"Fox Nation Victory!" declared: "Senate Removes 'End of Life' Provision"
August 14, 2009 7:33 am ET by Media Matters staff
From the Fox Nation, accessed on August 14:
Previously:
Yet another Fox Nation "Victory!": "Congress delays health care rationing bill"
Another "Fox Nation Victory!" declared: "Anti-Tea Party Reporter Dumped by CNN"
Fox Nation declares "Victory!" over delay of "Obama's Drive for Climate Change Bill"
The media myth of Obama's "falling poll numbers"
How to annoy Glenn Beck in five minutes or less
Media Matters: In which Glenn Beck hosts talk of tickle fights
~Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), on the 2008 Campaign trail.
There's a name for it, eb; it's called lyin' fer Jayzus...
Its simply not within the legitimate scope of the federal government. (neither is most any of this, and the odds of it passing Strict Scrutiny are slim to none, regardless of whether Congress passes it and the Pres signs it or not)
As for Trusts, Living Wills, estate law and so on, nothing in the proposal 'created' any of that, its all already well established and by-and-large well understood.
The constitution clearly lays out broad powers for the Federal government to regulate commerce, and to promote the general welfare of the United States.
If you're going to let God call the shots, let nature take its course, then shouldn't we just shun modern medicine altogether? Sorry, friend, you're way outside the mainstream.
And as we all know by now, all the proposed "end of life" provision would do is require medicare to pay for elective visits, between doctors and patients, to discuss options for care at the end of life. Yes, these visits already happen, this would simply require that they be covered. The opposition to it is completely disingenuous.
Letting 'God call the shots' is something those on the religious right need to be taking a closer look at, IMhO.
In any event, I've been unclear as to what government may or may not interject (now or eventually) into the personal end-of-life dialogue between patients and physicians, by the terms of these proposals. It seems a gray area is being created on that aspect. If there is any chance that a later Administration or Congress can prescribe or proscribe elements of the conversation either way, then that is a problem. (Or might have been a problem, if the latest reports are to be believed and that has indeed been permanently taken out of the equation.)
If an HMO paid for such consultations, where is the outcry that undemocratic, unaccountable, untransparent corporations might decide who lives or dies????
There are a host of legal and constitutional questions surrounding just that question alone.
Personally, I think thats why it may have been dropped from the proposal, instead of anything FOX, Limbaugh & the wingnuts did.
Anything government subsidizes or contracts with may be regulated pretty much as it sees fit, regardless of what the Constitution would direct in other circumstances. Beyond that;
Which is a fundamental part of the Ashwander Doctrine of judicial restraint. (Ashwander et al., v. Tennessee Valley Authority et. al., 297 U.S. 288 (1936)).
Depending on how the scheme was to be set up (with that or wth any other aspect of the legislation) the Doctor-Patient-Privelege may come under attack from any number of direstions. The obvious danger being that government, (as in whomever is in control of the government at the time) could interject itself into that dialogue, and require a physician to push one option(s) over others, or even be gagged from frank discussion of certain options altogether.
Everyone with any opinion on the Pro-Life v. Pro-Choice debate should already be well familiar with how that works, and could work.
With that provision, as with all the rest, much of it depends on just how the new 'system' is set up.
One analogy would be as with Public Schools, there are a great many aspects of that which the federal government has absolutely no legitimate power over. Yet, by using the Grants-in-Aid scheme, the fed is able to do end-runs around not only its own but also the states' constitutional boundaries and make the them adopt (copy-&-paste) whatever legislation, and accept whatever regulation it desires, by way of threatening to withold federal funds.
Another thing to be vigilant against, is the establishment of quasi-governmental corporations, such as Fannie & Freddie et al. These have the potential to become far worse than any cold-hearted HMO, and enjoy aspects of sovereign immunity, while not being bound to anything near the same controls as a de jure governmental body.
We will have to wait and see, and parse every sentence of every proposal along the way, to make sure that the cure we end up with is not worse than the disease.
In my opinion, some of the provisions in the Senate proposal, appear to intrude much further into our lives and our Privacy than even the [so-called] Patriot Act attempted to. How any of that power, and the information gathered, can be used beyond "health care", should be of the gravest concern to everyone.
There may be gray areas?
Depends on how things are done?
We have to wait and see?
Obvious danger the government would interject itself?
A potential to become far worse?
I hear no substantive objections to the proposals for covered end-of-life counseling. Just a lot of lawyereeze.
I thought I had made my relative position relatively clear. I don't agree with leaving any possibility that some present or future political Appointee may interject their views, the views of their Party or budgetary concerns into the sensitive and personal end-of-life counselling a patient might receive from their physician or attorney.
Thats neither for nor against the 'right' or the 'left'. How the average everyday Citizen chooses to live their life and the manner of their death is not a legitimate concern of the federal government.
(If you really want an example of 'lawyereeze' you'll have to read the proposals themselves.)
It may be used for legitimate purposes.
It might not be.
It's a grave concern.
But in one person's opinion, legislation intended to improve a health care system broken by greed, selfishness, and neglect appears more instrusive than legislation requiring that libraries submit book check-out lists to the gov't (among other "security" measures).
Oh, and be scared -- legal precedent says once you've benefitted, you can't challenge anything about the law. Even worse, if the gov't creates a health-care managing "quasi-governmental" creature, it will be unaccountable AND unstoppable. (And imagine if they put Sarah Palin on their death panel -- cold-hearted AND cold-blooded . . .)
Oh, pity us. And we'll have none to blame but ourselves . . .
(I think it's kind of a shame a writer of this apparent intelligence didn't apply it to excoriate the history of obscene, immoral practices of health-for-profit or examine why America is the only industrialized nation left that has yet to national its health care as it does its natural resources, roads, energy, and water. Perhaps those topics are not paranoid enough for certain tastes.)
Like most, I used to believe that every "American", ever "U.S. citizen" was equal under the Law, that we all enjoyed the same Rights, and lived under the same system of government. But, that is simply not true. All three Branches of the federal government, and all of the state governments say its not true, even though they are more than happy to let us believe that it so.
There is more than one type of Citizenship in this Country, and more than one level of Rights & there are even Rights of different types, and there is more than one face that government wears. Different Law(s) apply, different Powers are exercised. What may be applicable to one may not be applicable to another.
Which cuts straight to an important point; the Noise Machine provoked all this outrage over something that, as you pointed out doesn't exist.
Many do so, of course (my family as an example), particularly when it comes to their own affairs, but most are perfectly willing to force the "Pulse at Any Price" theme onto others. The Schiavo case was a perfect illustration of this; even after court after court sided with Michael Schiavo, the "pro-life" crowd spun themselves into increasingly-heated hysteria about "saving poor Terri". IOW, they were willing to deny the Schiavos what they themselves are, as you pointed out, perfectly comfortable with reserving for themselves...
Shiavo was a crazy case, and it got crazy because of the initial media attention, which led some political interests to try and score points off of the poor woman's situation. It was all a disgusting display.
Particularly the instance in which a woman sent her two small children to get arrested taking food and water to "save poor Terri." To me, that was literally a form of child abuse...
Conservitives fall into only two categories: evil and stupid. One lies, and the other buys.
You see, as conservatives, we think the best way to defend and protect your personal liberty is to put it somewhere where you can't reach it.
Yea like in the hands of large wealthy undemocratic corporations that have bought and sold our government and are not directly accountable to anyone but their stockholders.
Well now exactly, eb. I mean, come on, we the people can't be trusted with access to our rights, now can we? If we the people start electing representatives who propose that we should have an opportunity to talk about how we might better legally codify our wishes as we near the end of our lives, we can't have that now can we? I mean, sheesh, that might start to resemble representative democracy.
Did they mention it was Johnny Isakson's (R GA) amendment?
Freakin' tards.
What a load of bull; it's entirely because of the GOP that so many people were "misinterpret[ing]" the legislation, and especially Grass-moron's fault. What a hypocrite, I feel ill sometimes when I realize that people like him actually make legislation that influences the US. He is a rotten piece of garbage, just like all of those who have no real agenda other than to punch holes in the Obama administration and progress.
"FOX Nation Victory!", are you kidding. Congratulations conservative cowards, if you can't get the health reform bill pulled completely, you might as well eliminate little pieces of it and claim it a triumph. We see what you're about, and it's childish and ignorant. Keep stuffing your pockets with insurance company "donations!"
A Pulse at Any Cost (eespecially someone else's cost)...
Hear, hear. The whole Schiavo mess made me ill. There's no judgment involved at that point, it's pure dogma. When you go fifteen years without any brain activity, it's over. Move on. God will either understand, or He is an irrational deity that you can't waste your life trying in vain to appease. It's really that simple.