Olbermann calls out Palin for her "Death Panel" lie

[Popeye]

Keith Olbermann took Sarah Plain to task last night for her outrageous lie in which she suggested a "death panel" would be created under Obama's health care reform proposals. Said "death panel", according to Palin, would then apparently ration treatment, with the disabled, such as her son Trig, and the elderly losing out.

Most of us with any common sense know Sarah is a bit nuts...given to histrionics and a quitter to boot. She also, in this case, is symbolic of the lies that the RW has been perpetrating, done of course at the bidding of their masters, the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

 

[Dr.Who]

What else would you call a government committee (the Health Benefits Advisory Committee) that decides what treatments are effective and which ones are not and then decides for a person if they will get the treatment or not?

A committee that bases decisions on cost as well as the scaled health ranking of the person getting (or not getting) the treatment?

A committee that one cannot escape by moving to another state. A committee whose decisions cannot be escaped by joining a private insurer or self-paying. A committee whose decisions can only be questioned by appealing to another government agency.

 

[Popeye]

What else would you call a government committee that decides what treatments are effective and which ones are not and then decides for a person if they will get the treatment or not?

A committee that one cannot escape by moving to another state. A committee whose decisions cannot be escaped by joining a private insurer or self-paying. A committee whose decisions can only be questioned by appealing to another government agency.

Here's the relevant portion of Palin's remarks:

"And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."

She's claiming this so called "death panel" could decide, that certain citizens, namely "the sick, the elderly, and the disabled" and based on their “level of productivity in society,” would not be "worthy of health care"....

Where in the bill does that exist?

 

[r0beph]

What else would you call a government committee (the Health Benefits Advisory Committee) that decides what treatments are effective and which ones are not and then decides for a person if they will get the treatment or not?

A committee that bases decisions on cost as well as the scaled health ranking of the person getting (or not getting) the treatment?

A committee that one cannot escape by moving to another state. A committee whose decisions cannot be escaped by joining a private insurer or self-paying. A committee whose decisions can only be questioned by appealing to another government agency.

What do you call the current committees that decides what treatments are effective and which ones are not and then decides for a person if they will get the treatment or not, even though the person is paying exorbitant amounts of insurance premiums each month. We call these Insurance Claim Adjusters and they make decisions that Palin is fearing illegitimately that the government plans to do every single day.

 

[Dr.Who]

Here's the relevant portion of Palin's remarks:

"And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."

She's claiming this so called "death panel" could decide, that certain citizens, namely "the sick, the elderly, and the disabled" and based on their “level of productivity in society,” would not be "worthy of health care"....

Where in the bill does that exist?

I watched the Spector town hall this morning and it was said that the bill only offers health care to those who are born.

“Quality Adjusted Life Years,” where the value assigned to life varies with the health state of the person. This method is controversial because it means that some people will not receive treatment if the calculated cost is not warranted by the benefit to their quality of life." This aspect is not in the bill it is, in all places, already in the stimulus package.

This next part too is not clearly stated in the bill but those in the know know what it means: "Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt. "
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aLzfDxfbwhzs

So let me ask you, when the gov panel decides that a treatment only has a 5% chance of success, and thus denies to all Americans, in a once size fits all mentality, regardless of the fact that it mgiht just have a high chance of success for one person, who will the procedures be denied to? Will they deny procedures to young, healthy, non-disabled people, who don't need it anyway and did not ask for it, or will they deny it to old, sick, disabled people who are presently paying for it out of their own resources but will not get it under this new socialized plan?

 

[r0beph]

I watched the Spector town hall this morning and it was said that the bill only offers health care to those who are born.

Everyone was born, I hope, unless you're some sort of extraterrestrial that reproduces exouterine.

“Quality Adjusted Life Years,” where the value assigned to life varies with the health state of the person. This method is controversial because it means that some people will not receive treatment if the calculated cost is not warranted by the benefit to their quality of life." This aspect is not in the bill it is, in all places, already in the stimulus package.

It isn't IN THE BILL. Pure silly. You can't concern yourself with things NOT in the bill just because they're elsewhere for a completely valid reason. Yeah if it was applied in the health care bill it'd be screwed up, but even by our own admission (and my search of the bill) nothing akin to it exists. So even mentioning it is ridiculous.

This next part too is not clearly stated in the bill but those in the know know what it means: "Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt. "
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aLzfDxfbwhzs

Excuse me, please understand the placement of quotes. "Will not be pain-free." Seniors ~~~~~ Daschle did say it'd not be pain-free, he DID NOT say that seniors should be more accepting. The writer of the ARTICLE said that.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...e-didnt-say-seniors-seniors-should-accept-ra/

So let me ask you, when the gov panel decides that a treatment only has a 5% chance of success, and thus denies to all Americans, in a once size fits all mentality, regardless of the fact that it mgiht just have a high chance of success for one person, who will the procedures be denied to? Will they deny procedures to young, healthy, non-disabled people, who don't need it anyway and did not ask for it, or will they deny it to old, sick, disabled people who are presently paying for it out of their own resources but will not get it under this new socialized plan?

All of this is based on false-pretense setup by a lack of research on your part about a statement made by daschle that was hacked into spin by a bad placement of quote and writer opinion in an article. So really it has no base.

 

[Dr.Who]

Everyone was born, I hope, unless you're some sort of extraterrestrial that reproduces exouterine.

If correct it means that all care presently given to humans who are presently in the womb when the care is given would not be covered.

It isn't IN THE BILL. Pure silly. You can't concern yourself with things NOT in the bill just because they're elsewhere for a completely valid reason. Yeah if it was applied in the health care bill it'd be screwed up, but even by our own admission (and my search of the bill) nothing akin to it exists. So even mentioning it is ridiculous.

As far as I know when the laws of the land are carried out it does not matter what bill they are in they still get carried out. the stimulus bill clearly has a section that is relevant to health care and aims to establish "quality of life years" so that people can be judged according to how much they deserve treatment.

Excuse me, please understand the placement of quotes. "Will not be pain-free." Seniors ~~~~~ Daschle did say it'd not be pain-free, he DID NOT say that seniors should be more accepting. The writer of the ARTICLE said that.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...e-didnt-say-seniors-seniors-should-accept-ra/

There have been plenty of statements about seniors needing to accept less treatment than they presently get so this is without need for debate. If you have not seen them then you are just blind. Would any of you care to chime in and post some of the many allusions to this?

All of this is based on false-pretense setup by a lack of research on your part about a statement made by daschle that was hacked into spin by a bad placement of quote and writer opinion in an article. So really it has no base.

The quote from Daschle was not the origin of the ideas just one example of it. If it was a poor example then there are others. I am sure people here will post several.

 

[Dr.Who]

All of this is based on false-pretense setup by a lack of research on your part about a statement made by daschle that was hacked into spin by a bad placement of quote and writer opinion in an article. So really it has no base.

Even if all of the quotes and sections of various bills refered to were in fact about different people and different ways of quantifying them the fact remains that a government panel will decide what kind of care is available. That panel will decide if life saving treatment is can be given or withheld. If the panel says that a certain treatment is too expensive then the doctor can't just do it anyway because not only will the only payer not pay but it will be illegal for the individual to pay out of pocket. I twill be illegal for the individual to use another insurance company. Will it be illegal for the over worked doctor to take time away from other patients to offer his service for free?

 

[r0beph]

Even if all of the quotes and sections of various bills refered to were in fact about different people and different ways of quantifying them the fact remains that a government panel will decide what kind of care is available. That panel will decide if life saving treatment is can be given or withheld. If the panel says that a certain treatment is too expensive then the doctor can't just do it anyway because not only will the only payer not pay but it will be illegal for the individual to pay out of pocket. I twill be illegal for the individual to use another insurance company. Will it be illegal for the over worked doctor to take time away from other patients to offer his service for free?

Could you please show me where it states that it would be illegal to pay out of pocket and what language defines the terms under which these assumed "panels" will exist? I cannot find any of it.

 

[Dr.Who]

Could you please show me where it states that it would be illegal to pay out of pocket and what language defines the terms under which these assumed "panels" will exist? I cannot find any of it.

SEC. 123. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

(a) Establishment-

(1) IN GENERAL- There is established a private-public advisory committee which shall be a panel of medical and other experts to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans.

(2) CHAIR- The Surgeon General shall be a member and the chair of the Health Benefits Advisory Committee.

(3) MEMBERSHIP- The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall be composed of the following members, in addition to the Surgeon General:

(A) 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the President.

(B) 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States in a manner similar to the manner in which the Comptroller General appoints members to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission under section 1805(c) of the Social Security Act.

(C) Such even number of members (not to exceed 8) who are Federal employees and officers, as the President may appoint.

Such initial appointments shall be made not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(4) TERMS- Each member of the Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall serve a 3-year term on the Committee, except that the terms of the initial members shall be adjusted in order to provide for a staggered term of appointment for all such members.

(5) PARTICIPATION- The membership of the Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall at least reflect providers, consumer representatives, employers, labor, health insurance issuers, experts in health care financing and delivery, experts in racial and ethnic disparities, experts in care for those with disabilities, representatives of relevant governmental agencies. and at least one practicing physician or other health professional and an expert on children's health and shall represent a balance among various sectors of the health care system so that no single sector unduly influences the recommendations of such Committee.

(b) Duties-

(1) RECOMMENDATIONS ON BENEFIT STANDARDS- The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall recommend to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as the `Secretary') benefit standards (as defined in paragraph (4)), and periodic updates to such standards. In developing such recommendations, the Committee shall take into account innovation in health care and consider how such standards could reduce health disparities.

(2) DEADLINE- The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall recommend initial benefit standards to the Secretary not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(3) PUBLIC INPUT- The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall allow for public input as a part of developing recommendations under this subsection.

(4) BENEFIT STANDARDS DEFINED- In this subtitle, the term `benefit standards' means standards respecting--

(A) the essential benefits package described in section 122, including categories of covered treatments, items and services within benefit classes, and cost-sharing; and

(B) the cost-sharing levels for enhanced plans and premium plans (as provided under section 203(c)) consistent with paragraph (5).

Which is all legal speak for they will decide what to cover and what not to cover. Not only for the public plan but also, with less control, for all private plans.

 

[TheFranklinParty]

I have already stated that Palin was out of line but so was Pelosi - so let's get over their stupid political rhetoric.

The question is, "Do you feel comfortable with a panel or committee choosing what health care treatments you can receive based on your life expectancy or current health challenges?"

I understand that HMO's tried this and that is why many people ran away screaming from them. The difference is that you won't be able to just switch insurers here. I personally don't like the idea of a one size fits all delivery of service. Our school systems have attempted that and we have educated to the lowest common denominator.

I would prefer to see an attempt to lower overall healthcare costs by tort reform, creating interstate competition, and dealing with the 17M illegal aliens drawing on our healthcare system to the tune of $100M-$200M. Once that is done, I think we might see everything in a different light.

 

[Dr.Who]

Could you please show me where it states that it would be illegal to pay out of pocket and what language defines the terms under which these assumed "panels" will exist? I cannot find any of it.

I am still looking for where I heard that one. So far I got this:

1. Employers will be forced to drop the employee coverage, for the government plan. 2. We CAN NOT purchase our own medical insurance if we so wish to. 3. We CAN NOT go to a doctor and pay cash if we have it if we are fortunate enough to afford to. 4. If we can not show on our tax return at the end of the year that we have the health insurance, the government will fine us large fine for not having their coverage. 5. Congress, Federal employees & unions are exempt from the government plan. 6. A very poorly run HMO 7. Reduced health care consumption

It is not an authoritative or even credible source but at least I know I did not dream it. Ha Ha.

Still looking.

 

[Dr.Who]

And the two of us are not alone:

"If we get Obama-care, and I am turned down for a heart operation, it will be illegal for the doctor operate on me even if I try to pay myself."

And I also heard that the health care savings accounts will go away so if one is allowed to pay cash then it will be taxed first.

But I would still prefer to see a source that actually must fact check what they write like a credible newspaper or the bill itself.

 

[Dr.Who]

No I can't find it right now. If I find it later I will post it.

 

[XCALIDEM]

Keith Olbermann took Sarah Plain to task last night for her outrageous lie in which she suggested a "death panel" would be created under Obama's health care reform proposals. Said "death panel", according to Palin, would then apparently ration treatment, with the disabled, such as her son Trig, and the elderly losing out.

Most of us with any common sense know Sarah is a bit nuts...given to histrionics and a quitter to boot. She also, in this case, is symbolic of the lies that the RW has been perpetrating, done of course at the bidding of their masters, the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

Do people still watch this guys? I heard their rating were in the tank.... I wonder why....?