Fox misleads on Obama interview to advance "death panel" fears
Fox News' Bret Baier and Shannon Bream selectively cited an April interview to claim that President Obama's "own words may have contributed to the atmosphere of fear" surrounding "talk about possible government mandates in so-called end-of-life issues" or "what critics call 'death panels.' " But in the interview Bream cited, Obama made clear that an advisory panel that would issue guidance on end-of-life issues would "not [be] determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance."
Baier, Bream selectively cited Obama interview to claim he "may have contributed to the atmosphere of fear"
From the August 12 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
BAIER: Back to our continuing coverage of health care reform now. Many seniors have been shaken by the speculation and talk about possible government mandates in so-called end-of-life issues. Correspondent Shannon Bream reports the controversy is far from over.
[begin video clip]
SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY (R-IA): We should not have a government program that determines you're going to pull the plug on grandma.
BREAM: End-of-life issues are taking center stage at town halls across the country as angry seniors speak out about worries that government advisory boards, what critics call "death panels," will be making key decisions about what kind of treatment they'll be able to get in their later years.
OBAMA: The rumor that's been circulating a lot lately --
BREAM: And though the president wants to quell any efforts to connect reform proposals to something more sinister, his own words may have contributed to the atmosphere of fear.
He often discusses his grandmother's story. She was battling terminal cancer when she fell and needed a hip replacement. Mr. Obama has talked about the fact that he would have paid her bills out of pocket, but that whether society should be willing to pay such costs is a tougher question.
In an April interview with The New York Times Magazine, he said, quote, "So that's where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that's also a huge driver of cost, right? I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here."
REP. THADDEUS McCOTTER (R-MI): That does not mean that we should tie the continuation and the quality of an individual's life to how much they cost the government.
[end video clip]
In the interview, Obama made clear an advisory panel is "not determinative, but ... has to be able to give you some guidance."
From Obama's New York Times Magazine interview with staff writer David Leonhardt, published on April 28:
THE PRESIDENT: I don't know how much that hip replacement [that Obama's grandmother received shortly before her death] cost. I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she's my grandmother. Whether, sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else's aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they're terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question. If somebody told me that my grandmother couldn't have a hip replacement and she had to lie there in misery in the waning days of her life -- that would be pretty upsetting.
[LEONHARDT]: And it's going to be hard for people who don't have the option of paying for it.
THE PRESIDENT: So that's where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that's also a huge driver of cost, right?
I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.
[LEONHARDT]: So how do you -- how do we deal with it?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that's part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It's not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that's part of what I suspect you'll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now. [The New York Times Magazine; 4/28/09]
Fearmongering on rationing is a GOP strategy
Luntz memo urged Republicans to emphasize the "consequences of rationing." In a memo to Republicans outlining rhetorical strategies for opposing Obama's health care reform initiative, Republican consultant Frank Luntz wrote: "Put simply, while Americans would oppose the concept (and reality) of healthcare rationing, it is the impact of rationing -- the long waits for tests, the denial of care, the thousands of people fleeing to America to get the care they can't get in their own countries -- this is what truly frightens the public more than the word rationing itself. ... The word "rationing" does induce the negative response you want, but what you really want audiences to focus on is the "consequences of rationing."
Special Report not alone in fearmongering about end-of-life health care
Fox & Friends has repeatedly fearmongered on rationing and care of elderly. In selectively citing Obama's April interview, Baier and Bream followed a pattern of Fox News hosts and guests repeatedly invoking rationing among the elderly to fearmonger the effects of health care reform. Fox & Friends hosts and guests have repeatedly characterized advanced planning provisions in the bill as "euthanasia," "eugenics," and "an Aldous Huxley kind of world."
Fearmongering about end-of-life mandates echoes discredited right-wing smear
Claims of mandatory counseling for seniors to end their lives are false. Suggestions that health care reform will lead to the elderly being encouraged to die echo the discredited right-wing myth that a provision in the House health care reform bill would require that seniors receive "mandatory" end-of-life counseling sessions that would, in Betsy McCaughey's words, "tell them how to end their life sooner." Contrary to these assertions, the bill does not make end-of-life counseling mandatory. The relevant section of the bill amends the Social Security Act to ensure that advance care planning will be covered if a patient requests it from a qualified care provider [America's Affordable Health Choices Act, Sec. 1233]. According to an analysis of the bill produced by the three relevant House committees, the section "[p]rovides coverage for consultation between enrollees and practitioners to discuss orders for life-sustaining treatment. Instructs CMS to modify 'Medicare & You' handbook to incorporate information on end-of-life planning resources and to incorporate measures on advance care planning into the physician's quality reporting initiative." [waysandmeans.house.gov, accessed 7/29/09]
PolitiFact: Claim that seniors would be told how to end lives sooner "is an outright distortion." Criticizing McCaughey's false claims, PolitiFact.com wrote that the "claim that the sessions would 'tell [seniors] how to end their life sooner' is an outright distortion. Rather, the sessions are an option for elderly patients who want to learn more about living wills, health care proxies and other forms of end-of-life planning. McCaughey isn't just wrong, she's spreading a ridiculous falsehood." [PolitiFact.com, 7/23/09]
Transcript
From the August 12 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
BAIER: Back to our continuing coverage of health care reform now. Many seniors have been shaken by the speculation and talk about possible government mandates in so-called end-of-life issues. Correspondent Shannon Bream reports the controversy is far from over.
[begin video clip]
SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY (R-IA): We should not have a government program that determines you're going to pull the plug on grandma.
BREAM: End-of-life issues are taking center stage at town halls across the country as angry seniors speak out about worries that government advisory boards, what critics call "death panels," will be making key decisions about what kind of treatment they'll be able to get in their later years.
OBAMA: The rumor that's been circulating a lot lately --
BREAM: And though the president wants to quell any efforts to connect reform proposals to something more sinister, his own words may have contributed to the atmosphere of fear.
He often discusses his grandmother's story. She was battling terminal cancer when she fell and needed a hip replacement. Mr. Obama has talked about the fact that he would have paid her bills out of pocket, but that whether society should be willing to pay such costs is a tougher question.
In an April interview with The New York Times Magazine, he said, quote, "So that's where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that's also a huge driver of cost, right? I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here."
REP. THADDEUS McCOTTER (R-MI): That does not mean that we should tie the continuation and the quality of an individual's life to how much they cost the government.
BREAM: And cost is certainly an issue. Roughly a quarter of Medicare's most recent budget, more than $100 billion, was spent on patients in their final year of life.
And there is real concern that some lawmakers pushing for health care reform could look for spending cuts by limiting, quote, "unnecessary procedures for the elderly." Would medical professionals then be urged to counsel against costly procedures during patient-doctor consultations? Supporters of those consultations say that suggestion is nothing more than a scare tactic.
JIM DAU (AARP): There's no government counselor in the room. There's no bureaucrat there waiting outside in the waiting room with a checklist. This is a conversation between you and your doctor.
[end video clip]
BREAM: The so-called end-of-life counseling meetings between doctors and patients are outlined in House Resolution 3200, the only comprehensive health care reform measure so far from Capitol Hill.
The Senate has yet to produce a bill of its own, and there's no word on whether it would contain a similar provision.
In Washington, Shannon Bream, Fox News.
Until the Press acknowledges that simple fact, this debate will continue to spiral downward.
Seems to me Obama was consistent, the government should stay out of end of life issues, and they should be between a patient, doctor and family. Exactly where the house bill facilitates this decision.
We currently ration out 23-25 million Americans. You ok with that?
How about them 20 million non illegal Americans?
It's nothing to be ashamed of.
You know you've made a good point when some of those here on the left start off with ad hominem attacks.
Ever since health coverage became a major issue in the 2008 presidential campaign, we’ve received periodic questions from readers who wonder whether a large percentage of the uninsured are non-citizens or illegal immigrants. They’re not. According to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, 79 percent of the uninsured are native or naturalized U.S. citizens. The remaining 21 percent accounts for both legal and illegal immigrants.
Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/03/uninsured-us-citizens/
Claim: Many of the uninsured are not U.S. citizens. About 9.7 million of the uninsured are immigrants, both legal and illegal. The National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation estimates that 5.6 million of these are undocumented, but there are no hard data on that – NIHCM stresses that "the CPS does not collect information on legal status among non-citizens." Immigrants, especially new immigrants, are more likely to be uninsured than citizens. They are also less likely than citizens to use expensive emergency care, according to research from the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/the-real-uninsured/
"When you factor out people that choose not to have insurance...."
Making it up as you go. Truly partisan thinking. Make a number up and then when you are proven false, change the argument. You are allowed to have your own opinion on whatever you want. You are not allowed to have your own facts. If you want to be involved in the adult conversation, try to keep up. This healthcare argument is not about illegal aliens - regardless of whatever your radio/TV talking head tells you. Try to stay on task.
Gotta love lefties showing their true anti-religious and anti-Christian bigotry.
I mean, take a look at the protestors at the town halls.
You cannot speak at a college level about these things to the public at large ...
The complaint about the bill being to costly, and pushing for cutting costs is heard from Fox News, and Republicans.
So in summary. In Fox News & Republican land, there are death panels that will make sure to cut costs, but they won't cut costs, they'll just kill people.
In reality, it's VOLUNTARY end of life-counseling, something that exists in many insurances (i.e. the staff for the Colbert Report have the same voluntary end of life-counseling, from a private insurer).
People are scared because they are being told lies, from fear-mongerers. The people who then scared these people report on people being scared by their own lies.
Integrity is the name of the game for Conservatives in America...
I can just see old Joe Biden now saying, "Dying is the patriotic thing to do."
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08060402.html
Wait a minute, what am I saying, if republicans to it, it is free. Bush cut taxes $750 billion to the rich and that was free right? That had no affect on the buget. Oh yeah, he got that money from the Chinese Government. No? Hrm, how did we pay for that?
I digress. I also have not found how Republicans are going to cover to uninsured, cut healthcare and pharmaceutical costs. Sustaion lower costs. Better our health outcomes. Control fraud and waste. Introduce technology to free up Doctors, Nurses and other healthcare workers so they no longer spend half the day (fact) on paperwork. Doctors can see more patients, Nurses, care for more patients-excuse me I have segued into Obama land.
My point is healths care is a complex issue. If I open a bill the is only a few pages i can only surmise, no real thought has go into it. Tax credits and deductions are a great idea for those who purchase their own, or business' who offer it to their employees. But it is a very small part of the problem.
Trusting the industry to do the right thing has been tried before and failed. Let's face it, if they were serious, policy costs would not still be going up and they are. 1400 people a day would not continue to lose insurence. Policies would no longer be cancelled for people with catastrophic illness to people who have been perscribed with certian medications for mental illness (they get their policies cancelled as well) all of this is still happening right this minute.
Maybe it has not happened to yoy Y.E.T. (Your Eligable Too)but it could.
Right now we have 5 prpopsed bills that need to be consolidated, fought over be for we get to one, the when can argue about what is is it.
If you go to a townhall and you cannot get your questions answered, contact you congressman/woman or senator. My congressman has opened his office here this week, I made and appointment and went to his office. I spoke to a nice staff member, told her my personal concerns and story, which they recorded. They answered my questions and listened to my concerns.
A lot of our Representatives are making themselves available either by online townhalls or personal meetings. They want to answer our concerns. Take advantage and make YOUR voice heard.
Denise Tenny
Yeah, ANARCHY! ANARCHY!
Translation: We've cherry-picked these quotes in order to make it seem like Obama's own words may have contributed to the atmosphere of fear.
If you listen to the quote, you'll see that Obama is emphasizing end of life counseling in order to save on costs.
He says there is a difficult national conversation that needs to take place. Well, it is taking place.
The government takeover of healthcare puts the power of life and death conversations in the hands of the government. It might be voluntary right now to engage in these discussions, but it is a short slippery slope for some government bean counter to make the argument that these conversations need to be mandatory. Toss in a little rationing.. all for the common good of course, and we'll slip a little further down the slope.
I recall a movie called "Soylent Green" that did just that. If I remember correctly it was the last movie that Edward G. Robinson made and it starred Charleton Heston.
Go ask anyone who is in their 80's or above if they are in favor of this aspect of Obamacare and see what they think.
Who really knows what Obama is saying here, this is a toughy.
In other words, make up crap and foment fear and hate. Gotcha.
What is so freaking hypocritical of Republicans like yourself, AA, is YOU had NO problem with the "dreaded government" getting involved in the Terri Schaivo case.
You do remember that Terri had spoken to her husband Michael and made her end of life wishes known to him. No "dreaded government" intervention needed. Yet somehow you and your Republicans buddies decided all on your own that Michael, her husband was lying and she really wanted to stay alive by feeding tube. YOU folks decided that there was an urgent need for the "dreaded government" to step in and make medical decisions for a woman that NONE of you knew. Who can forget Tom Delay grandstanding on the floor of the House of Representatives or Bush cutting short his vacation to come back and get the "dreaded government" involved in an end of life FAMILY decision!
The truth is, you know d*mn well that there is no freaking "death panel" in the health-care bill. It's simply an advertising gimmick created by Republicans in order to stop health-care reform and hurt President Obama.
Somebody ought to pull the plug on your lying, hypocritical Republican party!
budgetary concerns and thin air. The "Secretary" can do anything he wants with prices and services. [p124, Sec. 223]. If you want a Republican "Secretary" deciding whether Ted Kennedy gets medical care, you should support HR3200. You would be putting more trust in Government than most.
The reason Death Panels cannot be ruled out is that HR3200 does
not promise to pay for medical treatment no matter what the life expectancy of the patient [no insurance company does]. What's different about HR3200 is that the government forcibly takes your money [with insurance companies you can opt out and have your own HSA] and the government will not give any of it back to you when you need it unless you fall INTO the class of beneficiaries. From this unfortunate position you have no appeal. The "Secretary's" rules are NOT subject to judicial review. [page 124, Section 223].
When the secretary says "No chemotherapy for people older than 100 years", and he can say that, any who needs it is condemned to death. HR3200 gives the "Secretary" that much power.
Our country does not need to "think about" end of life. Individuals do, but if you want me to think about your end of life, you need help. You are guaranteed to get someone different from me, probably smarter, but is "smart" what you want. Maybe Ezekial Immanuel would be the HEW Secretary when you got near the cutoff age. The program is having budget problems and the way to solve them is to lower the cutoff age. Now that the government is involved, and depending how far in the future we're talking about, you might have no choices at all. If all the private insurance companies are driven out of business your government would be your only option and then, we might see Americans going to Canada or more likely China for advanced medical care. Those would be the rich folks. Us poor folks just croak.
Government and Health Care should not be mixed. Together, they are poison.
Vote NO on HR3200.
And...you're certifiably INSANE.
Your Republican must try to scare folks talking points are insane, just like you!
You mean like claiming that half of the uninsured are illegals and then when you are proven false saying, "well I was factoring out a few million because it helped my ridiculous argument"? That kind of making things up?
"explain why in Oregon (which essentially has Obama-care already) denied a lady the drugs that would prolong and better her life because they didn't want to pay for it but offered to pay for her assisted suicide"
This never happened and if you got your news from someone other than your radio/TV talking heads you would know this. This was debunked almost a week ago.
Once again, try and keep up or keep your silly, patently false, childish arguments at the kids' table. There are actual issues to discuss with healthcare. Why Obama wants to kill old people and why Obama wants to give our money to illegal aliens are not those arguments. These are silly and untrue and if you had an ounce of unbiased thinking you wouldn't even need anyone to explain that to you. I never supported G-Dub, but I was never so partian that I would have believed that he wanted to kill my Grandma just because Rush Limbaugh told me so. Wake up or grow up.