Explain the Death Panels thing to me

Seems like that is the biggest lie the Libs like to bring up when talking about all of the Republican lies related to UHC … correct me if I’m wrong, please.

My recollection is that it took off last fall when all of the congresscritters had townhalls back in their district. At the time there were all kinds of plans running thru the various committees and that at least one of them “required” end of life counselling.

Is the “required” part wrong? While admittedly far short of a Death Panel in the classic sense … why require that unless you’d want to achieve something close to it.

Unfortunately, for them, many of the congresscritters had no idea what was in the bills … see what happens when you don’t control the attendees and questions at a townhall. If it wasn’t required, one little option among so many drafts could easily have been defended.

Have any of the evil Republicans ever defined Death Panel and said that it is (at the time) or was in the plans.

I will admit that a friend of mine told me his parents thought there really would be Death Panels. No doubt it was an effective tactic … which is why the Libs are so outraged.

FWIW, I wish that neither side did those kinds of things.

From Wikipedia :

Yes, it is wrong. Permitting Medicare to pay for such counseling is not the same as requiring it.

As you can see, this argument is no longer functional if counseling is not mandatory.

Here is the language that was proposed:

Don’t forget Palin’s insinuation that her someone else might make the decision about whether or not her Downs’ Syndrome child would be allowed to live.

Palin’s quote was more than an insinuation, it was a flat out statement that Obama wanted to kill her baby.

There’s also the (long since removed) claim by the Investor’s Business Daily that a national health care plan like the one in the UK would have killed Stephen Hawking because he’s crippled.

Which is not only an incredibly bizarre claim for thinking national health care would kill cripples, but because Hawking happens to be British.

You are entirely right. Republicans pointed to the phrase “end of life counseling” and claimed this as proof that the health care bill was a plan to commit mass murder. In reality, end of life counseling is counseling about the end of life, a fact which is fairly obvious to everyone except Republicans. In other words, when a patient reaches a point where death in certain or likely, they can discuss the various options that are open to them. End of life counseling has no more connection to death panels than it has to emu farming, and the Republicans were telling outright lies when they claimed it did.

Needless to say, our current free-market approach to health care does include death panels. When a person with insurance becomes dangerously ill and requires an expensive treatment, the insurance company decides whether they get coverage and live or are denied coverage and die. Sounds like a death panel to me.

Timmy, I didn’t want to have to be the one to tell you this, I really wish your parents had. But remember your dog that ran away? Well, it didn’t run away, it died. And your goldfish that ran away? It also died. And your aunt Elda, she didn’t run away either, she died.

You see Timmy, it’s the sad reality of life that God’s Great Creatures all die. We are born, we live a bit, then we die. It’s what we do. All of us, including me, and including you. We are all going to die.

Many of us will be lucky enough to reach old age before we die. And as we pass 70, and 80, and into our 90s, our bodies will begin to breakdown in ways you didn’t think were possible. Actions you take for granted today, like chewing, swallowing, blinking, won’t work any more.

The problem is that medical science is more than happy to find ways around each of your new found problems, but ultimately, you will die.

What does this have to do with death panels? Well, when you pass 90, and your health continues to deteriorate, the person paying your medical bills will eventually ask, “wouldn’t he be better off if we let him die, instead of putting him through another operation to deal with the solution to the last problem?”

That is a death panel. Some times it’s the family members, some times it’s nursing home, some times it’s the hospital, some times it’s the insurance company, and some times it’s the North Korean government.

As you approach death, there will always be another medical procedure you could undertake. Most of the time you’ll die during it, but if you happen to survive, there will be another procedure to deal with the problems caused by the previous one.

If at some point, a person [or legal entity] decides enough is enough, that person/thing becomes a death panel.

It was a complete and utter lie in two senses:

  1. Palin used Death Panel in the sense of a panel that decided who would receive care based on their value to society. This is completely made up and has nothing at all to do with the end of life counseling provision in the bill. Nothing, nada, zip. Just a complete lie. A sue someone for slander and win sort of lie.

  2. There was a provision in the bill to allow doctors to be reimbursed for end of life counseling. The same language had been supported before by both Democrats and Republicans. This was in no way a death panel. There was no panel at all and the patient had complete say over end of life care.

The only small, possible glimmer of anything resembling something to be concerned about was that doctors would be evaluated on how many of their patients had received an offer for end of life counseling. If this was a concern, it could easily have been addressed by suggesting the incentive be removed. Instead, Palin lied, Fox repeated and amplified the lie, and the teabaggers made Palin a hero for lying.

Yeah, but you’re neglecting the slippery slope. One day you have End of Life Counseling, and then next thing you know, you’re killing babies!

WTF do these people who accept the ‘death panel’ argument think happens everywhere else in the developed world, that we live in democracies and vote for that, that we think ‘death panels’ are acceptable and the way forward. How fucking stupid do people have to be for this stuff to make sense? I mean there’s parochial and provincial and thenb there’s completely retarded.

I suppose these are the same people who thought Saddam was involved in 9/11, had WMD, etc.

And, for fucks sake, what on earth is “rationing”? Jesus Christ, it’s like dumb American tourist cliche except he hasn’t left home.

Babies die too, lots of them, in horrible and unimaginable ways. At some point during the treatment of a preemie someone might ask if that next procedure is really necessary. Sucks to admit, but that’s how it goes.

This is part of my recent thinking about whether US conservatives have any morals. Even if you think that UHC or the proposed bill are a bad idea, shouldn’t you be repulsed by your side using such sleazy tactics? Instead, conservative are cackling with delight that Palin found such a good way to oppose UHC and want to reward her with a chance to run for President. A news organization has hired her, knowing that she lied.

What has happened to the America I grew up in?

Oh, Sarah, your “death panels” comment should’ve died a merciful death even the Pope would approve of, instead, your enemies are keeping it alive way beyond any need just to prolong its suffering, but then complain endlessly about its being alive.

Death Panels were named the biggest lie of 2009 by Politifact (and I want to say MediaMatters as well…or some site of note).

Better, Palin in the face of criticism over this lie didn’t back down. She re-iterated it.

This one is shooting fish in a barrel and thus all the more stunning that it got (has) the traction it does. May as well say the sun rises in the west.

ETA: For fun Jon Stewart ripping on Betsy McCaughey on this issue.

If the government was paying for your health care and you were terminally ill, they would have an incentive for wanting you to die as soon as possible.

This scares people. The Republicans took the death panel thing too far (like usual), but I do think it was a legitimate issue for discussion.

If you intentionally shorten someones life isn’t that murder?

Well…we have finite resources. Would be nice if they are infinite but they are not.

Making decisions on what health care should be provided happens now. Today. Your insurance company may deny you coverage they deem inappropriate.

This has traction because while people may understand a casual conversation over whether it makes sense to provide a 99 year-old guy with a million dollar procedure they figure if they are the 99 year-old guy they want everything humanly possible done to keep them alive.

Thing is, the “death panels” were nothing more than a way for patients to have a discussion with their doctors on end-of-life issues. This makes sense! As noted above we ALL die! Choosing how things should proceed when that day rolls around…per YOUR wishes…makes a world of sense.

This was something that had bi-partisan support (really truly because it is brain dead obvious makes sense) till Reps found it could be a wedge issue.

All this really does is throw into sharp relief the staggering gullibility of a shocking large percentage of the population (note repeated debunking of this in mass media yet it persists).

In this discussion that NEVER happens.

Withholding treatment is not the same as shortening someone’s life.

My dad had a “do not resuscitate” (DNR) order. He had cancer, was in his late 80’s and going through never ending treatments. He died in his sleep in the hospital. Per HIS wishes the hospital let him go.

Did the hospital murder him?

BUT THERE ARE NO DEATH PANELS IN THE BILL. Never were. They didn’t take it too far, they made it up. The doctor counseling was before the fact to set up a living will so that the patients wishes were known. There is nothing in the bill(s) that changed existing practice. They made it up. They lied. They figure y’all were too stupid to notice. In some cases they were right.

Sure, to save money someone may decide to withhold treatment. Today it could be the insurance company. In the bill before congress it will still be the insurance company because there is no public option. In the future, if there is a public option, then there might, possibly, may be a govt bureaucrat involved in the process instead of an insurance company bureaucrat, but let’s save that discussion until then.