaning we pay nothing for drugs, they have since been lowered twice and just now in Scotland it's £4 (US$6.60) for prescriptions but they are already free in Wales and in Northern Ireland by 2010. Charges are a bit more in England at £7.20 (US$11.90) but are free for most. There is a set dental charge, though it is higher than it should be. We don't pay for dental check ups, eyes tests are free, our old people get a free nursing home place, if required - even if they own a house and can pay for it they don't need to sell up - it's free as well an old person gets free bus travel to anywhere within their own borders i.e. A Scottish person can travel anywhere in Scotland.

Kids when very young get a free nurrsery place, though we have lots of private ones. That's not the NHS, or the nursing home but it's not an example of what we take for granted.

The funny thing is listening to Americans diss the British NHS, talking about death panels - they kind of stuff talked about doesn't really happen, not really. We have horror stories of things going wrong, of course we do - but so does America, and every other nation be it private or NHS.

No system's perfect, some hospitals have longer waiting Q's that they should have, but if it's urgent you will be seen.

But the problem with our NHS is that it's such a success story that when it does fail someone a big deal is made about it, not that one shouldn't make a big deal made out of it but it is a busy and well used service.

A service that no country, or anyone should be without, think we all know it'll never happen, too many greedy companies and shareholders but heres hoping.

Good luck.

Roy C

at 09:06 on August 14th, 2009

So, Sarah Palin made all this up? And, then, why is the Senate about to drop this provision of the health reform bills?

Frankly, your system is not to be envied. I would rather be ill here. I would rather extend private insurance to the working poor than tell 65-year-olds that they can't get dialysis.

I work with a lot of the non-profit insurance companies, such as Blue Cross and Blue Shield. They are not greedy and to characterize them as such is a form of slander, a product of self-exaltation as an opportunity to take in "narcissistic supply" in the light of an apparent flaw of the Untermenschen across the Atlantic (exactly how we are seen by the self-exalted left) manifests itself.

The President made light of these concerns. He said:

“Let me just be specific about some things that I’ve been hearing lately that we just need to dispose of here. The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for death panels that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we’ve decided that we don’t, it’s too expensive to let her live anymore....It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, etc. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything.” [1]

The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” [2] With all due respect, it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.

Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual ... or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility... or a hospice program." [3] During those consultations, practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services. [4]

Now put this in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” [5] Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As Charles Lane notes in the Washington Post, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones.... If it’s all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to “bend the curve” on health-care costs?” [6]

As Lane also points out:

Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren’t quite “purely voluntary,” as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, “purely voluntary” means “not unless the patient requests one.” Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive -- money -- to do so. Indeed, that’s an incentive to insist.

Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they’re in the meeting, the bill does permit “formulation” of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would “place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign,” I don’t think he’s being realistic. [7]

Even columnist Eugene Robinson, a self-described “true believer” who “will almost certainly support” “whatever reform package finally emerges”, agrees that “If the government says it has to control health-care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending.” [8]

So are these usually friendly pundits wrong? Is this all just a “rumor” to be “disposed of”, as President Obama says? Not according to Democratic New York State Senator Ruben Diaz, Chairman of the New York State Senate Aging Committee, who writes:

Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200 puts our senior citizens on a slippery slope and may diminish respect for the inherent dignity of each of their lives.... It is egregious to consider that any senior citizen ... should be placed in a situation where he or she would feel pressured to save the government money by dying a little sooner than he or she otherwise would, be required to be counseled about the supposed benefits of killing oneself, or be encouraged to sign any end of life directives that they would not otherwise sign. [9]

Of course, it’s not just this one provision that presents a problem. My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President’s chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens....An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” [10] Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.” [11]

President Obama can try to gloss over the effects of government authorized end-of-life consultations, but the views of one of his top health care advisors are clear enough. It’s all just more evidence that the Democratic legislative proposals will lead to health care rationing, and more evidence that the top-down plans of government bureaucrats will never result in real health care reform.

- Sarah Palin

rng

at 09:36 on August 14th, 2009

Frankly, your system is not to be envied.

Really? You been treated under the British system (not Italy which is more comparable to MENA countries anyway)? No? I didn't think so. The UK outperforms the US system on all real measures - service delivery,costs, successful outcomes of interventions, % of GDP expenditure, life expectancy,WHO rankings and on.

There is a real difference between being critical of the proposed reform and perpetuating nonsense like the US medical system is the best (it isn't), the death camp rhetoric et al

The fact this debate on an imploding, corrupt and ineffective US medical system has become partisan is indicative of a failing political system too. The politicians have been bought and paid for by the insurance companies. The fact that some Americans believe this stupidity is one of the saddest factors of it all.

Roy C

at 09:53 on August 14th, 2009

We need real reform which Obama does not propose. Repeat: we do need reform, REAL REFORM, not the plan that Obama proposes.

We need TORT REFORM.

We need REFORM ON PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.

We need to base the plan on PREVENTION, NOT TREATMENT.

We need to EMPOWER NURSE PRACTICIONERS.

We need to drastically improve our DIETS AND STOP ABUSING OURSELVES.

We need to END MEDICARE FRAUD AND END THE MASSIVE SUBSIDIES THAT US CONGRESSMAN AND POLITICIANS OF BOTH PARTIES WRITE INTO LAW THAT PREVENT COST-CUTTING MEASURES SUCH AS COMPETITIVE BIDDING.

The UK is only about as big as a couple of our East Coast states. I don't want a massive bureaucracy that would extend from "London" to "Moscow".

Do you get it?

You Brits don't even want Brussels, just a stone's throw from London by rail, to tell you what to do.

I don't want Washington to tall me what to do.

Washington State, where I live, has a plan. I support that plan.

Your Europeans always accuse us of being ignorant of Europe and what you have. You blind supporters of Obama's so-called plan are the one who don't know anything about the details of the plan, nor even how to compare Obama's plan with what you have.

You simply knee-jerk it all the way through.

And San Francisco, for you American critics, already has a plan. Being that California is really the 8th greatest economic power on Earth, why, oh, why should Washington be involved at all?

There is no need to be involved, and there is need to not be involved.

rng

at 10:02 on August 14th, 2009

We need real reform which Obama does not propose. Repeat: we do need reform, REAL REFORM, not the plan that Obama proposes.

There is a real difference between being critical of the proposed reform and perpetuating nonsense like the US medical system is the best

My point exactly. I do not think the reforms as currently circulating is discussion form are correct. They don't got far enough. The debate needs to focus on what the new system should be not the death camp nonsense, carping about the European systems which are working more effectively than the US and less medical intervention and more prevention.

Then the issue might actually make progress. Time to stop denial that the system as is is good - it isn't by any empirical measure. The fact that the US wastes so much on its GDP on unnecessary health expenses is an issue for a free enterprise nation, and it surprises me that the Republicans who preach efficiency everywhere else blindly support such a fat, bloated system

Roy C

at 09:07 on August 14th, 2009

But, please explain me what happens to sixty-five year-olds if they don't have the money for dialysis and your national health service cuts them off?

If that is no longer the case, very well. But it was very much the case. What other restrictions are there for older people?

mudricky

at 09:22 on August 14th, 2009

For as long as I can remember I've never heard of anything like that happening.

I remember in the late 80's early 90's people in beds, in corridors because there was no wards for them, but that sort of thing never happens now, only in major incidents.

There are not many restrictions, you would be treated for something, even if it was your own fault, like told to stop drink because your liver is failing. You'd still be treated if there was a chance.

Only restriction I can think of is transplanst, if your over a certain age, a younger person would be selected if there was not enough donors. I would need to double check, but that's it in a nut shell. I'm sure there are some more.

Last thing I would so is try to make something sound better than it was, but every year the NHS goes on it improves. It does fail people but these things will always happens in an origination so big.

I can think of two people who the system has failed - badly, but they are few and in between. It was human error and may still have happened.

The 65 year old would get dialysis, even if they have to be moved somewhere else. I couldn't see anyone being knocked back, these days that would be unheard of.

dunkelberg

at 09:14 on August 14th, 2009

It's annoying that so many people are lying about NHS and other national health care plans for points, politics, pandering, hate or just outright racism.

Take a look at how the U.S. stacks up . . . see what's it's like to be tied with Cuba.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/aug/12/nhs-us-healthcare-obama

Roy C

at 09:16 on August 14th, 2009

Are we going to hear what happens to sixty-five year-olds who need dialysis or not?

Most Americans want some health reform. If we like our plans, and I like mine, then I don't want the government to take over and put me on a plan when I change jobs.

Racism is complete MERDE DI TORO. Cuba lies about its statistics.

mudricky

at 09:33 on August 14th, 2009

I see your point of view though, if you have a health plan that works, why would you want that to change.

My problem is that I've been born into this system, a system that does work.

It's an interesting way to look a it, if a national service came in, most companies I would expect would pull their plans.

For such a large country it would be hard to get it going and the money it would cost.

rng

at 09:41 on August 14th, 2009

The US is a system dependent on employers bearing the costs which impacts payroll costs, efficiencies and more. With an unemployment rate going north of 10% and a third world level welfare system, the social impacts are massive and getting worse. Add then in balloonong cost and delivery inefficiencies. Given then the over-intervention rates, the unnecessary testing due to litigation risks and one of the most bizarre pharma regs in the developed world (consumer advertising for pharma - jez I think I need that one stimulating unwarranted demand and designer drugs). The US medical system is in a disaster - but denial by those hanging on to spiraling insurance costs, their jobs and an iurance industry layering in costs and campaign contributions are controlling the agenda...sadly

J2B (not verified)

at 10:57 on August 14th, 2009

Roy C

anyone, including 65-year old will receive dialysis treatment under the British NH system if they need it. In fact, some people can even have the equipment installed in their homes, along with an emergency generator, if they are too fail to attend a hospital.

The British NH system is not prefect but then no system is but it works for the majority of people and I mean 95%+

My American parents worked all their lives to build up a pension plan. Under Bush that lost 50% of its value. Their cost of health care more than doubled, forcing them to sell their holiday house, RV and their Slipstream just to meet the bills. If it continues on the present course, by next year my parents will be unable to afford health care.

In 2008, America spent $280 billion just on drugs..

Roy C

at 09:37 on August 14th, 2009

So, this has been changed.

In the 1970s and 1980s older patients were not routinely offered dialysis. This ageist practice was partly a resource issue but may have also been based in the false presumption that older patients would not benefit from kidney replacement. It is now clear that age alone should be no contraindication to dialysis and that good outcomes can be achieved.9,10 It is the responsibility of nephrologists to communicate this so that renal services are not rationed on the basis of age at point of referral. Older patients who would opt for dialysis can then receive this treatment electively after counselling and optimisation of their uraemic syndromes or any comorbidity.

mudricky

at 09:43 on August 14th, 2009

I'm not saying that never happened.

A system can only be improved on. Things were different back then.

How many Americans died in the 70's because they didn't have a chance to be seen at all.

Roy C

at 09:52 on August 14th, 2009

Very frigging few.

All you have to do by law is go into an emergency room and, by law, they have to treat you.

Illegals coming here and working without insurance, ridiculous lawsuits, moving industry to China, all this has made the situation worse.

You have your horror stories and we have ours.

Roy C

at 09:57 on August 14th, 2009

Older Americans have MediCare, and the poor who are not employed have MedicAid. In California you get Medi-Cal, and the county hospitals treat you very, very well.

My friends, all of them the so-called "working poor", have gotten treatment in the county hospitals.

Obama is trying to seize control of the system to help what? The working poor?

Roy C

at 10:02 on August 14th, 2009

Something is afoot in the UK. I am not against rationing. I am against lying about it.

Should there be health restrictions for aged? Patients in Britain should be refused treatment because of their age in some cases, say government advisers.
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence suggests discrimination is appropriate where age affects the benefits or risks of treatment.

However, the institute rejected including other social and lifestyle issues such as obesity and smoking as factors.

Charities representing older people have described the recommendations as outrageous.

Do you feel that there should be age restrictions for access to healthcare? Have you or a member of your family been affected?

This debate is now closed. Thank you for your comments.

Source: news.bbc.co.uk

rng

at 10:05 on August 14th, 2009

I am not against rationing. I am against lying about it

Then why defend the insurers who consistently are denying and cutting off coverage. There needs to be a rational debate about end of life care - tricky as it is. Not rationing but rationality

Roy C

at 10:44 on August 14th, 2009

Try being rational on your side and admit that Obama's plan doesn't solve the problem.

After admitting that, the dialogue can begin.

rng

at 10:54 on August 14th, 2009

If you were following along...from an early comment. I do not think the plans yet are correct. Can we therefore now have some rationality on the issue and stop the peanut gallery nonsense?

a211423

at 10:55 on August 14th, 2009

Rationing by definition is the distribution of resources in scarcity. Organ transplants could be rationed due to availability and considered scarce.

We have rationing of health care to 47 million people who cannot afford it. Where does this fit into rationing debate? How many of those 47 million might die because they do not have health insurance that would ensure primary care and early intervention and prevent death or serious disease processes that are not reversible. Sure, they can present at a hospital when their condition has reached the point of needing emergency care, but for some this is too late. What about them? And this brings up the argument of emergency rooms being primary care for the poor which is not cost effective and contributes to health care debt, unmanaged care, and teaches people to not be responsible in the areas of preventive health education, namely diet; exercise; and lifestyle choices.

To me, it seems like a vicious cycle if we don't do something now.

The senate has removed the Advanced Planning Consultation from the bill, so the discussion is moot at this point. But I hope this does not prevent the discussion of the importance of Advanced Directives that allows an individual or appointed health proxey to decide about end of life care and not an insurance company or hospital team.

Roy C

at 11:01 on August 14th, 2009

There are empirical measures where we are very good Cancer survival is much better here than in many advanced nations.

The end of life stuff comes from Obama, the Narcissist's hands off approach. He leaves the details to the servants while the Master goes on vacation.

He is a lousy leader for his side. He is spoiled and has gotten way too much support for the mediocrity of a mind that he actually is.

Clinton knew every detail of every bill and could argue it. He got along with Newt Gingrich and they reduced the budget deficits.

You knew Obama was a narcissist when he wouldn't admit that the Surge had worked in Iraq.

Same here. He will not admit what works and what doesn't. The problem for Obama the Narcissist is that he is not in control. Once HE is in CONTROL, there will be no problem.

He is a very inflated individual. And, his followers depend on him to prevent a latent depression from overcoming them. Hence the defensiveness we see and lack of attention to facts, just the way Obama avoids the facts.

Once Obama loses out big-time, the whole Baby Boomer "Garden Of Earthly Delights" mentality will come crashing down, like a junkie after a four-decade binge.

You will get help, help you need and help we can afford to give you, but you will pay for it with work and discipline at your end, no free rides.

rng

at 11:09 on August 14th, 2009

Roy - you are playing the man not the issue again.

Have you ever wondered why the issue is so simple for those who have been treated under advanced systems elsewhere in the developed world and who then confront the US system? They accept the requirement for both a public and single payer system with a private insurance top up option - the hybrid system that works so well in other places. It is that they have been treated under both and have a base line of experience.

The rhetoric in the debate here defeats the average American to comprehend the advantage and be terrified by the paid protesters in and out of office who scream socialism and death camps. It is often a problem is US discourse ...as my mother used to say you have one mouth and two ears. You should use them in proportion. Such an approach would benefit this discussion

Less screaming, more listening and research and the American populace might have a chance of hearing a rational debate. With all the erroneous information and screaming being orchestrated by the right (and paid for by those insurers) there is not rational debate at present, just spurious and emotional rhetoric. The cancer data defense is flimsy and limited. When the US gets it right - it has excellent services. It just doesn't offer it to many of its citizens at affordable rates and is crazy expensive to deliver because of the profit being bled from American workers by the medical magnates

dunkelberg

at 09:43 on August 15th, 2009

Hear!

Roy C

at 11:12 on August 14th, 2009

I have been treated as "the working poor" and so have my friends. I know what I am talking about.

Clinton was a real policy wonk. Obama wants to be crowned and worshipped. Now another "Town Hall Meeting". What a crock.

You can make your first concrete policy proposal, and then we can discuss the merits of it and then why Obama hasn't included it.

Robert Reich accused Obama of selling out.

Camille Paglia thinks Pelosi needs to be replaced.

All the criticism does not come from the right.

rng

at 11:23 on August 14th, 2009

Public option. Single payer, take the insures out of the normal mix.

Offer a private medical insurance option such as BUPA in the UK or Medicare Private in Australia for those who want it

Stop pharma advertising to consumers - it is not a candy.

Health education focused on prevention.

Make sports and exercise more available in public education and cities for younger kids and teens

Stop ridiculous law suits

Do not reward over prescription, over intervention and uncesary testing

Concrete enough? I do not support Obama's plans - they are too diluted by political influence. Neither Reich, Paglia or any other mainstream commentator has yet to utter a sensible policy on this - they are all just back-stabbing each other. I will repeat - this is not a partisan issue - it about rights and obligations of a supposed developed nation.

What I state above will happen eventually. It is just the logical method and the one in use by every other developed nation of note. It may not happen under Obama, it may not even happen in my lifetime or at one time, but it will happen...even here, eventually

a211423

at 13:23 on August 14th, 2009

There is discussion of not including a public option, but going with a cooperative from which people can "shop" for health insurance. This sounds okay, but what will prevent the insurance industry from having agreements to set a price structure that prevents lowering costs and competitive markets. It would be similar to how OPEC price fixing for oil ensures their profit margin does not fall below levels they have pre-determined.

A public option that functions similar to Medicare would ensure unfeigned competition. The insurance companies favor a cooperative which is suppose to be competitive, but are against a public option which would do basically the same thing. Why is this? Is it because a public option is not subject to insurance marketing influences like covert price fixing?

rng

at 13:39 on August 14th, 2009

I believe you are correct. There would be no price pressure/competition on the option the insurers will support. Their motivation is no great secret ...sadly