Chris Matthews Agrees With "Death Panels Rationing" Theory? Sort Of...

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Sarah Palin: Midnight Votes, Backroom Deals, and a Death Panel



Last weekend while you were preparing for the holidays with your family, Harry Reid’s Senate was making shady backroom deals to ram through the Democrat health care take-over.

The Senate ended debate on this bill without even reading it. That and midnight weekend votes seem to be standard operating procedures in D.C.

No one is certain of what’s in the bill, but Senator Jim DeMint spotted one shocking revelation regarding the section in the bill describing the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (now called the Independent Payment Advisory Board), which is a panel of bureaucrats charged with cutting health care costs on the backs of patients – also known as Rationing.





Apparently Reid and friends have changed the rules of the Senate so that the section of the bill dealing with this board can’t be repealed or amended without a 2/3 super majority vote.

Senator DeMint said:

“This is a rule change.

It’s a pretty big deal. We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law. I’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. I don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill.

If you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates. I mean, we want to bind future congresses. This goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future congresses.”

In other words, Democrats are protecting this rationing “death panel” from future change with a procedural hurdle. You have to ask why they’re so concerned about protecting this particular provision. Could it be because bureaucratic rationing is one important way Democrats want to “bend the cost curve” and keep health care spending down?

The Congressional Budget Office seems to think that such rationing has something to do with cost. In a letter to Harry Reid last week, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf noted (with a number of caveats) that the bill’s calculations call for a reduction in Medicare’s spending rate by about 2 percent in the next two decades, but then he writes the kicker:

“It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care.”

Though Nancy Pelosi and friends have tried to call “death panels” the “lie of the year,” this type of rationing – what the CBO calls “reduc[ed] access to care” and “diminish[ed] quality of care” – is precisely what I meant when I used that metaphor.

This health care bill is one of the most far-reaching and expensive expansions of the role of government into our lives. We’re talking about putting one-seventh of our economy under the government’s thumb. We’re also talking about something as intimate to our personal well-being as medical care.

This bill is so unpopular that people on the right and the left hate it. So why go through with it? The Senate is planning to vote on this on Christmas Eve. Why the rush? Though we will begin paying for this bill immediately, we will see no benefits for years. (That’s the trick that allowed the CBO to state that the bill won’t grow the deficit for the next ten years.)

The administration’s promises of transparency and bipartisanship have been broken one by one. This entire process has been defined by midnight votes on weekends, closed-door meetings with industry lobbyists, and payoffs to politicians willing to sell their principles for sweetheart deals. Is it any wonder that Americans are so disillusioned with their leaders in Washington?

This is about politics, not health care. Americans don’t want this bill.

Americans don’t like this bill. Washington has stopped listening to us. But we’re paying attention, and 2010 is coming.

- Sarah Palin



View Larger Map


Sources: MSNBC, Hardball, Media Matters, Red State, Wall Street Journal, Weekly Standard, CBO, Facebook, Fox News, Google Maps

Obama Health Care Bill DOA! Listen To Dean Not Rahm!

What will happen to Health Care Reform?

I suggest the Obama Administration STOP listening to Rahm Emanuel and instead listen attentively to Dr. Howard Dean.

If we as a nation are going to reform our Health Care System why not do it right?

If we are NOT going to do it correct, GOP fairy tales of "Death Panels" will in fact become a reality.

Whether we like it or not, wish to admit it not Uninsured people who can't afford Health Care Insurance die!

This current version of Health Care Reform is not REAL Reform.

Since its been stripped down to nothing effective, the only population it will benefit are Health Care Executives.

Pres. Obama & Congress please lay aside your egos and listen to Dr. Dean's voice of reason.

History won't give us another shot at this effort so why not get it right once and for all?

Democrats what's more important? Your Political Careers or the lives of Human Beings?

Isn't it better to do it correct now than hurt millions of American Voters later with a crappy, non-effective bill?

If this crappy bill is pushed through just to score Political points or create a "Presidential Legacy", in 2010 & 2012 Democrats will pay a huge price at the Polls.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

View Larger Map


Sources: MSNBC, Countdown With Keith Olbermann, Democracy for America, Google Maps

Health Care Reform Bill Could Slash $500 B From Medicare...Is This A "Death Panel" Or No?

Report: Health Care Reform Bill would reduce senior care


A plan to slash more than $500 billion from future Medicare spending -- one of the biggest sources of funding for President Obama's proposed overhaul of the nation's health-care system -- would sharply reduce benefits for some senior citizens and could jeopardize access to care for millions of others, according to a government evaluation released Saturday.

The report, requested by House Republicans, found that Medicare cuts contained in the health package approved by the House on Nov. 7 are likely to prove so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking Medicare altogether.

Congress could intervene to avoid such an outcome, but "so doing would likely result in significantly smaller actual savings" than is currently projected, according to the analysis by the chief actuary for the agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid. That would wipe out a big chunk of the financing for the health-care reform package, which is projected to cost $1.05 trillion over the next decade.

More generally, the report questions whether the country's network of doctors and hospitals would be able to cope with the effects of a reform package expected to add more than 30 million people to the ranks of the insured, many of them through Medicaid, the public health program for the poor.

In the face of greatly increased demand for services, providers are likely to charge higher fees or take patients with better-paying private insurance over Medicaid recipients, "exacerbating existing access problems" in that program, according to the report from Richard S. Foster of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Though the report does not attempt to quantify that impact, Foster writes: "It is reasonable to expect that a significant portion of the increased demand for Medicaid would not be realized."

The report offers the clearest and most authoritative assessment to date of the effect that Democratic health reform proposals would have on Medicare and Medicaid, the nation's largest public health programs. It analyzes the House bill, but the Senate is also expected to rely on hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare cuts to finance the package that Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) hopes to take to the floor this week. Like the House, the Senate is expected to propose adding millions of people to Medicaid.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services administers the two health-care programs. Foster's office acts as an independent technical adviser, serving both the administration and Congress. In that sense, it is similar to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which also has questioned the sustainability of proposed Medicare cuts.

In its most recent analysis of the House bill, the CBO noted that Medicare spending per beneficiary would have to grow at roughly half the rate it has over the past two decades to meet the measure's savings targets, a dramatic reduction that many budget and health policy experts consider unrealistic.

"This report confirms what virtually every independent expert has been saying: [House] Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi's health-care bill will increase costs, not decrease them," said Rep. Dave Camp (Mich.), the senior Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee. "This is a stark warning to every Republican, Democrat and independent worried about the financial future of this nation."

Democrats focused Saturday on the positive aspects of the report, noting that Foster concludes that overall national spending on health care would increase by a little more than 1 percent over the next decade, even though millions of additional people would gain insurance. Out-of-pocket spending would decline more than $200 billion by 2019, with the government picking up much of that. The Medicare savings, if they materialized, would extend the life of that program by five years, meaning it would not begin to require cash infusions until 2022.

"The president has made it clear that health insurance reform will protect and strengthen Medicare," said White House spokeswoman Linda Douglass. "And he has also made clear that no guaranteed Medicare benefits will be cut."

Republicans argued that the report forecasts an increase in total health-care spending of more than $289 billion.


Sources: Washington Post, MSNBC

Florida's H1N1 Flu Death Panels...Deciding To Let Some Patients Die

(Florida Health Care Professionals are discussing that it may be wise to intentionally let some H1N1 Flu patients die if they are too sick. Isn't this a form of the "Death Panels" concept?)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

(The Center for Disease & Control warns citizens that the rapid H1N1 Flu test is not reliable.)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Florida plan advises hospitals to bar some patients in event of severe flu pandemic

Florida health officials are drawing up guidelines that recommend barring patients with incurable cancer, end-stage multiple sclerosis and other conditions from being admitted to hospitals if the state is overwhelmed by flu cases.

The plan, which would guide Florida hospitals on how to ration scarce medical care during a severe flu outbreak, also calls for doctors to remove patients with poor prognoses from ventilators to treat those who have better chances of surviving. That decision would be made by the hospital.

The flu causes severe respiratory illnesses in a small percentage of cases, and patients who need ventilators and are deprived of them could die without the breathing assistance the machines provide.

In June, Florida Surgeon General Ana M. Viamonte Ros sent the draft guidelines — which had already undergone a series of internal revisions — to 16 state medical organizations for their feedback.

But the state has not yet publicized the guidelines or solicited input from the general public. The Florida Department of Health released a copy of the draft plan at the request of ProPublica, a nonprofit news organization, which provided it to the Sun Sentinel.

The document addresses one of the most heart-rending issues in medicine: What to do if the number of people in need of ventilators and other treatment dramatically exceeds what is available.

The goal, the plan says, is to focus care on patients whose lives could be saved and who would be most likely to improve. While it says those decisions are not to be made based on patients' perceived social worth or role, the plan calls for different rules for some populations.

The list of conditions that disqualify hospital admission would be applied to most people only in the two most severe levels of a pandemic. However, they would also be applied in the first level ofa pandemic for patients transferred to hospitals from "other institutional facilities," such as nursing homes and mental health facilities.

Florida's planning effort reflects a growing acknowledgment that hospitals across the nation would be unable to cope with the flood of patients that a severe influenza pandemic, like the one that gripped the nation in 1918, would unleash. That resource gap is in the spotlight now, as the country is battered by a second wave of pandemic swine flu, also known as the H1N1 virus.

"What we have seen are real stresses, particularly on the emergency departments," Thomas Frieden, commissioner of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said at a press conference last week.

The H1NI virus is much milder than the 1918 flu, but a small proportion of H1N1 patients, including some who have no risk factors and are young and healthy, develop severe breathing problems requiring mechanical ventilation and life support.

So far, intensive care units in the U.S. haven't been overwhelmed with people needing ventilators.

"That's something that we're tracking closely," Frieden said.

In Winnipeg, Canada, all regional critical care beds were full at the peak of the outbreak last spring, and in Mexico, patients experienced long delays before being admitted to ICUs. Four died before being transferred from the emergency room.

Florida health officials believe that the number of severely ill flu patients will likely remain at a manageable level, provided residents get vaccinated, that they know when to stay home and when to seek medical care (visit myflusafety.com or call 877-352-3581 for information), and that the existing flu strain does not mutate into a more virulent form.

In the case of a much severer scenario, Florida's draft guidelines call for hospitals to turn away anyone whose doctor has signed a "Do Not Resuscitate" order, which instructs rescuers not to revive a patient whose heartbeat or breathing stops.

A recent report from a panel of national experts convened by the Institute of Medicine urged states not to use DNR orders for this purpose, because they reflect preferences about end-of-life planning "more than an accurate estimate of survival."

The Florida plan also calls for intensive care unit patients and those using ventilators to be reassessed after 48 to 72 hours.

Those whose chances of survival have significantly worsened would be taken off the machines or discharged from critical care to make way for others who may have a better chance of survival. If needed, they would be given palliative care to keep them comfortable.

One goal of Florida's plan is to "reduce or eliminate" the legal liability of health care workers who, in good faith, deny or withdraw treatment from some patients in an emergency. The plan includes sample executive orders that the governor could issue to shield workers and authorize hospitals to implement the guidelines.

The draft document also outlines how the health care system should stretch critical resources before moving to ration care.

The guidelines suggest reusing supplies, canceling surgeries that are not absolutely necessary, training staff to perform additional tasks and drawing on stockpiles. The general public's responsibilities include treating certain sick family members at home and monitoring public health messages.

Florida's draft guidelines aim to provide the "greatest good for the greatest number" when doing the best for all patients is no longer possible.

That goal needs to be balanced with an effort to distribute scarce resources in the least discriminatory way, said professor Ken Goodman, who directs the University of Miami bioethics program and the Florida Bioethics Network.

"Among the ways we can do that is to somehow take the evidence about what we think works and bolt it to the values that I think are uncontroversially shared: Namely, life is good, suffering is bad."

He said that methods included in the draft are still imperfect: "It's a very difficult problem to figure out how the world of science can help ensure that our strategies for allocating resources are fair and effective."

Viamonte Ros will have final approval authority and the plan will remain voluntary and subject to review, according to Doc Kokol, the health department's information officer.

The Florida health department's original goal was to have a final draft of the plan ready by December.

But with public health workers scrambling to cope with other aspects of the H1N1 pandemic, that is now unlikely, state officials said.

"People would like to have that policy," said Goodman, who chaired an ethics meeting on these issues at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami last week. He said that staff at the hospital have drawn up their own draft plan to cope with a potential surge of patients needing care. Florida plans to accept public input after the guidelines are revised by health officials. Kokol wrote in an e-mail that that "will likely include regional meetings for public input as well as electronic receipt of comments."

In many states, that type of input has been largely absent. Groups of doctors, lawyers and ethicists have hammered out the plans with little engagement with the public or with groups that represent children, the elderly and those with chronic illnesses or disabilities.

When Utah tested a similar plan in late August, the drill revealed difficulties that Florida clinicians and patients are likely to encounter.

Utah family physician Pete DeWeerd had to tell a mock patient's mother that her 7-year-old daughter, who had cerebral palsy and was suffering from the flu, would be turned away from the hospital and likely die.

"I don't like to tell you this," he said he told her, "it feels unfair, but our list is our list is our list." He added: "It was awful. You get a huge lump in your throat."

Dr. Tom Kurrus, medical director of St. Mark's Hospital in Salt Lake City, called it "emotionally draining" when mock patients and family members yelled, screamed and took issue with who was denied treatment.

"The major weakness in our preparedness had to do with security," he said.

Kurrus said that although the exercise was covered widely in Utah's media, the public isn't aware that the disaster plans call for rationing.

"Even with the scenarios played out and the discussions entertained, they still don't understand," he said. "It's, 'Why can't I get into the hospital, why can't grandma get put on a respirator?'"

Goodman, the University of Miami ethicist, said open conversation about the complex, value-laden decisions that will determine who receives treatment in the most extreme circumstances is crucial, and that hospital, state or federal guidelines should always be subject to revision.

"This should be an ongoing process that includes new evidence as it becomes available and that includes, in an open society, the participation of citizens," he said.



View Larger Map

Sources: MSNBC, Politico, Sun Sentinel.com, CDC, Google Maps

End Of Life Planning A Hot Issue In North Carolina...Dispels Crazy "Death Panels" Lie

Newsobserver, Politico----


(Senator Lieberman discusses how Terry Schiavo's case should have been handled. She had the right to live.)






The issue of end-of-life planning regularly creates emotional debate, as in the case of Terry Schiavo, a brain-damaged Florida resident who died in 2005, and in the current controversy about a U.S. House proposal to pay doctors through Medicare for talks with willing patients about how they want their lives to end.

In North Carolina, the issue was hotly debated in 2007, when the legislature voted after bruising debate to revise end-of-life forms to provide more detailed choices for people planning ahead.

Since then, according to state records, thousands of people have made the decision to spell out advance choices about how they should be treated as their final days near. Nursing homes, hospitals, hospices and other institutions have asked the state for more than 390,000 end-of-life forms.

And about a dozen people each business day add their advance health-care choices in the form of documents that spell out what kinds of end-of-life care they want under specific conditions. Those are added to a separate online database of about 15,000 maintained by the office of Secretary of State Elaine Marshall. Total annual filings to the Advance Health Care Directive Registry are up nearly 50 percent during the last five years, state records show.

"People need to know, and tell their family, what their wishes are because there may be a time when they aren't able to do that," Marshall said Thursday. "The divisions in a family that surround somebody's medical condition frequently are irreparable. Somebody will say, 'Mama said she didn't want to be kept alive this way,' and somebody else says, 'I never heard her say that.'"

Issue for families

This charged issue has gained such presence in the health-care debate that President Barack Obama had to repudiate claims last week that health-care reform would create "death panels" to pass judgment, based on age and infirmity, on who should live. Provisions for end-of-life consultations may be dropped by the U.S. Senate, while it remains in a pending version of the House health reform package.

But beyond the politics, the issue touches many families and can be more subtle, involving the deference that patients typically feel toward their doctors, said Barry Bostrom, an Indiana lawyer who edits the academic journal Issues in Law & Medicine.

"The problem is that everybody reveres their doctor," Bostrom said. "If the doctor suggests that it's time to take a cocktail pill or something, because of the esteem that people have for doctors, that could be devastating.

"To answer questions and discuss it, fine, but if the doctor starts making suggestions, that could be undue influence and the patient could end his life prematurely."

Two state forms -- DNR ("do not resuscitate") and MOST (medical order for scope of treatment) -- were designed to allow people to detail in advance how they want to be treated under various end-of-life scenarios. The 2007 legislation created the MOST form and made changes to North Carolina's health-care power of attorney law, designed to give a trusted person advance authority to make someone's health-care decisions.

Opponents said such documents would tend by their nature to encourage people to decide to forgo life-sustaining treatment.

Multiple hearings and votes on the bills were marked by emotional testimony and predictions of state-encouraged euthanasia. State Rep. Paul Stam, an Apex Republican, opposed the revised documents created by the 2007 legislation, but doesn't know whether they have resulted in older people being nudged in the direction of forgoing end-of-life care.

"I don't know that there's any way anybody would know," said Stam, who thinks the law is too vague and difficult to understand. "We believe in honoring people's wishes about treatment, but the form itself is weighted to nontreatment."

Doug Wickham, a Raleigh lawyer who works with LifeTree, a pro-life research and advocacy group, said he sees parallels between the North Carolina legislative wrangle and the current national debate over access to health care.

"These forms will likely make it easier for those who make rationing sorts of health-care decisions to carry out what they wish to do," Wickham said.

Figures from the state Office of Emergency Management Services, which produces and distributes the DNR and MOST forms, show that hospitals, nursing homes and home health agencies are among the groups requesting the largest numbers of forms. Although the orders from institutions don't necessarily mean each document is being filled out, repeat orders show that they are seeing plenty of use, state officials said.



View Larger Map

Sources: Newsobserver, Politico, Reuters, Youtube, Google Maps

Why "Sarahcuda" Palin's Crazy Death Panel Lies Are Working...Alaska's Poor Health Care System

NY Times, Politico, Huffington Post, MSNBC----


(Huffington Post’s Shannyn Moore discusses Alaska’s poor health care plans while under the leadership of former Gov. Sarah Palin.)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I’m not sure the man who popped off and tweeted that Sonia Sotomayor was a “Latina woman racist” is the best Henry Higgins for the Eliza Doolittle of Alaska.

But Newt Gingrich was a professor. And he does know something about pulling yourself up by dragging down others and imploding when you take center stage — both Palin specialties.

Besides, he agrees with Sarah — who fretted that her parents and son Trig might be in danger from Obama “death panels” — that we should be very wary about trusting government with end-of-life decisions.

So Newt took it upon himself to become Palin’s Pygmalion. He told Politico that the out-of-work pol should write a book; take a commentator gig on TV; get a condo in D.C. or New York to use as an East Coast base; and prepare three types of speeches — one “to make money,” another to “project her brand” before universities and interest groups, and a vivid campaign stump speech to use for Republican candidates in 2010.

Most important, he advised, the dizzy Palin has to be “clear in her own head what she wants to do.”

At the moment, what she wants to do is tap into her visceral talent for aerial-shooting her favorite human prey: cerebral Ivy League Democrats.

Just as she was able to stir up the mob against Barack Obama on the trail, now she is fanning the flames against another Harvard smarty-pants — Dr. Zeke Emanuel, a White House health care adviser and the older brother of Rahmbo.

She took a forum, Facebook, more commonly used by kids hooking up and cyberstalking, and with one catchy phrase, several footnotes and a zesty disregard for facts, managed to hijack the health care debate from Mr. Obama.

Sarahcuda knows, from her brush with Barry on the campaign trail, that he is vulnerable on matters that demand a visceral and muscular response rather than a logical and book-learned one. Mr. Obama was charming and informed at his town hall in Montana on Friday, but he’s going to need some sustained passion, a clear plan and a narrative as gripping as Palin’s I-see-dead-people scenario.

She has successfully caricatured the White House health care effort, making it sound like the plot of the 1976 sci-fi movie “Logan’s Run,” about a post-apocalyptic society with limited resources where you can live only until age 30, when you must take part in an extermination ceremony called “Carousel” or flee the city.

Painting the Giacometti-esque Emanuel as a creepy Dr. Death, Palin attacked him on her Facebook page a week ago, complaining that his “Orwellian thinking” could lead to a “death panel” with bureaucrats deciding whether to pull the plug on less hardy Americans.

Never mind that Palin herself had endorsed some of the same end-of-life counseling she now depicts as putting Grandma down.

As the Democratic National Committee pointed out, Palin put out a 2008 proclamation for Healthcare Decisions Day “to raise public awareness of the need to plan ahead for healthcare decisions, related to end of life care ... and to encourage the specific use of advance directives to communicate these important healthcare decisions.”

Consistency was long ago sent to a death panel in Palin world.

Sensing traction, she took more shots against Dr. Emanuel, quoting the bioethicist’s past writing that some medical services might not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens. ... An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”

“Dr. Emanuel,” she wrote ominously, “has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which ‘produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.’ ”

She crowed that she had him on the run, and the White House felt that the doctor, who was being portrayed as a proponent of euthanasia, needed to get out there and explain his opposition to euthanasia. So he interrupted his hiking vacation in the Italian Alps to give a raft of phone interviews saying he was taken out of context and calling Palin’s charges “completely off the wall.”

But, much to Sarah’s delight, he also conceded to The Washington Times that his “thinking has evolved” on the “very vexing” issue of deciding who gets treatment and who doesn’t.

“When I began working in the health policy area about 20 years ago ... I thought we would definitely have to ration care, that there was a need to make a decision and deny people care,” he told the paper, adding that he now feels that if we get rid of expensive “unnecessary care” that “we would have absolutely no reason to even consider rationing except in a few cases.”

A few cases? Sounds like another Facebook entry for Sarah.


Palin stands by "Death Panel" claims

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin refused to retreat from her debunked claim that a proposed health care overhaul would create "death panels," as the growing furor over end-of-life consultations forced a key group of senators to abandon the idea in their bill.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, one of six lawmakers negotiating on a Senate bill, said Thursday they had dropped end-of-life provisions from consideration "entirely because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly."

In a Facebook posting titled "Concerning Death Panels," Palin argued Wednesday night that the elderly and ailing would be coerced into accepting minimal end-of-life care to reduce health care costs based on the Democratic bill in the House.

But there will be no "death panels" under the legislation being considered. In fact, the provision in the bill would allow Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling sessions that address end-of-life issues. The conversations between doctor and patient would include living wills, making a close relative or a trusted friend your health care proxy, learning about hospice as an option for the terminally ill, and information about pain medications for people suffering chronic discomfort.

The sessions would be covered every five years, more frequently if someone is gravely ill.

The American Medical Association and the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization support the provision.

In her posting, Palin wrote: "With all due respect, it's misleading for the president to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients." She added, "It's all just more evidence that the Democratic legislative proposals will lead to health care rationing."

The issue is no longer viable for the six members of the Senate Finance Committee — three Republicans and three Democrats — working on a bipartisan bill, according to Grassley. In a statement, he criticized the House bill, saying there was a difference between a "simple education campaign, as some advocates want," and paying "physicians to advise patients about end-of-life care."

The provisions remain in the House bill.

Palin's posting came one day after Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said that Palin and other critics were not helping the GOP by tossing out false claims. Portions of the Democratic health care bills "are bad enough that we don't need to be making things up," Murkowski said, invoking a phrase that Palin used in her resignation speech, when she asked the news media to "quit making things up."

Murkowski said she was offended at the "death panel" terminology. "There is no reason to gin up fear in the American public by saying things that are not included in the bill," she said.

Palin hasn't always been against end-of-life counseling. As Alaska governor, she signed a proclamation making April 16, 2008, Healthcare Decision Day with the goal to have health care professionals and others participate in a statewide effort to provide clear and consistent information about advance directives.

The proclamation noted that only about 20 percent of Alaskans, and 50 percent of severely or terminally ill patients, have an advance directive. "It is likely that a significant reason for these low percentages is that there is both a lack of knowledge and considerable confusion in the public about advance directives," it said.

Georgia Sen. Johnny Isakson, a Republican who co-sponsored a similar measure in the Senate, said it was "nuts" to claim the bill encourages euthanasia.

And Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., who authored the provision on end-of-life counseling, said he is astounded that Palin has not tempered her bleak descriptions of the health care bill.

"It's deliberate at this point," Blumenauer said. "If she wasn't deliberately lying at the beginning, she is deliberately allowing a terrible falsehood to be spread with her name."

He said the measure would block funds for counseling that presents suicide or assisted suicide as an option, calling references to death panels or euthanasia "mind-numbing."




View Larger Map



Sources: NY Times, MSNBC, Politico, HUffington Post, NY Daily News, Google Maps

Pres. Obama Invokes Personal Anguish About His Grandmother's Death Into HC Reform Debate...Addresses "Death Panel" Claims

MSNBC----


(President Obama narrows his Health Care Reform message to regain control of the debate. MSNBC reports.)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. - Now, it's personal.

President Barack Obama invoked his own anguish over the death of a loved one as he challenged the debunked notion that Democratic efforts to overhaul the nation's health care would include "death panels."

"I just lost my grandmother last year. I know what it's like to watch somebody you love, who's aging, deteriorate and have to struggle with that," an impassioned Obama told a crowd as he spoke of Madelyn Payne Dunham. He took issue with "the notion that somehow I ran for public office or members of Congress are in this so they can go around pulling the plug on grandma."

"When you start making arguments like that, that's simply dishonest — especially when I hear the arguments coming from members of Congress in the other party who, turns out, sponsored similar provisions," Obama said.

In a debate in which he often sounds professor-like, Obama spoke with a rare bit of emotion that seemed to counter that of vocal health care opponents as he referenced the beloved grandmother who helped raise him and who he called "Toot." She died of cancer at age 86 on Nov. 2, two days before he won election to become the nation's first African-American president.

He talked about her death while answering a question about misinformation being spread about Democratic health care efforts during a town hall-style gathering in a high school gymnasium.

"Health care is really hard. This is not easy. I'm a reasonably dedicated student to this issue. I've got a lot of really smart people around me who've been working on this for months now," he said. "There is no perfect painless silver bullet out there that solves every problem, gives everybody health care for free. There isn't. I wish there was."

Obama addresses debunked claims:

But he said that because there's no perfect solution to solving health care, opponents "start saying things like we want to set up death panels to pull the plug on grandma."

The president is seeking to put to rest claims that the health care overhaul he seeks would set up "death panels" to rule on life-sustaining care for ailing seniors. It would not, and Obama has stressed that point repeatedly over the past week.

Obama reiterated his contention that the Democratic health care legislation would not create "death panels" to deny care to frail seniors. Obama has explained that the provision that has caused the uproar would only authorize Medicare to pay doctors for counseling patients about end-of-life care, living wills, hospice care and other issues, if the patient wants it.

Conservatives have called end-of-life counseling in government health care programs like Medicare a step toward euthanasia and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has likened the idea to a bureaucratic "death panel" that would decide whether sick people get to live. Those claims have been widely discredited but the issue remains a political weapon in the increasingly bitter health care debate.

"I know there's plenty of real concern and skepticism out there," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address. "I know that in a time of economic upheaval, the idea of change can be unsettling, and I know that there are folks who believe that government should have no role at all in solving our problems."

Carefully trying not to alienate opponents even while taking them on, he cited "legitimate differences worthy of the real discussion that America deserves." But as Democratic allies face taunts and insults at town hall style gatherings, Obama asked his audience to "lower our voices, listen to one another and talk about differences that really exist."

In the Republicans' address, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch pressed for a bipartisan solution.

"Ensuring access to affordable and quality health care for every American is not a Republican or Democrat issue — it is an American issue," he said.

He said he also encourages a respectful debate, but "there is nothing un-American about disagreements. In fact, our great nation was founded on speaking our minds."

Obama seeks legislation that would provide coverage for millions of uninsured people while controlling costs. Critics say proposals in Congress would spend too much and give government too big a role.

Conservative activists and Obama opponents have stepped up their attacks in recent weeks — and may be outmaneuvering a White House known for its organizational abilities.

In campaign mode, Obama is hosting question-and-answer sessions that proved valuable during the presidential race. The Democratic National Committee and Obama's allies are spending millions on advertising campaigns to influence public opinion, much like they did last year. Associates are going out to make the case. The White House is using Internet tools honed during his groundbreaking bid to rally supporters.

Obama is trying to energize his estimated 13 million grass-roots supporters through his campaign apparatus, called Organizing for America. But there are indications that those who turned out in to help elect Obama aren't doing the same to get a policy passed — evidence of the difficulty in the transition from campaigning to governing.

Advisers encourage grass-roots activists:

In Pittsburgh, Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett told liberal bloggers Saturday at a conference that the president can't accomplish his goal without them. "I cannot say to you how strongly we depend upon you and your outreach and your network to energize people who are on the ground, not just for health care, but for all the tough issues that are lying ahead," she said.

Earlier in the week, White House senior adviser David Axelrod asked supporters to forward a chain e-mail to counter criticism circulating online. The White House also began a "Reality Check" Web site "to help Americans clear up health care lies and misinformation."

Those efforts were reminiscent of the Obama team's attempts during the 2008 campaign to debunk Internet rumors about his faith and upbringing.

The DNC has created a Web video — "What You Won't See on National Cable News" — to highlight civil town hall meetings, and Obama also plans to speak to backers by telephone during a health care event Wednesday.

Over the past week, he has fielded questions from audiences in New Hampshire, and Montana, as well as in Grand Junction. He has faced polite crowds, a stark contrast to the taunts and jeers that Democratic lawmakers have endured at similar sessions during their August break.

Much like in the campaign, Obama is using people's stories to illustrate his points, railing against interest groups and asking supporters to "rise to this moment."

In Grand Junction, he sounded much like a candidate again as he adapted a campaign theme.

He likened the health care effort to policy fights that led to Social Security and Medicare system. "These struggles have always boiled down to a contest between hope and fear," Obama said — a talking point of his candidacy. "So if you want a different future, if you want a brighter future. I need your help."



View Larger Map

Sources: MSNBC, Google Maps