End of Life section in Health Bill was Sponsored by a Republican
A provision in President Obama's health care reform bill encourages "end-of- life" counseling for seniors -- sparking euthanasia fears among some of the legislation's critics and leading others to believe that the White House is looking to save money by pressuring insurers to provide less coverage to seniors.
The provision, tucked deep within the House bill, would provide Medicare coverage for an end-of-life consultation every five years, and more frequent sessions if a person is suffering a life-threatening disease.
Health providers would be required to explain to seniors the end-of-life services available, including "palliative care and hospice."
"This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted into law," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Mich. said in a statement last month.
But the sessions are not required...
What these 'informational' articles keep refusing to point out is -- this provision was put in the bill by a REPUBLICAN with Democratic co-sponsors.
This bill has bipartisan support (the main cosponsor is a Republican doctor) as well as support from a diverse coalition like AARP, the American College of Physicians, and Catholic health systems.
" The section under question was based on a stand-alone piece of legislation sponsored by Democratic Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Republican Rep. Charles Boustany of Louisiana.
Republicans are trying to scare seniors about this issue -- despite the fact that end-of-life consultations have been embodied in federal law since 1990, and supported by both Republicans and Democrats for years.
Good job, Coonsey. It's terrible the way the right is twisting the meaning behind this very good provision and scaring the elderly with it.
Thanks for pointing out the beautiful irony in that it was crafted by a Republican. Thanks also for the links. I've bookmarked them and added them to my "arsenal" of facts.
Rec'd.
August 8, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I ditto LisB
August 9, 2009 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Could you send a message to Sarah's facebook acct to that effect? Or maybe she is talking about a DIFFERENT "Death Panel." Coonsey, why do you think people didn't do the work you did to find this out?
I didn't bother because I never doubted that it was written as you described, but you went the extra mile and found out about republicans sponsoring the very part of the bill that they are now using to scare people!
Thanks!
August 8, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
More "compassionate" conservatism.
August 8, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Having learned the Republican mindset during my time of climbing over the fence to a more liberal point of view, why am I not surprised at your discovery? Good work.
August 8, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Charles Boustany helped plant a little poison in this bill, to later be exploited by a deliberately absurd interpretation of the clause.
This is politics.
August 8, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks to all of you for the compliment -- now pass this info to everybody you know....please.
August 8, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another thing to pass on, which was brought out by Kate in SW Florida: republicans fought against Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and SChip -- Now they are accusing Democrats of wanting to hurt the very people we saved from their selfishness!
This is a very important point! It has always been Democrats who have fought for the very people that republicans now say we want to euthanize! If republicans had had their way, those very groups would be living in poverty with no health care at all -- how many 65 year olds have no pre-existing conditions?
Can someone figure out a short-hand way to say this? How about this:
Who do you trust? Republicans, who tried to KILL Social Security, Medicare, and SChip? Or the Democrats who fought for these programs?
How's this for a bumper sticker?
Republicans love wars, but they never fight for YOU!
August 8, 2009 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually CVille, I would find the senators and representatives that fought against soc sec and medicare and schip, get a picture of each, then create an ad giving names with mug shots (like they've been caught by police) -- at end of mug shots, I'd show the words....ALL REPUBLICANS that refused to support Soc Sec, Medicare and SChip for children. Then the last shot should be a big shot of the word being stamped on paper - GUILTY!
OR...
Do they opposite and get senators and reps that supported Medicare and Soc Sec and SChip, their mug shots, then repeat the above---ALL REPUBLICANS THAT SUPPORTED GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED HEALTH PROGRAMS!....last shot --another GUILTY stamped on paper.
August 8, 2009 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! Great idea. But are there any left who opposed social security and medicare? Worth looking up. I'll see what I can find out.
August 8, 2009 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
We probably have few in office now who were there when these issues went through Congress, but didn't they take a stab at privitizing Social Security. What would they be worth if it had happened? Who saved Social Security the last time it was under attack from the GOP?
August 9, 2009 3:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who saved Social Security...
For those who may not have been here at the time, our very own Josh Marshall had a fair bit to do with exposing the Social Security bamboozle that Bush tried to pull off.
August 9, 2009 5:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
WHO SAVED SOCIAL SECURITY? I like that!
August 9, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't the only example of Republicans promoting end of life counseling;
"The bipartisan effort's relevant section would require Medicare to cover the cost of voluntary end-of-life counseling sessions with a medical professional. The doctor would not be forced to bring it up, nor would the patient. In fact, an earlier version from Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson was rejected because it would have required an end-of-life consultation before a patient qualified for Medicare."
http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/460660
August 9, 2009 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Theses are all great ideas -- now who's got the equipment and money to create a commercial? I know that I don't. All I have is a wild imagination.
August 9, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. So, a Republican got this section in the bill, and now Republicans -- the lunatic fringe of the party, but that seems to be about 90% of them these days -- are using that section to bring the bill down. You point out the irony, but there's another possible interpretation, isn't there? Couldn't this have been a deliberate move? "We'll insert an innocent-looking provision about end-of-life counseling and tell the troops it means the government is going to be coming turning their aged parents into Soylent Green"? I wouldn't put it past them, at this point.
August 9, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
A little history for the last REFORM of Social Security in 1983 -- Guess who was President back then? Yup it was the famous RONALD REAGAN! When he had a chance to eliminate Soc Sec -- he instead REFORMED IT and kept it going for another 26 years.
The National Commission on Social Security Reform (informally known as the Greenspan Commission after its Chairman) was appointed by the Congress and the President in 1981 to study and make recommendations regarding the short-term financing crisis that Social Security faced at that time.
check out who the 4 known Republicans were in supporting this reform: With a Picture
http://www.ssa.gov/history/greenspn.html
Rep. Bill Archer (R-TX)
Rep. Barber Conable (R-NY)
Sen. John Heinz (R-PA)
Sen. Bob Dole (R-KS)
August 9, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
A tad more History for you - at the signing of the 1983 Soc Sec reform act by Reagan....a certain REPUBLICAN Senator Howard Baker, then majority leader of Senate had this to say:
"It is perhaps one of the littlest noticed but most important aspects of the civility of American Government that on occasion we rise above politics; we rise above confrontation; and we address, on a bipartisan basis, the great challenges and issues that confront the Republic. Sometimes it's been on issues of war and peace. Sometimes it has been on issues of the rights and opportunities of minorities and individuals within our country, once on the salvation of the Union itself.
But there's a canny understanding in the American political system that sometimes there are issues that are more important than any of us, or perhaps all of us, taken together. The preservation of the social security system is one of those issues. And in the uniquely American way, those of us who participate in government, Republicans and Democrats together, public and private citizens, gathered together and subordinated our own views to those of the welfare of the majority."
How easily they forget THEIR part of a GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED PLAN
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1983/42083a.htm
August 9, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've merged all my info and placed it on Dkos for anybody interested in re-reading it all.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/9/111940/5213?new=true
August 9, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink