No Such Thing As Death Panels Removed From Obama Medicare Policy

…..even though death panels supposedly do not exist. This is not a repeat from August 2009. The Hill is reporting

The Obama administration will remove a brand-new Medicare policy that had reignited the “death panel” debate from last year’s healthcare fight.

The provision to be eliminated would have covered end-of-life consultations as part of annual wellness examinations created by the new healthcare reform law, according to a report.

Of course, these really aren’t the true “death panels” Governor Palin was referring to when she brought it to the forefront of American politics. There is nothing actually wrong with end-of-life planning. Many of us do this in what is called a “living will.” I have one, and it specifies basically pulling the plug on me if I am in certain conditions, like a persistent vegetative state. The real death panels are those where government bureaucrats make decisions on life extending care for all ages.

Yet, there is something fundamentally wrong with the government paying doctors to discuss with their patients ways to end their lives earlier, even if “voluntary” (remember, this was originally mandatory, before removed from ObamaCare.)

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

3 Responses to “No Such Thing As Death Panels Removed From Obama Medicare Policy”

  1. david7134 says:

    I don’t want to sound like I am defending O or any of his group, but if you want control of medical expense, then you have to consider limitation of medical services. I have seen pacemakers put in people that are 90+ years. This is a cost of over $20,000. Some way this needs to be controled. People are expecting too much in regard to how long their parents live. I personally don’t want that long of a life. I can’t afford it!!

  2. gitarcarver says:

    The problem is David, that when an insurance company denies a procedure because it is not covered under the insurance, insurance companies are labeled as “mean, heartless, greedy and uncaring.”

    When the government won’t pay for services, sets up an oversight mechanism for which procedures will be covered and then adds the costs of paying for doctors to “counsel” patients on “end of life” procedures, people think “hooray!”

    You are correct that not every procedure can be covered. Insurance companies have been saying that for years. People – including Obama and liberals – have vilified the companies for that. So Obama and the left demanded “universal health care.”

    Now we are starting to find out (because we have to pass the bill to see what is in it) that the care is not universal, because it won’t cover everything and a panel will decide what procedures are necessary.

    But let’s take your argument that a procedure is too costly for an elderly person. Let’s flip that around for a moment.

    You have a person that has paid into the system for all of their lives and now you want to say “gee, sorry…. all the money you put into the system goes to someone we feel is more deserving.” That sounds fine. You are trying to promote a decision based on economics.

    But as I said, let’s flip that around. Try selling the idea that an expensive procedure on a child, infant or newborn is going to be denied because it is too expensive. They haven’t paid a dime into the system, but watch the cry and fury when that procedure is denied.

    So on an strictly economic base, defend denying the person who has paid into the system as opposed to denying the person who has not paid into the system.

    On the economics, you can’t. You have to appeal to a moral, ethical or religious argument. I have no problem with that except that the left hates the idea of doctors counseling people that are getting an abortion on moral, ethical, religious or even scientific grounds.

    The hypocrisy from Obama and the left on this is stunning.

  3. david7134 says:

    GC,
    You offer good insight into the problem. Maybe I look at this more from an aspect of efficiency of utilization. Generally a 90 year old, even in good health, can do very little but sit and wait to die. Thus expendeture of funds for this situation is not a wise use of limited resources. The situation is almost always driven by a family that can not see the reality of the lifestyle of the person. They want to keep alive what is mostly a bag of protoplasm. Many times, away from the family, the elderly person begs to die. This is why I feel the perfect hospital is one where you drop off your sick relative and then don’t see them again till they exit, on way or another. This would very much improve medical care.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7915 access attempts in the last 7 days.