As you’ve seen in many of the videos I’ve posted lately, many of the people protesting Obamacare are elderly. Why are they starting to turn against it? Because among the provisions of this monster-sized bill are several doozies that will kick them to the curb, including cuts of hundreds of millions of dollars to Medicare and the
mandatory voluntary end-of-life care ‘discussions’ the government will force on them. No wonder this resonates:
Supporters of Obamacare are very quick to deny any possible rationing of health or ‘death panels’ care under this plan. They’re wrong, plain and simple. I don’t know whether it’s willful self-delusion, plain ignorance, or willing assistance in the deceit, but it’s just plain wrong. In addition to all the previous examples I’ve posted of the rationing, here’s yet one more that shows how it works. This is humorous, but it’s a great representation of a very un-funny example of what’s going on in Oregon:
And what about the ‘death panels’? Is this fear being overblown by the Right? The truth is that these meetings won’t be strictly mandatory, but…well, read this and then decide for yourself if the net effect will be that it will essentially become mandatory (emphasis mine):
At issue is Section 1233 of HR 3200, the government-run health care plan that the House will consider when it returns from its August recess.
The measure would pay physicians to give Medicare patients end-of-life counseling every five years or sooner if the patient has a terminal diagnosis.
Charles Lane, an member of the editorial board of the liberal Washington Post newspaper, admits in a Saturday column that at least some of the concerns are well-founded.
“As I read it, Section 1233 is not totally innocuous,” Lane writes, adding that it “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones.”
“Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren’t quite ‘purely voluntary,'” as backers of the bill assert, Lane adds. “To me, ‘purely voluntary’ means ‘not unless the patient requests one.’ Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive — money — to do so. Indeed, that’s an incentive to insist.
“Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they’re in the meeting, the bill does permit ‘formulation’ of a plug-pulling order right then and there,” Lane explains.
“What’s more, Section 1233 dictates, at some length, the content of the consultation,” Lane continues.
“Admittedly, this script is vague and possibly unenforceable,” Lane writes. “What are “key questions”? Who belongs on ‘a list’ of helpful ‘resources?’ The Roman Catholic Church? Jack Kevorkian?”
Ultimately, the Post editorial writer says “Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party — the government — recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations.“
“You don’t have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach,” he concludes.
And remember – this is coming from a guy who’s part of one of the most liberal editorial newspaper boards in the country! So, the question is: will this become mandatory? Will it be abused? You decide.
I still believe that part of the problem is the utter lack of promised transparency and accountability that’s been going on here. For example:
Transparency is the biggest joke of this administration, and on no other issue has it been more apparent than Obamacare.
This is a bad, bad thing, and the American people need to continue to forcefully express themselves to their elected representatives in no uncertain terms. That’s the only hope we have for killing this.
There’s my two cents.