Those "death panels" really do exist
At this point, if anyone still believes that progressive proposals for health insurance reform contain ominous "death panels" designed to kill their grandparents, I have a bridge to sell them in Arizona. Fear not, my conservative friends: The bridge connects a tea bag manufacturing plant with a militia training camp stuck in the 1990s, so you should feel right at home.
The "death panel" smear goes something like this: President Obama and his comrades in Congress are hell-bent on instituting mandatory end-of-life counseling sessions for American seniors as part of their socialist takeover of the health insurance industry. They will choose who gets to live and who will die. You know, just like Adolf Hitler and the Nazis did in Germany.
To date, the media have debunked the "kill granny" lie more than 40 times. The nonpartisan FactCheck.org says the claim of mandatory counseling on ending seniors' lives is "a misrepresentation." ABC's chief medical editor, Dr. Tim Johnson, said "the idea about death panels" is "not at all legitimate." PolitiFact.com has called "death panel" claims "a ridiculous falsehood." When the Associated Press conducted a fact check of the bogus charge, it reported, "No 'death panel in health care bill.' "
After former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin claimed that "Obama's 'death panel' " could decide the fate of her parents or her son who has Down syndrome, conservative radio host Larry Elder aptly called her comments "over the top."
Having been called on the carpet repeatedly for their "death panel" claims, other media conservatives like ABC's John Stossel and Fox News' Glenn Beck have taken a new approach. Many now claim that while proposals for health insurance reform may not actually force seniors into end-of-life counseling, they will result in "de facto death panels" via the government's rationing of care. Seriously.
The dubious right-wing spin surrounding health insurance reform is a bit like that bad cough that just won't go away -- persistent and annoying.
Despite the coverage allotted to debunking the right-wing "death panel" smear, the bigger picture remains intact. Americans face real death panels from their own health insurance providers. Rather than simply debunking the right's false talking point, the media should have gone one step further and pointed out that health insurance companies make life-and-death decisions every day when they decide what they are willing and not willing to cover.
Largely lost in the media discussion surrounding health insurance reform is the reality of the status quo -- you know, why we need reform in the first place.
Back in June, the evening news broadcasts on ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS ignored a congressional hearing on insurance companies' practice of investigating the medical histories of people who become ill and submit claims for expensive treatments, and then rejecting those claims on the grounds that those individuals had pre-existing conditions. The goal is quite simple. Find something -- anything -- and cancel or deny coverage for needed, potentially life-saving treatment. Why save a life when you can save a buck?
Robin Beaton, a former policyholder, testified in the hearing that she had been subject to this very practice. A retired registered nurse, Beaton's dermatologist had mistakenly indicated that she may have been suffering from a pre-cancerous skin condition. Soon after, she was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer. A few days before her scheduled double mastectomy, Blue Cross launched an investigation into her health records going back five years, convinced she was hiding a serious pre-existing condition.
Many Americans have stories just like Beaton's. Congress ultimately concluded that three major American insurance companies rescinded 19,776 policies for over $300 million in savings over five years, a number that Wendell Potter, a former senior executive at CIGNA health insurance company, said "significantly undercounts the total number of rescissions" by the companies.
It's not to say that the media ignore all stories like Beaton's; they don't. The modern media are in the drama business. Too often, media of all stripes characterize this important policy debate as a "he said, she said" over the government's role in health care, something that conservatives no doubt relish, and in the process, they fail to paint a picture of the way things currently exist.
This practice plays not only with the health of too many Americans, but with the health of modern journalism as well. We can hardly solve this crisis if we aren't being told the whole story.
Death panels are real. They do exist. Your own insurance provider could be in on it. And it's time the media said so.
Karl Frisch is a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog and research and information center based in Washington, D.C. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, or sign up to receive his columns by email.
Second, what do you think about the victims of private insurers' death panels.
Damn facts always silence the BDSers.
the Government you are just stuck with, so stop with your adolescent finger pointing, even if the "private insurers" are evil as you say that does not justify our government changing to a fascist system
and that justifies the government doing it?
the private insurance companies we can walk away from, the government...not so much
No health reform denier can answer the question: What do insurance companies bring to the table in regards to patient care?
Well, stark colbert tried. He/She said that we have insurance companies in order to make doctors wealthy.
The term WAGSTAFFER should be used to describe the Republican Party.
- Professor Quincy Adams Wagstaff
This should also be played as the theme song of the Republican party.
"Gimmie, Gimmie, Gimme!"
Tell us.
What is the one wild, untapped place in your heart that would so love to create healing? (Quantum physics suggests we can never be totally outside-of-our-empirical questions-or-for-that-matter-empirical-polemics.)
Yrs in curiosity,
Maura C-M
No?
Then SHUT. THE. FRUCK. UP.
But, as I point out below, you CAN'T because the proof just AIN'T THERE.
And the burden is on YOU to proove it's failing, as the evidence clearly does not support that. They have longer life expetency, pay less per capita than we do, and all LOVE their systems and laugh at ours. Not one of them would ever try to solve any of the minor issues with there system by switching to ours. THAT'S a FACT.
It is impossible for me to keep ignoring his nonsensical posts, so I understand why we keep doing it. But, until Stark at least involves himself in some kind of actual debate with actual evidence (as Dex and others do) then he is truly just a waste of time. Other than to mock and ridicule, of course.
That's a lie. Please, if you insist on not being part of the solution, at least stop lying about other country's healthcare systems.
For example - Shona Holmes (Canadian citizen) did not have a tumour. She was not facing a life threatening situation. And when she travelled to the Mayo Clinic to have her treatment, she spent $90,000. I'm sure lots of uninsured folks can afford that sort of dough for treatment.
You've listened to Rush limbaugh and Glenn Beck and other make up stories about Canada and England and Europe that the PEOPLE IN THOSE COUTNRIES insist are absurd; and not ONE of those countries has EVER had a serious political push to scrap and try to imitate our system.
What we HAVE SEEN, OTOH is OUR SYSTEM. It' MORE EXPENSIVE, kills 18,000 people a year, backrupts close to 90,000, and leaves 40,000,000 w/o any coverage at all. And after all that, our life expectency is LESS in this country, than in Europe despite the fact that we have the best and most abundant health care RESOURCES in the world!
The facts simply do not and can not support your position. You are clinging to ideology alone, that no amount of reason will ever come from or support. Turn off the AM Radio, turn off Fox and try thinking for yourself. Once you get the hang of it you might be surprised with the solutions you end up coming uo with or supporting.
You show me how many people in the UK die every year waiting for a procedure, then comapre it those in the US who die from lack of coverage (which amounts to the same thing) and we'll talk. You show me how many people in the UK declare bankrupcy every year paying for a procedure, then comapre it to the US and we'll talk. You show me how many people in the UK aren't covered at all, then comapre it to the US and we'll talk.
I'm sure your family are wonderful people, but their individual experiences with an imperfect system are completely irrelevant to the discussion. Besides - if the UK system has stuff that doesn't work, and I'm sure it does, there's no reason we can't take the stuff that DOES work and do differently that which doesn't. It would impossible to sit down and design a serious system that works LESS efficiently and LESS effecively than ours, given the resources that we have.
Is that your mother-in-law the pharmacist? I thought she dealt with the druggies on Medicare? That was in the UK?
Which means that people who can afford the current U.S. system are exactly like people who live in the U.K., with the possible exception that "your family" is choosing not to buy private insurance while hypocritically retaining the right to complain about it.
You people are not even close to accurate in what you say the health care plan proposes, what the current health care system actually provides, or what health care is like in countries with socialized medicine. You're lying, delusional, or both.
Often, hard questionable breast bumps can be reversed w/ an alkaline diet. Plenty of info on that too. Not on the nightly news because it doesn't create business. Main stream media is NOT post 2ndary education. MSM is full of masquerading illegitimate business promotion.
A 30 day wait is what we get now for most non-emergency testing. I am guessing that once the legislation is passed and signed into law, you will see testing clinics spring up all over the place where you can go to get any number of tests done that won't require a doctor's visit to prescribe - like mamograms, blood pressure, cholesterol, bone density, prostate, etc.; which should help with wait times as well.
Until the system is up and running and can accomodate 45 million new patients with varying degrees of health issues, yes Mr. Eddiebear2, we will probably have to wait longer then we do now for non-emergency services but not when you have symptoms and the delays are not in the legislation nor will it last forever.
I think I can put up with a little inconvience to allow for those currently without healthcare to catch up to all of us "healthy" insured people, don't you? Or do you want to deny 45 million people health insurance just so you don't have to wait a little bit for services?
November 12, 2008
New mammogram wait time: 9 months
Schedule next year's exam now!
Women who rushed out to schedule their mammogram when that article was published...just got their mammogram appointment this month.
We already have long wait times. Adding a public option just means that the currently uninsured will get care with the same wait times as everyone else (instead of NEVER).
Actually, "end of life" in this case is NOT synonymous to "death". It is about the care while LIVING at the END of one's life, not about death. "Before death" would technically be correct, but we all live before death, so that wouldn't cut it either. End of life is the correct description of what is meant.
I know you thought you were being smart, but still, let's try and keep it factual.
Dictionary.com, in relevant part, defines "death" as "end of life". Random House unabridged.
Maybe you could give us your definitions of "logic" as in your name, "technically correct, but", "correct description of what is meant", and "factual", distinguishing between English on the one hand, and spin and politics as in your bizarre confabulation.
About.com defines end of life as:
You simply restate the left's proof that death panels don't exist by making the preposteous point that the bill does not call for counseling dead people.
fawltylogic,
The insight, brilliance, and simplicity of your closing argument is overwhelming.
HR3200 dictates that after the fifth year, the Secretary sets prices and content of all insurance, government and private. Since he will have a strong desire to gather the premiums of the participants in private plans, it is obvious to most the private plans will simply be driven out of the market. The "public option" will become single payer. When that happens the committee that gathers to set policy on what will be paid and what won't could also be known as a death panel. There is no provision in HR3200 for a "death panel" per se, but that policy setting committee (a responsiblity specifically assigned to the Secretary in HR3200 and probably delegated to the committee) will set prices and coverage.
An 88 year old man who has paid in to the single payer system for 60 years and contracts cancer will look to his insurance policy for coverage for chemotherapy. Will he get it? Is it likely the Secretary will think it economic to pay for chemotherapy for an 88 year old man? What if all he needs is a hip replacement? Would he get that? What if he were 98?
Somewhere in all this the Secretary will be saying "We aren't going to pay for your medical needs." The reason this is a Death Panel is because
a. If the 88 year old man doesn't get chemotherapy he dies
b. Government forced him to join government plan. If he didn't join he would suffer an 8% tax penalty.
c. Secretary says he doesn't get chemotherapy and man has no appeal. Secretary is beyond judicial review (HR3200).
It is (b) and (c) that distinguishes the Governement death panels from the private death panels. The man has a choice of what to buy from private insurance companies. Also, with private insurance if he doesn't like the decision he can appeal the the state insurance commissioner.
Compulsory end-of-life counciling isn't a death panel. The Secretary is. Think about it.
There are arguments to avoid this.
If you're poor, you die. you won't have enough money to pay for the chemo.
If you're middle class, you will have to do what the liberals and HR3200 purport to avoid -- bankrupt yourself to pay for chemo. Alternatively, like in Canada, you can buy supplemental insurance, thus paying for your insurance twice. This is just a tax though it doesn't look like one.
If you're rich, you'll write a check and pray the chemo is successful.
HR3200 removes for all time, any possibility the poor could get expensive care at end of life.
Finally, since the Secretary is beyond judicial review, he could decide not to give heroic treatement for cancer after a person reaches 75 years of age. There's nothing you could do about it. Then, when Ted Kennedy discovers his cancer, the Secretary can make an arbitrary exception and there's nothing you could do about it. Remember, he is beyond judical review.
HR3200 is such a bad law that if everyone read it and understood it and thought for a while about how it might be implemented and operate over the next 10 years almost everyone would vote no. High costs are one of the motivations for HR3200 but costs are not addressed to any significane. To keep costs down, the Secretary will start with price controls. Price controls always lead to shortages (e.g. Canada has 2.2 doctors/1000 people - almost the bottom of US+Europs). The bill itself will be challenged in the courts and major parts of it could be wiped out [e.g. can the Federal government force me to buy insurance and if I don't tax only me because I didn't buy insurance -- where is that in the Constitution?]
Finally, the CBO estimate of cost over 10 years is $1T. However, most of the $1T is spent in the final 6 years AND the CBO said that its estimate was only for the parts of HR3200 that were complete enought to estimate. The CBO is not famous for accurate predictions of future costs, so the $1T is unlikely to be lower, but has a good chance of being higher.
Medicare will be bankrupt in 2017. HR3200 is significanly larger in scope and price than Medicare and so far, there is no plan to keep Medicare from going bankrupt. I fail to see how HR3200 will produce anything better that Bankruptcy of the entire country sooner rather than later.
You seem to have a good handle on the word "could".
"HR3200 removes for all time, any possibility the poor could get expensive care at end of life." Says you.
Check this out..
If Obama drops all talk of Health Care tomorrow and puts it in the trash, the Insurance Companies "could" drop anyone at anytime from their roles(which they do now). And dumping Health Insurance/Care reform, removes for all time, any possibility ANYONE could get expensive care at any time in their life." Says me.
That will fit nicely into ObamaCare and as a bonus it is a term the dems are comfortable with.
Who will be the first Angel of Death Czar? I nominate Erskine Bowles, just on the fact that he looks the part.
Sorry, that sounded a lot less dirty in my head...
Wait, I thought Luke blew up the Death Czar and when they started building another, Lando blew up that one. Am I wrong?
No, I'm in make-believe land - just like you are.
You're abs right. And THIS is the system the conservatives defend so ardently.
Congress ultimately concluded that three major American insurance companies rescinded 19,776 policies for over $300 million in savings over five years,
Yeah, well... at least they're not rationing! I swear, anyone who even attempts to defedn our current health care sustem is either a liar, an idiot, insane or an insurance salesman.
It should draw reaction from both sides. They will have NO idea which side you represent. It will be the most original of the bunch and may draw the Congressmans' attention. Then you can place focus on the squirrel, not the nuts.
After getting the attention, you'll be at bat..Good Luck.
Neither side should have a problem getting volunteers to be flown to Hilton Head.
Surely, others will have suggestions...
You may want to post this somewhere else today when it fits..since this is fom yesterday
that's what the unregulated insurance industry came up with over the last 8 years. i think it's time for someone else to have a go at it, don't you?
(ie granny could cover the expenses)
The bill is still Texas law as I write.