Forbes' Karlgaard alleges funereal message in Obama's black tie -- which wasn't black
SUMMARY: On Forbes on Fox, David Asman and Rich Karlgaard misrepresented President Obama's words -- and, in Karlgaard's case, even his tie color -- in order to suggest that Obama said he'd have the government let some patients die rather than pay for their treatments.
On the June 27 edition of Forbes on Fox, host David Asman introduced a segment about "saving lives versus saving money," and then aired a clip of President Obama stating during the June 24 ABC health care forum, "At least we can let doctors know and your mom know, that you know what, maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery but taking the painkiller." Later in the segment, Forbes publisher Rich Karlgaard claimed of Obama's remarks: "[W]hat he's indicating is that government health care involves rationing. It's kind of funny that he let it slip out. It was kind of funny he signaled it by wearing a black tie, the color of funerals. There's going to be more funerals for old people going ahead." However, as the full context of the remarks Asman aired make clear, Obama, who was not wearing a black tie at the event, was specifically referring to medical procedures that are "not making anybody's mom better" and "additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care."
From the ABC special, with the portion of Obama's remarks that Asman aired in bold:
[W]hat we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery but taking the painkiller.
And those kinds of decisions between doctors and patients, and making sure that our incentives are not preventing those good decision, and that -- that doctors and hospitals all are aligned for patient care, that's something we can achieve.
Contrary to Karlgaard's claim that Obama "w[ore] a black tie, the color of funerals," the tie Obama wore during the ABC forum was not black:
From the June 27 edition of Fox News' Forbes on Fox:
DAVID ASMAN: But first, saving lives versus saving money. To the most controversial statement President Obama's ever made about national health care. Take a listen.
OBAMA [video clip]: At least we can let doctors know and your mom know, that you know what, maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery but taking the painkiller.
ASMAN: Now, is the president saying he wants government-run health care to make that call? Hi, everybody, I'm David Asman. Welcome to Forbes on Fox. Let's go "In Focus" with Steve Forbes -- by the way, don't miss his great new book about making great leaders, Power, Ambition, Glory. also here, Rich Karlgaard, Elizabeth MacDonald, Neil Weinberg, along with John Rutledge and Quentin Hardy. Steve, let's start with you.
FORBES: Hey, money is always going to triumph lives. We've seen that in socialized medicine in other countries. In Britain, for example, if you're above a certain age, you need kidney dialysis, you're not going to get it. They always put -- in Holland, they have euthanasia. And in this country, they're all going to point out, well, in of the last three months, you spend most of the money -- or in the last six months, why not just take that painkiller and be done with it, and look at all the money we'll save? So, yes, money will -- and with government, unlike business sector, in government, money will trump over lives.
ASMAN: So, E-Mac, was the president saying that government will call the shots?
MacDONALD: I don't think right in that quote, but he better not be saying that. But you know, I personally have seen, you know, doctors with their interns scribbling on clipboards trying out, test-driving new medical equipment on the indigent poor who don't have the families there to tell them to stop -- resuscitative machines, all sorts of things. And, you know, we know that fee-for-service has driven surgery rates up higher because they get paid on the amount of surgeries you do.
I agree with Steve, though. You know, Tom Daschle talking about a health care, you know, a health federal reserve. What are they going to set, health inflation targets? The issue is, David, do you want bureaucrats deciding the rules here and who gets to spend the money, who gets to be the beneficiaries of the money? And it could get politicized.
ASMAN: Rich Karlgaard, is the president saying that government will be calling the shots here?
KARLGAARD: Well, what he's indicating is that government health care involves rationing. It's kind of funny that he let it slip out. It was kind of funny he signaled it by wearing a black tie, the color of funerals. There's going to be more funerals for old people going ahead.
The thing that worries me most is whenever the government gets involved, you know, it apportions things by political favors. I mean, that's the Chicago way. So we're going to see certain political groups getting more health-care favors than others.
From ABC's June 24 Primetime Questions for the President: Prescription for America:
SAWYER: And we have with us a couple of people who really represent the opposite ends on this spectrum too. I want to talk, if I can, to Jane Sturm. Your mother, Hazel - Hazel Homer --
JANE STURM: Yes.
SAWYER: -- 100 years old and she wanted --
STURM: She's 105 now, over 105. But at 100, the doctor had said to her, I can't do anything more unless you have a pacemaker. I said, go for it. She said, go for it. But the arrhythmia specialist said, no, it's too old. Her doctor said, I'm going to make an appointment, because a picture is worth a thousand words. And when the other arrhythmia specialist saw her, saw her joy of life and so on, he said, I'm going for it.
So that was over five years ago. My question to you is, outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, quality of life? Or is it just a medical cutoff at a certain age?
OBAMA: Well, first of all, I want to meet your mom, and I want to find out what she's eating. But, look, the first thing for all of us to understand is that we actually have some -- some choices to make about how we want to deal with our own end-of-life care. And that's one of the things I think that we can all promote, and this is not a big government program. This is something that each of us individually can do, is to draft and sign a living will so that we're very clear with our doctors about how we want to approach the end of life.
I don't think that we can make judgments based on peoples' spirit. That would be a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that say that we are going to provide good, quality care for all people.
GIBSON: But the money may not have been there for her pacemaker or for your grandmother's hip replacement.
OBAMA: Well, and -- and that's absolutely true. And end-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we're going to have to make. I don't want bureaucracies making those decisions, but understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they're not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they're being made by private insurers.
We don't always make those decisions explicitly. We often make those decisions by just letting people run out of money or making the deductibles so high or the out-of-pocket expenses so onerous that they just can't afford the care. And all we're suggesting -- and we're not going to solve every difficult problem in terms of end-of-life care. A lot of that is going to have to be we as a culture and as a society starting to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves.
But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery but taking the painkiller.
And those kinds of decisions between doctors and patients, and making sure that our incentives are not preventing those good decisions, and that -- that doctors and hospitals all are aligned for patient care, that's something we can achieve. We're not going to solve every single one of these very difficult decisions at end of life, and ultimately that's going to be between physicians and patients. But we can make real progress on this front if we work a little bit harder.
Terminally ill patients often incur medical bills totaling more in the last three months of life than they did in their entire life prior to becoming ill. This is hardly news to anyone and if these these clowns don't know it, they should be silent on the subject.
Doctors have a say in this matter, too. They will not give up on a patient if there is even a slim chance of recovery. Unfortunately, there is a point where medicine can no longer keep a person alive.
I'm weary of these fake discussions among "experts" with preconceived talking points. The "fact-based" Karlgaard couldn't even get the color of Obama's tie right...
A "black funeral tie" fit his story better than the non black tie the President was wearing, so it became a black tie.
These mopes are as transparent as glass.
The AMA has been saying for years doctors are performing needless surgeries (e.g. joint replacements) on elderly patients that do not result in any improvement in quality of life and more often than not do nothing other than line the doctors' pockets.
Is the AMA now part of the "liberal Obama conspiracy"?
Moreso under a "socialit" system than under a profit-for-shareholders and executives system? I don't think so.
I know that was cheesy sorry.
Yes, they do. They have voluntary euthanasia, for those who choose it. By implying that the Netherlands' government imposes such a choice on its citizens, Forbes is acting mighty slippery with the facts.
I trust that doesn't surprise anyone...
...Dr Herbert Hendin, medical director of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, has studied euthanasia in the Netherlands. He notes that "what was intended as a solution for exceptional cases has become a routine way of dealing with terminal cases. The Netherlands has moved from euthanasia for the terminally ill to euthanasia for the chronically ill, from euthanasia for physical illness to euthanasia for psychological distress, and from voluntary to involuntary euthanasia."
Duty to die
Already, Holland's euthanasia guidelines offer scant protection to the mentally ill and newborn babies. Researchers from the Centre for Bioethics and Health Law at the University of Utrecht found that more than 40 per cent of all mentally handicapped patients who died in 1995 did so after a doctor's decision to withdraw treatment, increase painkilling drugs or give lethal injections.
In that same year, doctors were charged with killing two handicapped newborns. The courts ruled that the doctors had no option but to kill. The Dutch government survey reports that doctors now kill about 15 non-viable newborns each year.
In some cases, a patient's "right to die" has subtly become a duty to die. "I frequently see people pressured towards euthanasia by exhausted and impatient relatives," says Amsterdam psychiatrist Frank Koerselman. He tells of a woman whose relatives gathered in Amsterdam for her planned euthanasia. One relative came from overseas. When the patient expressed last-minute doubts, the family said, "You can't have her come all this way for nothing." Instead of ensuring that the patient's true wishes were observed, the doctor carried out the euthanasia.
In Holland, the key alternative to euthanasia — palliative care — is largely unavailable. Originating in England 30 years ago, this philosophy of total care for the terminally ill and their families offers spiritual comfort and the control of physical and mental pain, without seeking to either hasten or postpone death. Today almost all communities in the United Kingdom and many in Europe and North America provide such care, often in facilities known as hospices.
Dr Robert Twycross, a leading authority on palliative care at Oxford University, recalls a cancer patient who drank excessively to escape the pain and mental distress caused by his illness, and finally demanded to be put to death. After pain treatment, he changed his mind, saying, "It wasn't me speaking. It was the alcohol."
"Depression often overlaps and complicates terminal illness," says Twycross. "As the patient comes out of depression, the demand for euthanasia evaporates."
Australia has about 360 hospice and palliative care services, used by more than 20,000 people every year. In the United States, some 3000 hospices were used by 450,000 people in 1996. But Holland has no more than half a dozen independent hospices with up to 36 beds. "Unfortunately, the Dutch discovered euthanasia before they discovered palliative care," says Zylicz.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/medicine/kill.htm
"Euthanasia is popularly taken to mean any form of termination of life by a doctor. The definition under Dutch law, however, is narrower. It means the termination of life by a doctor at the express wish of a patient. The request to the doctor must be voluntary, explicit and carefully considered and it must have been made repeatedly. Moreover, the patient's suffering must be unbearable and without any prospect of improvement."
Latter from article at Euthenasia.com. Anyone can copy from articles on the Internets. My question would be: "why did Forbes throw this statement out there?" Not: "is euthenasia every misused or morally wrong".
While the argument goes on about who makes that judgment, the state, the family, the doctor, it all boils down to the patient making a living will in a sound mind. Once that pre-condition has been met the state should have in effect laws allowing Euthanasia as long as doctor, family, and patient agree, that prolonging hopeless suffering is not humanitarian but is the most baseless and cruel act society can perpetrate on an individual. Fast, painless and effective, that is the choice of many. Why do we prolong needless suffering? Is it for the money? Is it because religious zealots through history have beat themselves with bricks and the bloodier the white robe the more favor you have with your Lord and master? Is it for experimental research by the medical field? Is it because the family won't let go or the doctor doesn't have a heart? I know that there are different rare situations when this may be unwarranted, but at the risk of sounding cruel we incarcerate and execute innocent people all the time because we cannot afford for everyone to be tried like OJ Simpson. Just because this is a given we do not allow them all out on the street. Yet we will take away a woman's right to choose and run the risk of a back alley hanger type abortion instead of a medical one, and allow war criminals to kill millions. What is wrong with us? When will all this madness end?
The answer to terminally ill suffering is not killing them, but using pallative methods to reduce the pain in their last days.
Your post is filled with inaccuracies and hyperbole.
At one point you say, "at the risk of sounding cruel.." Yes, to me, you sound cruel.
AA, if you don't like death with dignity you are free to die as you've lived, wretchedly.
The health care debate brings out the stupid in these people. They should be thankful their income doesn't rely on any sort of intellectual honesty or personal integrity.
I just watched Peggy Noonan on George Snuffaluffagus claiming that peopple are about ready to revolt against taxes and this plan is going to push them over the edge. How can she not realize that the people are already over the edge ON HEALTHCARE REFORM?!
First, generally we don't have "health" care - we have sick care. Overall we do a poor job of preventing avoidable medical problems (although a pretty good job of preventing disease). I recently read about a hospital that offered free annual checkups to those persons who frequently visited their emergency room. According to this report, ER use was cut by 50%.
The radio and tv gasbags talk as if America's insurers, HMO's, PPO's, and hospitals don't "ration" sick care. Of course they do. Haven't they heard about "gatekeepers?" Do they honestly think the insurance company don't refuse requests for certain (expensive) treatments.
Did they read the New Yorker article by the doctor who said successful medical practices employ people to do nothing but secure insurance company approvals for treatments. And that a good practice can reduce refusals from 30% down to 15%?
Kalgaard didn't say Obama's tie was all black did he? Obviously it is not all black, but it looks to me like it is black with white polka dots.
Now to play your childish game, look again at the screenshot of the elected president of the country whose flag you wrap yourself in. It is obviously several shades lighter than his jacket wich, while dark, does appear to be solid black. Does your world have a darker color than black? If we slide the whole color spectrum for you so blue is the new black what will we call the color formerly known as black, Reagan? Or perhaps you are giving fashion advice saying blue is the new black. In astronomy there is a well known phenomenon called the 'red shift', maybe the conservative drivel you are always swirling in has caused a 'right shift' affecting your optic nerves. Keep coming here for enlightenment and maybe we can get your colors back in focus.
Of course, I will not hold my breath while waiting.