Obama learns from Nazi Germany: Sneaks Death Panels Back Into Obamacare

[Guest guest]

Obama Sneaks “Death Panels†Back Into Obamacare; Does End-Run Around

Congress

January 3, 2011

“If they would rather die they had better do it, and decrease the surplus

population.†— Ebenezer Scrooge in Dickens’ A Christmas Carol

Palin was right.

Boehner — make that Speaker-elect of the House Boehner — was

right.

While Americans were busy celebrating with family and friends and presumably not

paying attention to the news, the New York Times, in a story ironically dated

Christmas Day — a holiday celebrating the birth of the Prince of Peace —

reported the following:

Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused Stir

WASHINGTON — When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a

political storm over “death panels,†Democrats dropped it from legislation

to

overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the

same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.

In other words, the 2009 charge leveled by former Alaska Governor Palin

and the then-House Minority Leader Boehner that Obama fully intended to set up

what Palin termed government “death panels†— panels that Boehner said

would set

the government on the road to euthanasia — is no longer a charge.

It’s reality. By executive fiat — in this case a new Medicare rule issued by

Obama Medicare chief Dr. Berwick.

Palin, who made the charge on her Facebook page on August 7, 2009 during the

health care debates, came under a fusillade of scornful and demeaning political

attacks from political opponents after pointedly saying this about the prospect

of death panels:

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.

Her famous sharp criticism was enough for the plan to be quickly dropped by

Congress.

Now, with Americans absorbed in a festive holiday and ignoring Washington

momentarily, the Obama administration has found a way to achieve its death panel

goal anyway, as the Times now admits. Says the paper of the new Christmas death

panel regulation that replaces medical science and voluntary private judgment

with the inevitable pressure of politicized health care:

Congressional supporters of the new policy, though pleased, have kept quiet.

They fear provoking another furor like the one in 2009 when Republicans seized

on the idea of end-of-life counseling to argue that the Democrats’ bill would

allow the government to cut off care for the critically ill.

Which is another way of saying something else: Governor Palin has been

vindicated. Speaker Boehner has been vindicated.

And Palin’s critics in particular now have more than holiday eggnog all over

their faces. Obama’s Dr. Berwick has re-ignited one of the most hotly

controversial issues of the entire health care debate just as a conservative

ascendancy prepares to take power in the next Congress. With no less than

Boehner himself taking the gavel from Pelosi as the new Speaker of the

House.

What does this new rule say and do, exactly?

It inserts the federal government in end-of-life planning, precisely as Palin

said was Obama’s intention. Not, as was true of its original legislative

formulation, every five years. But annually.

No one of any sense objects to an individual and doctor having end-of-life

discussions about living wills and such whenever they wish. Only the Obama

administration and its obsession for control wants the government to incentivize

the issue so that doctors must raise it annually, a system that on its face

pressures the most deeply vulnerable of Americans in the most Orwellian of terms

to end their lives.

Control and pressure. Pressure and control. This is the only two-step

philosophical/political dance liberals know. It is, as it were, primal. And the

Berwick Medicare rule, constructed in secret and released on Christmas Day when

it no one is looking, is a perfect example — if hardly the only example — of

how

the Obama Administration views its role. Control and pressure. Pressure and

control.

Versus the conservative concept (shorthand version) of liberty and freedom.

Says the Times of the Obama Administration’s justification for its secretive

move to mandate death panels by regulatory fiat:

In this case, the administration said research had shown the value of

end-of-life planning.

Research? What research could possibly justify a government-sponsored annual

attempt to pressure a poor, disabled, or elderly American into believing that

they would be better off dead because they’re costing society too much money?

British research. Says the Times:

“Advance care planning improves end-of-life care and patient and family

satisfaction and reduces stress, anxiety and depression in surviving

relatives,â€

the administration said in the preamble to the Medicare regulation, quoting

research published this year in the British Medical Journal.â€

You read that right.

British research is being cited in the preamble of this Medicare death panel

rule as a justification for the new rule — a stunning turn of events that will

surely launch a firestorm over trying to remodel the American health care system

after the hotly criticized British health care system. A system that makes no

pretense of politically rationed health care.

Part of the furor launched over Palin’s remarks was the discovery by millions

of

frightened Americans that Obama health care bureaucrats admired the British

health care system — where the government in fact rations health care on a

political basis and decides who should live or die based on what is called the

“QALY†— Quality-Adjusted Life Year. This has been discussed previously in

this

space — in fact just over a week before Governor Palin wrote her Facebook

statement. It has also been discussed by health care consultant Catron

here where he explained how the QALY system worked.

In Catron’s words: “A year of perfect health, for example, is given a value

of

1.0 while a year of sub-optimum health is rated between 0 and 1. If you are

confined to a wheelchair, a year of your life might be valued at half that of

your ambulatory neighbor. If you are blind or deaf, you also score low. All that

remains is to assign a specific dollar value to the QALY and, voilà, your life

has a price tag.â€

Princeton’s controversial Dr. Singer, a liberal and big believer in the

British health care system, happily related the British politicization of

medical decisions in a New York Times Magazine article during all of this, an

instance in which “Britain’s National Institute for Health and Clinical

Excellence gave a preliminary recommendation that the National Health Service

should not offer Sutent for advanced kidney cancer.†Why? The government said

it

was too expensive and therefore simply denied the drug. This in turn led to a

furious reaction even from stiff-upper-lip Brits with charges their government

was “immoral†and willing to let patients die.

Grudgingly, the drug was eventually approved. But not before one angry British

woman, whose husband’s life was at stake, angrily asked: “What price is

life?â€

As this is written the Obama Food and Drug Administration is now taking

Americans down this same path, rejecting the breast cancer drug Avastin with

what many are citing as unbelievable science — but very believable political

concerns that the drug is, in the bureaucrats’ view, too expensive. Thereby

inserting the judgment of political bureaucrats for medical science — and the

freedom of patients to order the drug. Here’s this from the Heartland

Institute:

According to Sally Pipes, president of the Pacific Research Institute, the

FDA’s

decision is not based on the best outcome for patients but instead on the

expense of Avastin, produced by Genentech, which can run as high as $90,000 per

year for a single patient.

The FDA claims its decision had nothing to do with Avastin’s cost and was

based

solely on the drug’s medical effectiveness,†Pipes said. “This isn’t

believable.

Every year about 40,000 American women die from breast cancer. Avastin is the

last hope for many not to meet that fate. While the drug is costly, it often

provides immense benefits to patients.

Somewhere an American woman with breast cancer is surely saying the same thing

as her British counterpart: “What price is life?â€

Singer had an answer. Really. Said the famous Bioethics professor: “Life as a

whole has no meaning. Life began, as the best available theories tell us, in a

chance combination of gasses; it then evolved through random mutation and

natural selection. All this just happened; it did not happen to any overall

purpose.â€

Thus, since life really has no overall purpose, the government should be in the

business of using Medicare to pressure the poor, the disabled and the elderly

that — nudge, nudge — isn’t it time to bid the planet hasta la vista?

WHICH BRINGS US TO DR. DONALD BERWICK himself, the Obama administration’s

Medicare recess-appointed head of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Dr. Berwick personally issued the Christmas Death Panel Rule, confirming in

spades why he received a recess appointment from Obama. It was clear to Senate

Democrats that Berwick’s chances of surviving a Senate confirmation battle

were

iffy at best.

Why? Precisely because Berwick was well on record as expressing his deep

admiration — make that lust — for the British government run system, saying:

“I

am romantic about the National Health Service; I love it. …The NHS is one of

the

astounding human endeavors of modern times.â€

So Obama waited until he could skip a Senate debate and vote entirely and just

recess-appoint Berwick — who in turn is doing exactly what his record

suggested

he would do.

Sure enough, the philosophy used by the British is precisely what Berwick used

to describe the new Berwick Rule. Reported the Times of Berwick:

“Using unwanted procedures in terminal illness is a form of assault,†Dr.

Berwick has said. “In economic terms, it is waste. Several techniques,

including

advance directives and involvement of patients and families in decision-making,

have been shown to reduce inappropriate care at the end of life, leading to both

lower cost and more humane care.â€

So. What do we have here?

The death panels were written into the original version of ObamaCare.

Governor Palin, speaking out in her famous Facebook post, pulled back the shroud

surrounding this horrifying idea. Less noticed at the time — but undoubtedly a

headline grabber now — Minority Leader Boehner agreed, citing alarm over

government sponsored euthanasia. Said Boehner:

Section 1233 of the House-drafted legislation encourages health care providers

to provide their Medicare patients with counseling on “the use of artificially

administered nutrition and hydration†and other end of life treatments, and

may

place seniors in situations where they feel pressured to sign end of life

directives they would not otherwise sign. This provision may start us down a

treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted into law.

Obama protested he had no intention of “pulling the plug on Grandma†— but

the

idea, embodied in Section 1233 of the House version of the bill, was pulled from

the final bill in part because of Palin’s — and Boehner’s — focused

attention.

Obama installs Dr. Berwick to head the Medicare program as a recess

appointment because Berwick’s controversial enthusiastic embrace of the

British

health care system and its death panel procedures would have prevented his

confirmation.

On Christmas day 2010, the Times reports the death panel idea will become a

Medicare rule on January 1, 2011 — that would be four days from today. How? By

fiat. As a government Medicare “rule†or “regulation†as put forth by

the

government agency now run by Dr. Berwick.

The rule is justified because Berwick believes the government must “reduce

inappropriate care at the end of life†A Berwick spokesman says the government

should be saying to elderly patients, vulnerable patients, disabled patients —

patients like Palin’s famous Down’s syndrome son: “When the time

comes, do

you want us to use technology to try and delay your death?†Nudge.

D. Wickham, executive director of LifeTree, a pro-life educational

organization, says of the new rule: “The infamous Section 1233 is still alive

and kicking. Patients will lose the ability to control treatments at the end of

life.â€

Oh yes. Did we mention no one was supposed to know about all of this?

Congressman Earl Blumenauer, the Oregon Democrat who wrote the original

provision in the House version of ObamaCare that was unmasked by Palin,

has put the word out to his allies. Says the Congressman’s office in an e-mail

to his allies:

While we are very happy with the result, we won’t be shouting it from the

rooftops because we aren’t out of the woods yet. This regulation could be

modified or reversed, especially if Republican leaders try to use this small

provision to perpetuate the “death panel†myth.

We would ask that you not broadcast this accomplishment out to any of your

lists, even if they are “supporters†— e-mails can too easily be

forwarded…Thus

far, it seems that no press or blogs have discovered it, but we will be keeping

a close watch and may be calling on you if we need a rapid, targeted response.

The longer this goes unnoticed, the better our chances of keeping it.

No wonder Blumenauer wants to keep this quiet.

Did you catch that word “us†in the sentence from Dr. Berwick’s

spokesperson?

Here’s the sentence again:

When the time comes, do you want us to use technology to try and delay your

death?

The word “us†refers not to a doctor and his patient. It refers to the

government.

When Obama health care adviser Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel was cited by longtime health

care expert Betsy McCaughey as discussing the idea that patients with dementia

should be denied treatment, Emanuel’s defenders (he is also the brother of

ex-Obama White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel) floated a Time magazine story

saying Emanuel “only mentioned dementia in a discussion of theoretical

approaches, not an endorsement of a particular policy.â€

Oblivious to the fact that that no less than the President himself expressed a

version of the same sentiment (as has Berwick) when he went on national

television to answer a woman’s observation that at over a hundred her mother

was

very vital with a lot of spirit, and shouldn’t that be taken into account in

any

government health care decision? Said Obama: “I don’t think that we can make

judgments based on peoples’ spirit. That would be a pretty subjective decision

to be making. I think we have to have rules….â€

Government rules. Like the rule just issued by Dr. Berwick.

A rule that effectively is now going to bully individuals — doubtless many of

them poor, disabled or elderly. Ironically creating a system where you will only

escape Obama’s government sponsored Big Chill if you are, say, a rich liberal.

In effect the administration is trying to bully Congress by making an end-run

with a regulation because Congress said no to Section 1233.

The Heritage Foundation has accurately noted yesterday that, quite aside from

the substance here — the new Berwick death panel rule or the FCC’s new net

neutrality rules and so on — the real issue is the Obama administration’s

clear

intent to govern by executive fiat now that it has lost control of the House

and, effectively, the Senate as well. Government-by-Obama fiat will be the

subject of a furious struggle in the new Congress.

Says Heritage by way of focusing on a return to government by elected officials

rather than a central government of rule-making un-elected bureaucrats:

“There is also the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to review

and

overrule regulations issued by government agencies.â€

Which is to say, the Berwick rule can be undone — if the Congress orders it

undone.

This episode is a reminder that Governor Palin took a lot of heat for bringing

attention to this issue. No one expects her critics — now proven wrong by

Berwick — to give her any credit for being right. Or for that matter to the

new

Speaker Boehner.

But the fact remains that Palin has shown leadership here — one might call it

presidential-style leadership — in persisting with an issue that is now coming

back to bite the American people in the form of a new Medicare rule on death

panels — reported of all days on Christmas day.

No wonder Boehner will be Speaker of the House.

From: http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/28/berwick-sets-up-death-panels-b

By Lord on 12.28.

[Guest guest]

Kook show.

On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@...> wrote:

>

>

>

>

> Obama Sneaks “Death Panels” Back Into Obamacare; Does End-Run Around

> Congress

> January 3, 2011

>

> “If they would rather die they had better do it, and decrease the surplus

> population.” — Ebenezer Scrooge in Dickens’ A Christmas Carol

>

> Palin was right.

> Boehner — make that Speaker-elect of the House Boehner — was

> right.

> While Americans were busy celebrating with family and friends and

> presumably not

> paying attention to the news, the New York Times, in a story ironically

> dated

> Christmas Day — a holiday celebrating the birth of the Prince of Peace —

> reported the following:

>

> Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused Stir

> WASHINGTON — When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off

> a

> political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation

> to

> overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve

> the

> same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.

> In other words, the 2009 charge leveled by former Alaska Governor

> Palin

> and the then-House Minority Leader Boehner that Obama fully intended to set

> up

> what Palin termed government “death panels” — panels that Boehner said

> would set

> the government on the road to euthanasia — is no longer a charge.

> It’s reality. By executive fiat — in this case a new Medicare rule issued

> by

> Obama Medicare chief Dr. Berwick.

> Palin, who made the charge on her Facebook page on August 7, 2009 during

> the

> health care debates, came under a fusillade of scornful and demeaning

> political

> attacks from political opponents after pointedly saying this about the

> prospect

> of death panels:

> 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.

> Her famous sharp criticism was enough for the plan to be quickly dropped by

>

> Congress.

> Now, with Americans absorbed in a festive holiday and ignoring Washington

> momentarily, the Obama administration has found a way to achieve its death

> panel

> goal anyway, as the Times now admits. Says the paper of the new Christmas

> death

> panel regulation that replaces medical science and voluntary private

> judgment

> with the inevitable pressure of politicized health care:

> Congressional supporters of the new policy, though pleased, have kept

> quiet.

> They fear provoking another furor like the one in 2009 when Republicans

> seized

> on the idea of end-of-life counseling to argue that the Democrats’ bill

> would

> allow the government to cut off care for the critically ill.

> Which is another way of saying something else: Governor Palin has been

> vindicated. Speaker Boehner has been vindicated.

> And Palin’s critics in particular now have more than holiday eggnog all

> over

> their faces. Obama’s Dr. Berwick has re-ignited one of the most hotly

> controversial issues of the entire health care debate just as a

> conservative

> ascendancy prepares to take power in the next Congress. With no less than

> Boehner himself taking the gavel from Pelosi as the new Speaker of

> the

> House.

> What does this new rule say and do, exactly?

> It inserts the federal government in end-of-life planning, precisely as

> Palin

> said was Obama’s intention. Not, as was true of its original legislative

> formulation, every five years. But annually.

>

> No one of any sense objects to an individual and doctor having end-of-life

> discussions about living wills and such whenever they wish. Only the Obama

> administration and its obsession for control wants the government to

> incentivize

> the issue so that doctors must raise it annually, a system that on its face

>

> pressures the most deeply vulnerable of Americans in the most Orwellian of

> terms

> to end their lives.

> Control and pressure. Pressure and control. This is the only two-step

> philosophical/political dance liberals know. It is, as it were, primal. And

> the

> Berwick Medicare rule, constructed in secret and released on Christmas Day

> when

> it no one is looking, is a perfect example — if hardly the only example —

> of how

> the Obama Administration views its role. Control and pressure. Pressure and

>

> control.

> Versus the conservative concept (shorthand version) of liberty and freedom.

> Says the Times of the Obama Administration’s justification for its

> secretive

> move to mandate death panels by regulatory fiat:

> In this case, the administration said research had shown the value of

> end-of-life planning.

> Research? What research could possibly justify a government-sponsored

> annual

> attempt to pressure a poor, disabled, or elderly American into believing

> that

> they would be better off dead because they’re costing society too much

> money?

>

> British research. Says the Times:

> “Advance care planning improves end-of-life care and patient and family

> satisfaction and reduces stress, anxiety and depression in surviving

> relatives,”

> the administration said in the preamble to the Medicare regulation, quoting

>

> research published this year in the British Medical Journal.”

> You read that right.

> British research is being cited in the preamble of this Medicare death

> panel

> rule as a justification for the new rule — a stunning turn of events that

> will

> surely launch a firestorm over trying to remodel the American health care

> system

> after the hotly criticized British health care system. A system that makes

> no

> pretense of politically rationed health care.

> Part of the furor launched over Palin’s remarks was the discovery by

> millions of

> frightened Americans that Obama health care bureaucrats admired the British

>

> health care system — where the government in fact rations health care on a

> political basis and decides who should live or die based on what is called

> the

> “QALY” — Quality-Adjusted Life Year. This has been discussed previously in

> this

> space — in fact just over a week before Governor Palin wrote her Facebook

> statement. It has also been discussed by health care consultant

> Catron

> here where he explained how the QALY system worked.

>

> In Catron’s words: “A year of perfect health, for example, is given a value

> of

> 1.0 while a year of sub-optimum health is rated between 0 and 1. If you are

>

> confined to a wheelchair, a year of your life might be valued at half that

> of

> your ambulatory neighbor. If you are blind or deaf, you also score low. All

> that

> remains is to assign a specific dollar value to the QALY and, voilà, your

> life

> has a price tag.”

> Princeton’s controversial Dr. Singer, a liberal and big believer in

> the

> British health care system, happily related the British politicization of

> medical decisions in a New York Times Magazine article during all of this,

> an

> instance in which “Britain’s National Institute for Health and Clinical

> Excellence gave a preliminary recommendation that the National Health

> Service

> should not offer Sutent for advanced kidney cancer.” Why? The government

> said it

> was too expensive and therefore simply denied the drug. This in turn led to

> a

> furious reaction even from stiff-upper-lip Brits with charges their

> government

> was “immoral” and willing to let patients die.

>

> Grudgingly, the drug was eventually approved. But not before one angry

> British

> woman, whose husband’s life was at stake, angrily asked: “What price is

> life?”

> As this is written the Obama Food and Drug Administration is now taking

> Americans down this same path, rejecting the breast cancer drug Avastin

> with

> what many are citing as unbelievable science — but very believable

> political

> concerns that the drug is, in the bureaucrats’ view, too expensive. Thereby

>

> inserting the judgment of political bureaucrats for medical science — and

> the

> freedom of patients to order the drug. Here’s this from the Heartland

> Institute:

> According to Sally Pipes, president of the Pacific Research Institute, the

> FDA’s

> decision is not based on the best outcome for patients but instead on the

> expense of Avastin, produced by Genentech, which can run as high as $90,000

> per

> year for a single patient.

> The FDA claims its decision had nothing to do with Avastin’s cost and was

> based

> solely on the drug’s medical effectiveness,” Pipes said. “This isn’t

> believable.

> Every year about 40,000 American women die from breast cancer. Avastin is

> the

> last hope for many not to meet that fate. While the drug is costly, it

> often

> provides immense benefits to patients.

> Somewhere an American woman with breast cancer is surely saying the same

> thing

> as her British counterpart: “What price is life?”

> Singer had an answer. Really. Said the famous Bioethics professor: “Life as

> a

> whole has no meaning. Life began, as the best available theories tell us,

> in a

> chance combination of gasses; it then evolved through random mutation and

> natural selection. All this just happened; it did not happen to any overall

>

> purpose.”

> Thus, since life really has no overall purpose, the government should be in

> the

> business of using Medicare to pressure the poor, the disabled and the

> elderly

> that — nudge, nudge — isn’t it time to bid the planet hasta la vista?

> WHICH BRINGS US TO DR. DONALD BERWICK himself, the Obama administration’s

> Medicare recess-appointed head of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid

> Services.

> Dr. Berwick personally issued the Christmas Death Panel Rule, confirming in

>

> spades why he received a recess appointment from Obama. It was clear to

> Senate

> Democrats that Berwick’s chances of surviving a Senate confirmation battle

> were

> iffy at best.

>

> Why? Precisely because Berwick was well on record as expressing his deep

> admiration — make that lust — for the British government run system,

> saying: “I

> am romantic about the National Health Service; I love it. …The NHS is one

> of the

> astounding human endeavors of modern times.”

> So Obama waited until he could skip a Senate debate and vote entirely and

> just

> recess-appoint Berwick — who in turn is doing exactly what his record

> suggested

> he would do.

> Sure enough, the philosophy used by the British is precisely what Berwick

> used

> to describe the new Berwick Rule. Reported the Times of Berwick:

> “Using unwanted procedures in terminal illness is a form of assault,” Dr.

> Berwick has said. “In economic terms, it is waste. Several techniques,

> including

> advance directives and involvement of patients and families in

> decision-making,

> have been shown to reduce inappropriate care at the end of life, leading to

> both

> lower cost and more humane care.”

> So. What do we have here?

> The death panels were written into the original version of ObamaCare.

> Governor Palin, speaking out in her famous Facebook post, pulled back the

> shroud

> surrounding this horrifying idea. Less noticed at the time — but

> undoubtedly a

> headline grabber now — Minority Leader Boehner agreed, citing alarm over

> government sponsored euthanasia. Said Boehner:

> Section 1233 of the House-drafted legislation encourages health care

> providers

> to provide their Medicare patients with counseling on “the use of

> artificially

> administered nutrition and hydration” and other end of life treatments, and

> may

> place seniors in situations where they feel pressured to sign end of life

> directives they would not otherwise sign. This provision may start us down

> a

> treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted into

> law.

>

> Obama protested he had no intention of “pulling the plug on Grandma” — but

> the

> idea, embodied in Section 1233 of the House version of the bill, was pulled

> from

> the final bill in part because of Palin’s — and Boehner’s — focused

> attention.

> Obama installs Dr. Berwick to head the Medicare program as a recess

> appointment because Berwick’s controversial enthusiastic embrace of the

> British

> health care system and its death panel procedures would have prevented his

> confirmation.

> On Christmas day 2010, the Times reports the death panel idea will become a

>

> Medicare rule on January 1, 2011 — that would be four days from today. How?

> By

> fiat. As a government Medicare “rule” or “regulation” as put forth by the

> government agency now run by Dr. Berwick.

>

> The rule is justified because Berwick believes the government must “reduce

> inappropriate care at the end of life” A Berwick spokesman says the

> government

> should be saying to elderly patients, vulnerable patients, disabled

> patients —

> patients like Palin’s famous Down’s syndrome son: “When the time

> comes, do

> you want us to use technology to try and delay your death?” Nudge.

> D. Wickham, executive director of LifeTree, a pro-life

> educational

> organization, says of the new rule: “The infamous Section 1233 is still

> alive

> and kicking. Patients will lose the ability to control treatments at the

> end of

> life.”

> Oh yes. Did we mention no one was supposed to know about all of this?

> Congressman Earl Blumenauer, the Oregon Democrat who wrote the original

> provision in the House version of ObamaCare that was unmasked by

> Palin,

> has put the word out to his allies. Says the Congressman’s office in an

> e-mail

> to his allies:

> While we are very happy with the result, we won’t be shouting it from the

> rooftops because we aren’t out of the woods yet. This regulation could be

> modified or reversed, especially if Republican leaders try to use this

> small

> provision to perpetuate the “death panel” myth.

> We would ask that you not broadcast this accomplishment out to any of your

> lists, even if they are “supporters” — e-mails can too easily be

> forwarded…Thus

> far, it seems that no press or blogs have discovered it, but we will be

> keeping

> a close watch and may be calling on you if we need a rapid, targeted

> response.

> The longer this goes unnoticed, the better our chances of keeping it.

>

> No wonder Blumenauer wants to keep this quiet.

> Did you catch that word “us” in the sentence from Dr. Berwick’s

> spokesperson?

> Here’s the sentence again:

> When the time comes, do you want us to use technology to try and delay your

>

> death?

> The word “us” refers not to a doctor and his patient. It refers to the

> government.

> When Obama health care adviser Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel was cited by longtime

> health

> care expert Betsy McCaughey as discussing the idea that patients with

> dementia

> should be denied treatment, Emanuel’s defenders (he is also the brother of

> ex-Obama White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel) floated a Time magazine

> story

> saying Emanuel “only mentioned dementia in a discussion of theoretical

> approaches, not an endorsement of a particular policy.”

>

> Oblivious to the fact that that no less than the President himself

> expressed a

> version of the same sentiment (as has Berwick) when he went on national

> television to answer a woman’s observation that at over a hundred her

> mother was

> very vital with a lot of spirit, and shouldn’t that be taken into account

> in any

> government health care decision? Said Obama: “I don’t think that we can

> make

> judgments based on peoples’ spirit. That would be a pretty subjective

> decision

> to be making. I think we have to have rules….”

> Government rules. Like the rule just issued by Dr. Berwick.

> A rule that effectively is now going to bully individuals — doubtless many

> of

> them poor, disabled or elderly. Ironically creating a system where you will

> only

> escape Obama’s government sponsored Big Chill if you are, say, a rich

> liberal.

> In effect the administration is trying to bully Congress by making an

> end-run

> with a regulation because Congress said no to Section 1233.

> The Heritage Foundation has accurately noted yesterday that, quite aside

> from

> the substance here — the new Berwick death panel rule or the FCC’s new net

> neutrality rules and so on — the real issue is the Obama administration’s

> clear

> intent to govern by executive fiat now that it has lost control of the

> House

> and, effectively, the Senate as well. Government-by-Obama fiat will be the

> subject of a furious struggle in the new Congress.

> Says Heritage by way of focusing on a return to government by elected

> officials

> rather than a central government of rule-making un-elected bureaucrats:

> “There is also the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to

> review and

> overrule regulations issued by government agencies.”

>

> Which is to say, the Berwick rule can be undone — if the Congress orders it

>

> undone.

> This episode is a reminder that Governor Palin took a lot of heat for

> bringing

> attention to this issue. No one expects her critics — now proven wrong by

> Berwick — to give her any credit for being right. Or for that matter to the

> new

> Speaker Boehner.

> But the fact remains that Palin has shown leadership here — one might call

> it

> presidential-style leadership — in persisting with an issue that is now

> coming

> back to bite the American people in the form of a new Medicare rule on

> death

> panels — reported of all days on Christmas day.

> No wonder Boehner will be Speaker of the House.

> From:

> http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/28/berwick-sets-up-death-panels-b

> By Lord on 12.28.

>

>

[Guest guest]

President Obama is a good and decent man and is certainly more in line with

the ideologies of Jefferson, Madison, and lin than the previous

administration.

***When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it

does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that

its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, ‘tis a sign,

I apprehend, of its being a bad one.*

- lin

On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@...> wrote:

>

>

> They have been calling for " triage " for some time now - or havent you

> noticed.

> Kirk

>

> " And of what kind are the men that will strive for this profitable

> preeminence,

> through all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite

> mutual

> abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of characters? It will not be

> the

> wise and moderate, the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for

> the

> trust. It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and

> indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits. These will thrust

> themselves

> into your government and be your rulers. " - Excerpt from " Dangers of a

> Salaried

> Bureaucracy " addressed to the Constitutional Convention members by

>

> lin in 1787

>

> ________________________________

> From: Chuck <chuckfrasher@... <chuckfrasher%40gmail.com>>

> Longevity <Longevity%40>

> Sent: Sun, January 2, 2011 10:53:23 PM

> Subject: Re: Obama learns from Nazi Germany: Sneaks " Death

> Panels "

> Back Into Obamacare

>

> Kook show.

>

> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Kirk McLoren

<kirkmcloren@...<kirkmcloren%40>>

> wrote:

>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Obama Sneaks “Death Panels” Back Into Obamacare; Does End-Run Around

> > Congress

> > January 3, 2011

> >

> > “If they would rather die they had better do it, and decrease the surplus

> > population.” — Ebenezer Scrooge in Dickens’ A Christmas Carol

> >

> > Palin was right.

> > Boehner — make that Speaker-elect of the House Boehner — was

> > right.

> > While Americans were busy celebrating with family and friends and

> > presumably not

> > paying attention to the news, the New York Times, in a story ironically

> > dated

> > Christmas Day — a holiday celebrating the birth of the Prince of Peace —

> > reported the following:

> >

> > Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused Stir

> > WASHINGTON — When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched

> off

> > a

> > political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from

> legislation

> > to

> > overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will

> achieve

> > the

> > same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.

> > In other words, the 2009 charge leveled by former Alaska Governor

> > Palin

> > and the then-House Minority Leader Boehner that Obama fully intended to

> set

> > up

> > what Palin termed government “death panels” — panels that Boehner said

> > would set

> > the government on the road to euthanasia — is no longer a charge.

> > It’s reality. By executive fiat — in this case a new Medicare rule issued

> > by

> > Obama Medicare chief Dr. Berwick.

> > Palin, who made the charge on her Facebook page on August 7, 2009 during

> > the

> > health care debates, came under a fusillade of scornful and demeaning

> > political

> > attacks from political opponents after pointedly saying this about the

> > prospect

> > of death panels:

> > 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.

> > Her famous sharp criticism was enough for the plan to be quickly dropped

> by

> >

> > Congress.

> > Now, with Americans absorbed in a festive holiday and ignoring Washington

> > momentarily, the Obama administration has found a way to achieve its

> death

> > panel

> > goal anyway, as the Times now admits. Says the paper of the new Christmas

> > death

> > panel regulation that replaces medical science and voluntary private

> > judgment

> > with the inevitable pressure of politicized health care:

> > Congressional supporters of the new policy, though pleased, have kept

> > quiet.

> > They fear provoking another furor like the one in 2009 when Republicans

> > seized

> > on the idea of end-of-life counseling to argue that the Democrats’ bill

> > would

> > allow the government to cut off care for the critically ill.

> > Which is another way of saying something else: Governor Palin has been

> > vindicated. Speaker Boehner has been vindicated.

> > And Palin’s critics in particular now have more than holiday eggnog all

> > over

> > their faces. Obama’s Dr. Berwick has re-ignited one of the most hotly

> > controversial issues of the entire health care debate just as a

> > conservative

> > ascendancy prepares to take power in the next Congress. With no less than

> > Boehner himself taking the gavel from Pelosi as the new Speaker of

> > the

> > House.

> > What does this new rule say and do, exactly?

> > It inserts the federal government in end-of-life planning, precisely as

> > Palin

> > said was Obama’s intention. Not, as was true of its original legislative

> > formulation, every five years. But annually.

> >

> > No one of any sense objects to an individual and doctor having

> end-of-life

> > discussions about living wills and such whenever they wish. Only the

> Obama

> > administration and its obsession for control wants the government to

> > incentivize

> > the issue so that doctors must raise it annually, a system that on its

> face

> >

> > pressures the most deeply vulnerable of Americans in the most Orwellian

> of

> > terms

> > to end their lives.

> > Control and pressure. Pressure and control. This is the only two-step

> > philosophical/political dance liberals know. It is, as it were, primal.

> And

> > the

> > Berwick Medicare rule, constructed in secret and released on Christmas

> Day

> > when

> > it no one is looking, is a perfect example — if hardly the only example —

> > of how

> > the Obama Administration views its role. Control and pressure. Pressure

> and

> >

> > control.

> > Versus the conservative concept (shorthand version) of liberty and

> freedom.

> > Says the Times of the Obama Administration’s justification for its

> > secretive

> > move to mandate death panels by regulatory fiat:

> > In this case, the administration said research had shown the value of

> > end-of-life planning.

> > Research? What research could possibly justify a government-sponsored

> > annual

> > attempt to pressure a poor, disabled, or elderly American into believing

> > that

> > they would be better off dead because they’re costing society too much

> > money?

> >

> > British research. Says the Times:

> > “Advance care planning improves end-of-life care and patient and family

> > satisfaction and reduces stress, anxiety and depression in surviving

> > relatives,”

> > the administration said in the preamble to the Medicare regulation,

> quoting

> >

> > research published this year in the British Medical Journal.”

> > You read that right.

> > British research is being cited in the preamble of this Medicare death

> > panel

> > rule as a justification for the new rule — a stunning turn of events that

> > will

> > surely launch a firestorm over trying to remodel the American health care

> > system

> > after the hotly criticized British health care system. A system that

> makes

> > no

> > pretense of politically rationed health care.

> > Part of the furor launched over Palin’s remarks was the discovery by

> > millions of

> > frightened Americans that Obama health care bureaucrats admired the

> British

> >

> > health care system — where the government in fact rations health care on

> a

> > political basis and decides who should live or die based on what is

> called

> > the

> > “QALY” — Quality-Adjusted Life Year. This has been discussed previously

> in

> > this

> > space — in fact just over a week before Governor Palin wrote her Facebook

> > statement. It has also been discussed by health care consultant

> > Catron

> > here where he explained how the QALY system worked.

> >

> > In Catron’s words: “A year of perfect health, for example, is given a

> value

> > of

> > 1.0 while a year of sub-optimum health is rated between 0 and 1. If you

> are

> >

> > confined to a wheelchair, a year of your life might be valued at half

> that

> > of

> > your ambulatory neighbor. If you are blind or deaf, you also score low.

> All

> > that

> > remains is to assign a specific dollar value to the QALY and, voilà, your

> > life

> > has a price tag.”

> > Princeton’s controversial Dr. Singer, a liberal and big believer in

> > the

> > British health care system, happily related the British politicization of

> > medical decisions in a New York Times Magazine article during all of

> this,

> > an

> > instance in which “Britain’s National Institute for Health and Clinical

> > Excellence gave a preliminary recommendation that the National Health

> > Service

> > should not offer Sutent for advanced kidney cancer.” Why? The government

> > said it

> > was too expensive and therefore simply denied the drug. This in turn led

> to

> > a

> > furious reaction even from stiff-upper-lip Brits with charges their

> > government

> > was “immoral” and willing to let patients die.

> >

> > Grudgingly, the drug was eventually approved. But not before one angry

> > British

> > woman, whose husband’s life was at stake, angrily asked: “What price is

> > life?”

> > As this is written the Obama Food and Drug Administration is now taking

> > Americans down this same path, rejecting the breast cancer drug Avastin

> > with

> > what many are citing as unbelievable science — but very believable

> > political

> > concerns that the drug is, in the bureaucrats’ view, too expensive.

> Thereby

> >

> > inserting the judgment of political bureaucrats for medical science — and

> > the

> > freedom of patients to order the drug. Here’s this from the Heartland

> > Institute:

> > According to Sally Pipes, president of the Pacific Research Institute,

> the

> > FDA’s

> > decision is not based on the best outcome for patients but instead on the

> > expense of Avastin, produced by Genentech, which can run as high as

> $90,000

> > per

> > year for a single patient.

> > The FDA claims its decision had nothing to do with Avastin’s cost and was

> > based

> > solely on the drug’s medical effectiveness,” Pipes said. “This isn’t

> > believable.

> > Every year about 40,000 American women die from breast cancer. Avastin is

> > the

> > last hope for many not to meet that fate. While the drug is costly, it

> > often

> > provides immense benefits to patients.

> > Somewhere an American woman with breast cancer is surely saying the same

> > thing

> > as her British counterpart: “What price is life?”

> > Singer had an answer. Really. Said the famous Bioethics professor: “Life

> as

> > a

> > whole has no meaning. Life began, as the best available theories tell us,

> > in a

> > chance combination of gasses; it then evolved through random mutation and

> > natural selection. All this just happened; it did not happen to any

> overall

> >

> > purpose.”

> > Thus, since life really has no overall purpose, the government should be

> in

> > the

> > business of using Medicare to pressure the poor, the disabled and the

> > elderly

> > that — nudge, nudge — isn’t it time to bid the planet hasta la vista?

> > WHICH BRINGS US TO DR. DONALD BERWICK himself, the Obama administration’s

> > Medicare recess-appointed head of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid

> > Services.

> > Dr. Berwick personally issued the Christmas Death Panel Rule, confirming

> in

> >

> > spades why he received a recess appointment from Obama. It was clear to

> > Senate

> > Democrats that Berwick’s chances of surviving a Senate confirmation

> battle

> > were

> > iffy at best.

> >

> > Why? Precisely because Berwick was well on record as expressing his deep

> > admiration — make that lust — for the British government run system,

> > saying: “I

> > am romantic about the National Health Service; I love it. …The NHS is one

> > of the

> > astounding human endeavors of modern times.”

> > So Obama waited until he could skip a Senate debate and vote entirely and

> > just

> > recess-appoint Berwick — who in turn is doing exactly what his record

> > suggested

> > he would do.

> > Sure enough, the philosophy used by the British is precisely what Berwick

> > used

> > to describe the new Berwick Rule. Reported the Times of Berwick:

> > “Using unwanted procedures in terminal illness is a form of assault,” Dr.

> > Berwick has said. “In economic terms, it is waste. Several techniques,

> > including

> > advance directives and involvement of patients and families in

> > decision-making,

> > have been shown to reduce inappropriate care at the end of life, leading

> to

> > both

> > lower cost and more humane care.”

> > So. What do we have here?

> > The death panels were written into the original version of ObamaCare.

> > Governor Palin, speaking out in her famous Facebook post, pulled back the

> > shroud

> > surrounding this horrifying idea. Less noticed at the time — but

> > undoubtedly a

> > headline grabber now — Minority Leader Boehner agreed, citing alarm over

> > government sponsored euthanasia. Said Boehner:

> > Section 1233 of the House-drafted legislation encourages health care

> > providers

> > to provide their Medicare patients with counseling on “the use of

> > artificially

> > administered nutrition and hydration” and other end of life treatments,

> and

> > may

> > place seniors in situations where they feel pressured to sign end of life

> > directives they would not otherwise sign. This provision may start us

> down

> > a

> > treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted into

> > law.

> >

> > Obama protested he had no intention of “pulling the plug on Grandma” —

> but

> > the

> > idea, embodied in Section 1233 of the House version of the bill, was

> pulled

> > from

> > the final bill in part because of Palin’s — and Boehner’s — focused

> > attention.

> > Obama installs Dr. Berwick to head the Medicare program as a

> recess

> > appointment because Berwick’s controversial enthusiastic embrace of the

> > British

> > health care system and its death panel procedures would have prevented

> his

> > confirmation.

> > On Christmas day 2010, the Times reports the death panel idea will become

> a

> >

> > Medicare rule on January 1, 2011 — that would be four days from today.

> How?

> > By

> > fiat. As a government Medicare “rule” or “regulation” as put forth by the

> > government agency now run by Dr. Berwick.

> >

> > The rule is justified because Berwick believes the government must

> “reduce

> > inappropriate care at the end of life” A Berwick spokesman says the

> > government

> > should be saying to elderly patients, vulnerable patients, disabled

> > patients —

> > patients like Palin’s famous Down’s syndrome son: “When the time

> > comes, do

> > you want us to use technology to try and delay your death?” Nudge.

> > D. Wickham, executive director of LifeTree, a pro-life

> > educational

> > organization, says of the new rule: “The infamous Section 1233 is still

> > alive

> > and kicking. Patients will lose the ability to control treatments at the

> > end of

> > life.”

> > Oh yes. Did we mention no one was supposed to know about all of this?

> > Congressman Earl Blumenauer, the Oregon Democrat who wrote the original

> > provision in the House version of ObamaCare that was unmasked by

> > Palin,

> > has put the word out to his allies. Says the Congressman’s office in an

> > e-mail

> > to his allies:

> > While we are very happy with the result, we won’t be shouting it from the

> > rooftops because we aren’t out of the woods yet. This regulation could be

> > modified or reversed, especially if Republican leaders try to use this

> > small

> > provision to perpetuate the “death panel” myth.

> > We would ask that you not broadcast this accomplishment out to any of

> your

> > lists, even if they are “supporters” — e-mails can too easily be

> > forwarded…Thus

> > far, it seems that no press or blogs have discovered it, but we will be

> > keeping

> > a close watch and may be calling on you if we need a rapid, targeted

> > response.

> > The longer this goes unnoticed, the better our chances of keeping it.

> >

> > No wonder Blumenauer wants to keep this quiet.

> > Did you catch that word “us” in the sentence from Dr. Berwick’s

> > spokesperson?

> > Here’s the sentence again:

> > When the time comes, do you want us to use technology to try and delay

> your

> >

> > death?

> > The word “us” refers not to a doctor and his patient. It refers to the

> > government.

> > When Obama health care adviser Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel was cited by longtime

> > health

> > care expert Betsy McCaughey as discussing the idea that patients with

> > dementia

> > should be denied treatment, Emanuel’s defenders (he is also the brother

> of

> > ex-Obama White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel) floated a Time magazine

> > story

> > saying Emanuel “only mentioned dementia in a discussion of theoretical

> > approaches, not an endorsement of a particular policy.”

> >

> > Oblivious to the fact that that no less than the President himself

> > expressed a

> > version of the same sentiment (as has Berwick) when he went on national

> > television to answer a woman’s observation that at over a hundred her

> > mother was

> > very vital with a lot of spirit, and shouldn’t that be taken into account

> > in any

> > government health care decision? Said Obama: “I don’t think that we can

> > make

> > judgments based on peoples’ spirit. That would be a pretty subjective

> > decision

> > to be making. I think we have to have rules….”

> > Government rules. Like the rule just issued by Dr. Berwick.

> > A rule that effectively is now going to bully individuals — doubtless

> many

> > of

> > them poor, disabled or elderly. Ironically creating a system where you

> will

> > only

> > escape Obama’s government sponsored Big Chill if you are, say, a rich

> > liberal.

> > In effect the administration is trying to bully Congress by making an

> > end-run

> > with a regulation because Congress said no to Section 1233.

> > The Heritage Foundation has accurately noted yesterday that, quite aside

> > from

> > the substance here — the new Berwick death panel rule or the FCC’s new

> net

> > neutrality rules and so on — the real issue is the Obama administration’s

> > clear

> > intent to govern by executive fiat now that it has lost control of the

> > House

> > and, effectively, the Senate as well. Government-by-Obama fiat will be

> the

> > subject of a furious struggle in the new Congress.

> > Says Heritage by way of focusing on a return to government by elected

> > officials

> > rather than a central government of rule-making un-elected bureaucrats:

> > “There is also the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to

> > review and

> > overrule regulations issued by government agencies.”

> >

> > Which is to say, the Berwick rule can be undone — if the Congress orders

> it

> >

> > undone.

> > This episode is a reminder that Governor Palin took a lot of heat for

> > bringing

> > attention to this issue. No one expects her critics — now proven wrong by

> > Berwick — to give her any credit for being right. Or for that matter to

> the

> > new

> > Speaker Boehner.

> > But the fact remains that Palin has shown leadership here — one might

> call

> > it

> > presidential-style leadership — in persisting with an issue that is now

> > coming

> > back to bite the American people in the form of a new Medicare rule on

> > death

> > panels — reported of all days on Christmas day.

> > No wonder Boehner will be Speaker of the House.

> > From:

> > http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/28/berwick-sets-up-death-panels-b

> > By Lord on 12.28.

> >

>

> ------------------------------------

>

>

[Guest guest]

calling BS on that Chuck. The body of evidence speaks otherwise

https://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/obama-reintroduces-death-pane\

ls-into-medicare/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2316819/posts

http://www.linkedin.com/answers/professional-development/ethics/PRO_PET/530905-1\

735100

http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-c-2009-10-19-239304.112112_Looks_like_S\

arah_Palin_was_right_and_correct_about_Death_Panels_after_all.html

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/08/inconvenient-truth-about-death-pan\

el.html

hundreds more if you Google

________________________________

From: Chuck <chuckfrasher@...>

Longevity

Sent: Tue, January 4, 2011 10:42:49 AM

Subject: Re: Obama learns from Nazi Germany: Sneaks " Death Panels "

Back Into Obamacare

*What policy? There are no death panels. *

PolitiFact's 2009 Lie of the Year: 'Death panels'

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/18/politifact-lie-year-\

death-panels/

On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 12:39 PM, wayne walusiak <quoipso@...> wrote:

>

>

> If Obama is so much 'better than the previous administration', why did he

> come up with this policy? He IS responsible for those he puts in

> administrative positions, and especially so when he bypasses the

> confirmation process. This whole garbage 'health care' bill, not

> withstanding?

>

>

>

> >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Obama Sneaks “Death Panels†Back Into Obamacare; Does End-Run Around

> > > Congress

> > > January 3, 2011

> > >

> > > “If they would rather die they had better do it, and decrease the

> surplus

> > > population.†— Ebenezer Scrooge in Dickens’ A Christmas

Carol

> > >

> > > Palin was right.

> > > Boehner — make that Speaker-elect of the House Boehner — was

> > > right.

> > > While Americans were busy celebrating with family and friends and

> > > presumably not

> > > paying attention to the news, the New York Times, in a story ironically

> > > dated

> > > Christmas Day — a holiday celebrating the birth of the Prince of Peace

> —

> > > reported the following:

> > >

> > > Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused Stir

> > > WASHINGTON — When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched

> > off

> > > a

> > > political storm over “death panels,†Democrats dropped it from

> > legislation

> > > to

> > > overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will

> > achieve

> > > the

> > > same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.

> > > In other words, the 2009 charge leveled by former Alaska Governor

> > > Palin

> > > and the then-House Minority Leader Boehner that Obama fully intended to

> > set

> > > up

> > > what Palin termed government “death panels†— panels that Boehner

said

> > > would set

> > > the government on the road to euthanasia — is no longer a charge.

> > > It’s reality. By executive fiat — in this case a new Medicare rule

> issued

> > > by

> > > Obama Medicare chief Dr. Berwick.

> > > Palin, who made the charge on her Facebook page on August 7, 2009

> during

> > > the

> > > health care debates, came under a fusillade of scornful and demeaning

> > > political

> > > attacks from political opponents after pointedly saying this about the

> > > prospect

> > > of death panels:

> > > 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.

> > > Her famous sharp criticism was enough for the plan to be quickly

> dropped

> > by

> > >

> > > Congress.

> > > Now, with Americans absorbed in a festive holiday and ignoring

> Washington

> > > momentarily, the Obama administration has found a way to achieve its

> > death

> > > panel

> > > goal anyway, as the Times now admits. Says the paper of the new

> Christmas

> > > death

> > > panel regulation that replaces medical science and voluntary private

> > > judgment

> > > with the inevitable pressure of politicized health care:

> > > Congressional supporters of the new policy, though pleased, have kept

> > > quiet.

> > > They fear provoking another furor like the one in 2009 when Republicans

> > > seized

> > > on the idea of end-of-life counseling to argue that the Democrats’ bill

> > > would

> > > allow the government to cut off care for the critically ill.

> > > Which is another way of saying something else: Governor Palin has been

> > > vindicated. Speaker Boehner has been vindicated.

> > > And Palin’s critics in particular now have more than holiday eggnog all

> > > over

> > > their faces. Obama’s Dr. Berwick has re-ignited one of the most hotly

> > > controversial issues of the entire health care debate just as a

> > > conservative

> > > ascendancy prepares to take power in the next Congress. With no less

> than

> > > Boehner himself taking the gavel from Pelosi as the new Speaker

> of

> > > the

> > > House.

> > > What does this new rule say and do, exactly?

> > > It inserts the federal government in end-of-life planning, precisely as

> > > Palin

> > > said was Obama’s intention. Not, as was true of its original

> legislative

> > > formulation, every five years. But annually.

> > >

> > > No one of any sense objects to an individual and doctor having

> > end-of-life

> > > discussions about living wills and such whenever they wish. Only the

> > Obama

> > > administration and its obsession for control wants the government to

> > > incentivize

> > > the issue so that doctors must raise it annually, a system that on its

> > face

> > >

> > > pressures the most deeply vulnerable of Americans in the most Orwellian

> > of

> > > terms

> > > to end their lives.

> > > Control and pressure. Pressure and control. This is the only two-step

> > > philosophical/political dance liberals know. It is, as it were, primal.

> > And

> > > the

> > > Berwick Medicare rule, constructed in secret and released on Christmas

> > Day

> > > when

> > > it no one is looking, is a perfect example — if hardly the only example

> —

> > > of how

> > > the Obama Administration views its role. Control and pressure. Pressure

> > and

> > >

> > > control.

> > > Versus the conservative concept (shorthand version) of liberty and

> > freedom.

> > > Says the Times of the Obama Administration’s justification for its

> > > secretive

> > > move to mandate death panels by regulatory fiat:

> > > In this case, the administration said research had shown the value of

> > > end-of-life planning.

> > > Research? What research could possibly justify a government-sponsored

> > > annual

> > > attempt to pressure a poor, disabled, or elderly American into

> believing

> > > that

> > > they would be better off dead because they’re costing society too much

> > > money?

> > >

> > > British research. Says the Times:

> > > “Advance care planning improves end-of-life care and patient and family

> > > satisfaction and reduces stress, anxiety and depression in surviving

> > > relatives,â€

> > > the administration said in the preamble to the Medicare regulation,

> > quoting

> > >

> > > research published this year in the British Medical Journal.â€

> > > You read that right.

> > > British research is being cited in the preamble of this Medicare death

> > > panel

> > > rule as a justification for the new rule — a stunning turn of events

> that

> > > will

> > > surely launch a firestorm over trying to remodel the American health

> care

> > > system

> > > after the hotly criticized British health care system. A system that

> > makes

> > > no

> > > pretense of politically rationed health care.

> > > Part of the furor launched over Palin’s remarks was the discovery by

> > > millions of

> > > frightened Americans that Obama health care bureaucrats admired the

> > British

> > >

> > > health care system — where the government in fact rations health care

> on

> > a

> > > political basis and decides who should live or die based on what is

> > called

> > > the

> > > “QALY†— Quality-Adjusted Life Year. This has been discussed

previously

> > in

> > > this

> > > space — in fact just over a week before Governor Palin wrote her

> Facebook

> > > statement. It has also been discussed by health care consultant

> > > Catron

> > > here where he explained how the QALY system worked.

> > >

> > > In Catron’s words: “A year of perfect health, for example, is given a

> > value

> > > of

> > > 1.0 while a year of sub-optimum health is rated between 0 and 1. If you

> > are

> > >

> > > confined to a wheelchair, a year of your life might be valued at half

> > that

> > > of

> > > your ambulatory neighbor. If you are blind or deaf, you also score low.

> > All

> > > that

> > > remains is to assign a specific dollar value to the QALY and, voilà,

> your

> > > life

> > > has a price tag.â€

> > > Princeton’s controversial Dr. Singer, a liberal and big believer

> in

> > > the

> > > British health care system, happily related the British politicization

> of

> > > medical decisions in a New York Times Magazine article during all of

> > this,

> > > an

> > > instance in which “Britain’s National Institute for Health and

Clinical

> > > Excellence gave a preliminary recommendation that the National Health

> > > Service

> > > should not offer Sutent for advanced kidney cancer.†Why? The

> government

> > > said it

> > > was too expensive and therefore simply denied the drug. This in turn

> led

> > to

> > > a

> > > furious reaction even from stiff-upper-lip Brits with charges their

> > > government

> > > was “immoral†and willing to let patients die.

> > >

> > > Grudgingly, the drug was eventually approved. But not before one angry

> > > British

> > > woman, whose husband’s life was at stake, angrily asked: “What price

is

> > > life?â€

> > > As this is written the Obama Food and Drug Administration is now taking

> > > Americans down this same path, rejecting the breast cancer drug Avastin

> > > with

> > > what many are citing as unbelievable science — but very believable

> > > political

> > > concerns that the drug is, in the bureaucrats’ view, too expensive.

> > Thereby

> > >

> > > inserting the judgment of political bureaucrats for medical science —

> and

> > > the

> > > freedom of patients to order the drug. Here’s this from the Heartland

> > > Institute:

> > > According to Sally Pipes, president of the Pacific Research Institute,

> > the

> > > FDA’s

> > > decision is not based on the best outcome for patients but instead on

> the

> > > expense of Avastin, produced by Genentech, which can run as high as

> > $90,000

> > > per

> > > year for a single patient.

> > > The FDA claims its decision had nothing to do with Avastin’s cost and

> was

> > > based

> > > solely on the drug’s medical effectiveness,†Pipes said. “This

isn’t

> > > believable.

> > > Every year about 40,000 American women die from breast cancer. Avastin

> is

> > > the

> > > last hope for many not to meet that fate. While the drug is costly, it

> > > often

> > > provides immense benefits to patients.

> > > Somewhere an American woman with breast cancer is surely saying the

> same

> > > thing

> > > as her British counterpart: “What price is life?â€

> > > Singer had an answer. Really. Said the famous Bioethics professor:

> “Life

> > as

> > > a

> > > whole has no meaning. Life began, as the best available theories tell

> us,

> > > in a

> > > chance combination of gasses; it then evolved through random mutation

> and

> > > natural selection. All this just happened; it did not happen to any

> > overall

> > >

> > > purpose.â€

> > > Thus, since life really has no overall purpose, the government should

> be

> > in

> > > the

> > > business of using Medicare to pressure the poor, the disabled and the

> > > elderly

> > > that — nudge, nudge — isn’t it time to bid the planet hasta la

vista?

> > > WHICH BRINGS US TO DR. DONALD BERWICK himself, the Obama

> administration’s

> > > Medicare recess-appointed head of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid

> > > Services.

> > > Dr. Berwick personally issued the Christmas Death Panel Rule,

> confirming

> > in

> > >

> > > spades why he received a recess appointment from Obama. It was clear to

> > > Senate

> > > Democrats that Berwick’s chances of surviving a Senate confirmation

> > battle

> > > were

> > > iffy at best.

> > >

> > > Why? Precisely because Berwick was well on record as expressing his

> deep

> > > admiration — make that lust — for the British government run system,

> > > saying: “I

> > > am romantic about the National Health Service; I love it. …The NHS is

> one

> > > of the

> > > astounding human endeavors of modern times.â€

> > > So Obama waited until he could skip a Senate debate and vote entirely

> and

> > > just

> > > recess-appoint Berwick — who in turn is doing exactly what his record

> > > suggested

> > > he would do.

> > > Sure enough, the philosophy used by the British is precisely what

> Berwick

> > > used

> > > to describe the new Berwick Rule. Reported the Times of Berwick:

> > > “Using unwanted procedures in terminal illness is a form of assault,â€

> Dr.

> > > Berwick has said. “In economic terms, it is waste. Several techniques,

> > > including

> > > advance directives and involvement of patients and families in

> > > decision-making,

> > > have been shown to reduce inappropriate care at the end of life,

> leading

> > to

> > > both

> > > lower cost and more humane care.â€

> > > So. What do we have here?

> > > The death panels were written into the original version of ObamaCare.

> > > Governor Palin, speaking out in her famous Facebook post, pulled back

> the

> > > shroud

> > > surrounding this horrifying idea. Less noticed at the time — but

> > > undoubtedly a

> > > headline grabber now — Minority Leader Boehner agreed, citing alarm

> over

> > > government sponsored euthanasia. Said Boehner:

> > > Section 1233 of the House-drafted legislation encourages health care

> > > providers

> > > to provide their Medicare patients with counseling on “the use of

> > > artificially

> > > administered nutrition and hydration†and other end of life treatments,

> > and

> > > may

> > > place seniors in situations where they feel pressured to sign end of

> life

> > > directives they would not otherwise sign. This provision may start us

> > down

> > > a

> > > treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted

> into

> > > law.

> > >

> > > Obama protested he had no intention of “pulling the plug on Grandmaâ€

—

> > but

> > > the

> > > idea, embodied in Section 1233 of the House version of the bill, was

> > pulled

> > > from

> > > the final bill in part because of Palin’s — and Boehner’s —

focused

> > > attention.

> > > Obama installs Dr. Berwick to head the Medicare program as a

> > recess

> > > appointment because Berwick’s controversial enthusiastic embrace of the

> > > British

> > > health care system and its death panel procedures would have prevented

> > his

> > > confirmation.

> > > On Christmas day 2010, the Times reports the death panel idea will

> become

> > a

> > >

> > > Medicare rule on January 1, 2011 — that would be four days from today.

> > How?

> > > By

> > > fiat. As a government Medicare “rule†or “regulation†as put forth

by

> the

> > > government agency now run by Dr. Berwick.

> > >

> > > The rule is justified because Berwick believes the government must

> > “reduce

> > > inappropriate care at the end of life†A Berwick spokesman says the

> > > government

> > > should be saying to elderly patients, vulnerable patients, disabled

> > > patients —

> > > patients like Palin’s famous Down’s syndrome son: “When the

time

> > > comes, do

> > > you want us to use technology to try and delay your death?†Nudge.

> > > D. Wickham, executive director of LifeTree, a pro-life

> > > educational

> > > organization, says of the new rule: “The infamous Section 1233 is still

> > > alive

> > > and kicking. Patients will lose the ability to control treatments at

> the

> > > end of

> > > life.â€

> > > Oh yes. Did we mention no one was supposed to know about all of this?

> > > Congressman Earl Blumenauer, the Oregon Democrat who wrote the original

> > > provision in the House version of ObamaCare that was unmasked by

> > > Palin,

> > > has put the word out to his allies. Says the Congressman’s office in an

> > > e-mail

> > > to his allies:

> > > While we are very happy with the result, we won’t be shouting it from

> the

> > > rooftops because we aren’t out of the woods yet. This regulation could

> be

> > > modified or reversed, especially if Republican leaders try to use this

> > > small

> > > provision to perpetuate the “death panel†myth.

> > > We would ask that you not broadcast this accomplishment out to any of

> > your

> > > lists, even if they are “supporters†— e-mails can too easily be

> > > forwarded…Thus

> > > far, it seems that no press or blogs have discovered it, but we will be

> > > keeping

> > > a close watch and may be calling on you if we need a rapid, targeted

> > > response.

> > > The longer this goes unnoticed, the better our chances of keeping it.

> > >

> > > No wonder Blumenauer wants to keep this quiet.

> > > Did you catch that word “us†in the sentence from Dr. Berwick’s

> > > spokesperson?

> > > Here’s the sentence again:

> > > When the time comes, do you want us to use technology to try and delay

> > your

> > >

> > > death?

> > > The word “us†refers not to a doctor and his patient. It refers to the

> > > government.

> > > When Obama health care adviser Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel was cited by

> longtime

> > > health

> > > care expert Betsy McCaughey as discussing the idea that patients with

> > > dementia

> > > should be denied treatment, Emanuel’s defenders (he is also the brother

> > of

> > > ex-Obama White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel) floated a Time

> magazine

> > > story

> > > saying Emanuel “only mentioned dementia in a discussion of theoretical

> > > approaches, not an endorsement of a particular policy.â€

> > >

> > > Oblivious to the fact that that no less than the President himself

> > > expressed a

> > > version of the same sentiment (as has Berwick) when he went on national

> > > television to answer a woman’s observation that at over a hundred her

> > > mother was

> > > very vital with a lot of spirit, and shouldn’t that be taken into

> account

> > > in any

> > > government health care decision? Said Obama: “I don’t think that we

can

> > > make

> > > judgments based on peoples’ spirit. That would be a pretty subjective

> > > decision

> > > to be making. I think we have to have rules….â€

> > > Government rules. Like the rule just issued by Dr. Berwick.

> > > A rule that effectively is now going to bully individuals — doubtless

> > many

> > > of

> > > them poor, disabled or elderly. Ironically creating a system where you

> > will

> > > only

> > > escape Obama’s government sponsored Big Chill if you are, say, a rich

> > > liberal.

> > > In effect the administration is trying to bully Congress by making an

> > > end-run

> > > with a regulation because Congress said no to Section 1233.

> > > The Heritage Foundation has accurately noted yesterday that, quite

> aside

> > > from

> > > the substance here — the new Berwick death panel rule or the FCC’s new

> > net

> > > neutrality rules and so on — the real issue is the Obama

> administration’s

> > > clear

> > > intent to govern by executive fiat now that it has lost control of the

> > > House

> > > and, effectively, the Senate as well. Government-by-Obama fiat will be

> > the

> > > subject of a furious struggle in the new Congress.

> > > Says Heritage by way of focusing on a return to government by elected

> > > officials

> > > rather than a central government of rule-making un-elected bureaucrats:

> > > “There is also the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to

> > > review and

> > > overrule regulations issued by government agencies.â€

> > >

> > > Which is to say, the Berwick rule can be undone — if the Congress

> orders

> > it

> > >

> > > undone.

> > > This episode is a reminder that Governor Palin took a lot of heat for

> > > bringing

> > > attention to this issue. No one expects her critics — now proven wrong

> by

> > > Berwick — to give her any credit for being right. Or for that matter to

> > the

> > > new

> > > Speaker Boehner.

> > > But the fact remains that Palin has shown leadership here — one might

> > call

> > > it

> > > presidential-style leadership — in persisting with an issue that is now

> > > coming

> > > back to bite the American people in the form of a new Medicare rule on

> > > death

> > > panels — reported of all days on Christmas day.

> > > No wonder Boehner will be Speaker of the House.

> > > From:

> > >

> http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/28/berwick-sets-up-death-panels-b

> > > By Lord on 12.28.

> > >

> >

> > ------------------------------------

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

People are laughing about this in the mainstream media. Just like they laugh

about the birther non-sense and the Obama AntiChrist lunacy. Here's one for

ya:

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@...> wrote:

>

>

>

>

> calling BS on that Chuck. The body of evidence speaks otherwise

>

>

>

https://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/obama-reintroduces-death-pane\

ls-into-medicare/

>

> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2316819/posts

>

>

http://www.linkedin.com/answers/professional-development/ethics/PRO_PET/530905-1\

735100

>

>

>

http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-c-2009-10-19-239304.112112_Looks_like_S\

arah_Palin_was_right_and_correct_about_Death_Panels_after_all.html

>

>

>

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/08/inconvenient-truth-about-death-pan\

el.html

>

> hundreds more if you Google

>

> ________________________________

>

> From: Chuck <chuckfrasher@... <chuckfrasher%40gmail.com>>

> Longevity <Longevity%40>

> Sent: Tue, January 4, 2011 10:42:49 AM

>

> Subject: Re: Obama learns from Nazi Germany: Sneaks " Death

> Panels "

> Back Into Obamacare

>

> *What policy? There are no death panels. *

>

> PolitiFact's 2009 Lie of the Year: 'Death panels'

>

>

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/18/politifact-lie-year-\

death-panels/

>

> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 12:39 PM, wayne walusiak

<quoipso@...<quoipso%40>>

> wrote:

>

> >

> >

> > If Obama is so much 'better than the previous administration', why did he

> > come up with this policy? He IS responsible for those he puts in

> > administrative positions, and especially so when he bypasses the

> > confirmation process. This whole garbage 'health care' bill, not

> > withstanding?

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Obama Sneaks “Death Panels” Back Into Obamacare; Does End-Run Around

> > > > Congress

> > > > January 3, 2011

> > > >

> > > > “If they would rather die they had better do it, and decrease the

> > surplus

> > > > population.” — Ebenezer Scrooge in Dickens’ A Christmas Carol

> > > >

> > > > Palin was right.

> > > > Boehner — make that Speaker-elect of the House Boehner —

> was

> > > > right.

> > > > While Americans were busy celebrating with family and friends and

> > > > presumably not

> > > > paying attention to the news, the New York Times, in a story

> ironically

> > > > dated

> > > > Christmas Day — a holiday celebrating the birth of the Prince of

> Peace

> > —

> > > > reported the following:

> > > >

> > > > Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused Stir

> > > > WASHINGTON — When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning

> touched

> > > off

> > > > a

> > > > political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from

> > > legislation

> > > > to

> > > > overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will

> > > achieve

> > > > the

> > > > same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.

> > > > In other words, the 2009 charge leveled by former Alaska Governor

>

> > > > Palin

> > > > and the then-House Minority Leader Boehner that Obama fully intended

> to

> > > set

> > > > up

> > > > what Palin termed government “death panels” — panels that Boehner

> said

> > > > would set

> > > > the government on the road to euthanasia — is no longer a charge.

> > > > It’s reality. By executive fiat — in this case a new Medicare rule

> > issued

> > > > by

> > > > Obama Medicare chief Dr. Berwick.

> > > > Palin, who made the charge on her Facebook page on August 7, 2009

> > during

> > > > the

> > > > health care debates, came under a fusillade of scornful and demeaning

> > > > political

> > > > attacks from political opponents after pointedly saying this about

> the

> > > > prospect

> > > > of death panels:

> > > > 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.

> > > > Her famous sharp criticism was enough for the plan to be quickly

> > dropped

> > > by

> > > >

> > > > Congress.

> > > > Now, with Americans absorbed in a festive holiday and ignoring

> > Washington

> > > > momentarily, the Obama administration has found a way to achieve its

> > > death

> > > > panel

> > > > goal anyway, as the Times now admits. Says the paper of the new

> > Christmas

> > > > death

> > > > panel regulation that replaces medical science and voluntary private

> > > > judgment

> > > > with the inevitable pressure of politicized health care:

> > > > Congressional supporters of the new policy, though pleased, have kept

> > > > quiet.

> > > > They fear provoking another furor like the one in 2009 when

> Republicans

> > > > seized

> > > > on the idea of end-of-life counseling to argue that the Democrats’

> bill

> > > > would

> > > > allow the government to cut off care for the critically ill.

> > > > Which is another way of saying something else: Governor Palin has

> been

> > > > vindicated. Speaker Boehner has been vindicated.

> > > > And Palin’s critics in particular now have more than holiday eggnog

> all

> > > > over

> > > > their faces. Obama’s Dr. Berwick has re-ignited one of the most hotly

> > > > controversial issues of the entire health care debate just as a

> > > > conservative

> > > > ascendancy prepares to take power in the next Congress. With no less

> > than

> > > > Boehner himself taking the gavel from Pelosi as the new Speaker

> > of

> > > > the

> > > > House.

> > > > What does this new rule say and do, exactly?

> > > > It inserts the federal government in end-of-life planning, precisely

> as

> > > > Palin

> > > > said was Obama’s intention. Not, as was true of its original

> > legislative

> > > > formulation, every five years. But annually.

> > > >

> > > > No one of any sense objects to an individual and doctor having

> > > end-of-life

> > > > discussions about living wills and such whenever they wish. Only the

> > > Obama

> > > > administration and its obsession for control wants the government to

> > > > incentivize

> > > > the issue so that doctors must raise it annually, a system that on

> its

> > > face

> > > >

> > > > pressures the most deeply vulnerable of Americans in the most

> Orwellian

> > > of

> > > > terms

> > > > to end their lives.

> > > > Control and pressure. Pressure and control. This is the only two-step

> > > > philosophical/political dance liberals know. It is, as it were,

> primal.

> > > And

> > > > the

> > > > Berwick Medicare rule, constructed in secret and released on

> Christmas

> > > Day

> > > > when

> > > > it no one is looking, is a perfect example — if hardly the only

> example

> > —

> > > > of how

> > > > the Obama Administration views its role. Control and pressure.

> Pressure

> > > and

> > > >

> > > > control.

> > > > Versus the conservative concept (shorthand version) of liberty and

> > > freedom.

> > > > Says the Times of the Obama Administration’s justification for its

> > > > secretive

> > > > move to mandate death panels by regulatory fiat:

> > > > In this case, the administration said research had shown the value of

> > > > end-of-life planning.

> > > > Research? What research could possibly justify a government-sponsored

> > > > annual

> > > > attempt to pressure a poor, disabled, or elderly American into

> > believing

> > > > that

> > > > they would be better off dead because they’re costing society too

> much

> > > > money?

> > > >

> > > > British research. Says the Times:

> > > > “Advance care planning improves end-of-life care and patient and

> family

> > > > satisfaction and reduces stress, anxiety and depression in surviving

> > > > relatives,”

> > > > the administration said in the preamble to the Medicare regulation,

> > > quoting

> > > >

> > > > research published this year in the British Medical Journal.”

> > > > You read that right.

> > > > British research is being cited in the preamble of this Medicare

> death

> > > > panel

> > > > rule as a justification for the new rule — a stunning turn of events

> > that

> > > > will

> > > > surely launch a firestorm over trying to remodel the American health

> > care

> > > > system

> > > > after the hotly criticized British health care system. A system that

> > > makes

> > > > no

> > > > pretense of politically rationed health care.

> > > > Part of the furor launched over Palin’s remarks was the discovery by

> > > > millions of

> > > > frightened Americans that Obama health care bureaucrats admired the

> > > British

> > > >

> > > > health care system — where the government in fact rations health care

> > on

> > > a

> > > > political basis and decides who should live or die based on what is

> > > called

> > > > the

> > > > “QALY” — Quality-Adjusted Life Year. This has been discussed

> previously

> > > in

> > > > this

> > > > space — in fact just over a week before Governor Palin wrote her

> > Facebook

> > > > statement. It has also been discussed by health care consultant

> > > > Catron

> > > > here where he explained how the QALY system worked.

> > > >

> > > > In Catron’s words: “A year of perfect health, for example, is given a

> > > value

> > > > of

> > > > 1.0 while a year of sub-optimum health is rated between 0 and 1. If

> you

> > > are

> > > >

> > > > confined to a wheelchair, a year of your life might be valued at half

> > > that

> > > > of

> > > > your ambulatory neighbor. If you are blind or deaf, you also score

> low.

> > > All

> > > > that

> > > > remains is to assign a specific dollar value to the QALY and, voilà,

> > your

> > > > life

> > > > has a price tag.”

> > > > Princeton’s controversial Dr. Singer, a liberal and big

> believer

> > in

> > > > the

> > > > British health care system, happily related the British

> politicization

> > of

> > > > medical decisions in a New York Times Magazine article during all of

> > > this,

> > > > an

> > > > instance in which “Britain’s National Institute for Health and

> Clinical

> > > > Excellence gave a preliminary recommendation that the National Health

> > > > Service

> > > > should not offer Sutent for advanced kidney cancer.” Why? The

> > government

> > > > said it

> > > > was too expensive and therefore simply denied the drug. This in turn

> > led

> > > to

> > > > a

> > > > furious reaction even from stiff-upper-lip Brits with charges their

> > > > government

> > > > was “immoral” and willing to let patients die.

> > > >

> > > > Grudgingly, the drug was eventually approved. But not before one

> angry

> > > > British

> > > > woman, whose husband’s life was at stake, angrily asked: “What price

> is

> > > > life?”

> > > > As this is written the Obama Food and Drug Administration is now

> taking

> > > > Americans down this same path, rejecting the breast cancer drug

> Avastin

> > > > with

> > > > what many are citing as unbelievable science — but very believable

> > > > political

> > > > concerns that the drug is, in the bureaucrats’ view, too expensive.

> > > Thereby

> > > >

> > > > inserting the judgment of political bureaucrats for medical science —

> > and

> > > > the

> > > > freedom of patients to order the drug. Here’s this from the Heartland

> > > > Institute:

> > > > According to Sally Pipes, president of the Pacific Research

> Institute,

> > > the

> > > > FDA’s

> > > > decision is not based on the best outcome for patients but instead on

> > the

> > > > expense of Avastin, produced by Genentech, which can run as high as

> > > $90,000

> > > > per

> > > > year for a single patient.

> > > > The FDA claims its decision had nothing to do with Avastin’s cost and

> > was

> > > > based

> > > > solely on the drug’s medical effectiveness,” Pipes said. “This isn’t

> > > > believable.

> > > > Every year about 40,000 American women die from breast cancer.

> Avastin

> > is

> > > > the

> > > > last hope for many not to meet that fate. While the drug is costly,

> it

> > > > often

> > > > provides immense benefits to patients.

> > > > Somewhere an American woman with breast cancer is surely saying the

> > same

> > > > thing

> > > > as her British counterpart: “What price is life?”

> > > > Singer had an answer. Really. Said the famous Bioethics professor:

> > “Life

> > > as

> > > > a

> > > > whole has no meaning. Life began, as the best available theories tell

> > us,

> > > > in a

> > > > chance combination of gasses; it then evolved through random mutation

> > and

> > > > natural selection. All this just happened; it did not happen to any

> > > overall

> > > >

> > > > purpose.”

> > > > Thus, since life really has no overall purpose, the government should

> > be

> > > in

> > > > the

> > > > business of using Medicare to pressure the poor, the disabled and the

> > > > elderly

> > > > that — nudge, nudge — isn’t it time to bid the planet hasta la vista?

> > > > WHICH BRINGS US TO DR. DONALD BERWICK himself, the Obama

> > administration’s

> > > > Medicare recess-appointed head of the Center for Medicare and

> Medicaid

> > > > Services.

> > > > Dr. Berwick personally issued the Christmas Death Panel Rule,

> > confirming

> > > in

> > > >

> > > > spades why he received a recess appointment from Obama. It was clear

> to

> > > > Senate

> > > > Democrats that Berwick’s chances of surviving a Senate confirmation

> > > battle

> > > > were

> > > > iffy at best.

> > > >

> > > > Why? Precisely because Berwick was well on record as expressing his

> > deep

> > > > admiration — make that lust — for the British government run system,

> > > > saying: “I

> > > > am romantic about the National Health Service; I love it. …The NHS is

> > one

> > > > of the

> > > > astounding human endeavors of modern times.”

> > > > So Obama waited until he could skip a Senate debate and vote entirely

> > and

> > > > just

> > > > recess-appoint Berwick — who in turn is doing exactly what his record

> > > > suggested

> > > > he would do.

> > > > Sure enough, the philosophy used by the British is precisely what

> > Berwick

> > > > used

> > > > to describe the new Berwick Rule. Reported the Times of Berwick:

> > > > “Using unwanted procedures in terminal illness is a form of assault,”

> > Dr.

> > > > Berwick has said. “In economic terms, it is waste. Several

> techniques,

> > > > including

> > > > advance directives and involvement of patients and families in

> > > > decision-making,

> > > > have been shown to reduce inappropriate care at the end of life,

> > leading

> > > to

> > > > both

> > > > lower cost and more humane care.”

> > > > So. What do we have here?

> > > > The death panels were written into the original version of ObamaCare.

> > > > Governor Palin, speaking out in her famous Facebook post, pulled back

> > the

> > > > shroud

> > > > surrounding this horrifying idea. Less noticed at the time — but

> > > > undoubtedly a

> > > > headline grabber now — Minority Leader Boehner agreed, citing alarm

> > over

> > > > government sponsored euthanasia. Said Boehner:

> > > > Section 1233 of the House-drafted legislation encourages health care

> > > > providers

> > > > to provide their Medicare patients with counseling on “the use of

> > > > artificially

> > > > administered nutrition and hydration” and other end of life

> treatments,

> > > and

> > > > may

> > > > place seniors in situations where they feel pressured to sign end of

> > life

> > > > directives they would not otherwise sign. This provision may start us

> > > down

> > > > a

> > > > treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted

> > into

> > > > law.

> > > >

> > > > Obama protested he had no intention of “pulling the plug on Grandma”

> —

> > > but

> > > > the

> > > > idea, embodied in Section 1233 of the House version of the bill, was

> > > pulled

> > > > from

> > > > the final bill in part because of Palin’s — and Boehner’s — focused

> > > > attention.

> > > > Obama installs Dr. Berwick to head the Medicare program as a

> > > recess

> > > > appointment because Berwick’s controversial enthusiastic embrace of

> the

> > > > British

> > > > health care system and its death panel procedures would have

> prevented

> > > his

> > > > confirmation.

> > > > On Christmas day 2010, the Times reports the death panel idea will

> > become

> > > a

> > > >

> > > > Medicare rule on January 1, 2011 — that would be four days from

> today.

> > > How?

> > > > By

> > > > fiat. As a government Medicare “rule” or “regulation” as put forth by

> > the

> > > > government agency now run by Dr. Berwick.

> > > >

> > > > The rule is justified because Berwick believes the government must

> > > “reduce

> > > > inappropriate care at the end of life” A Berwick spokesman says the

> > > > government

> > > > should be saying to elderly patients, vulnerable patients, disabled

> > > > patients —

> > > > patients like Palin’s famous Down’s syndrome son: “When the

> time

> > > > comes, do

> > > > you want us to use technology to try and delay your death?” Nudge.

> > > > D. Wickham, executive director of LifeTree, a pro-life

> > > > educational

> > > > organization, says of the new rule: “The infamous Section 1233 is

> still

> > > > alive

> > > > and kicking. Patients will lose the ability to control treatments at

> > the

> > > > end of

> > > > life.”

> > > > Oh yes. Did we mention no one was supposed to know about all of this?

> > > > Congressman Earl Blumenauer, the Oregon Democrat who wrote the

> original

> > > > provision in the House version of ObamaCare that was unmasked by

>

> > > > Palin,

> > > > has put the word out to his allies. Says the Congressman’s office in

> an

> > > > e-mail

> > > > to his allies:

> > > > While we are very happy with the result, we won’t be shouting it from

> > the

> > > > rooftops because we aren’t out of the woods yet. This regulation

> could

> > be

> > > > modified or reversed, especially if Republican leaders try to use

> this

> > > > small

> > > > provision to perpetuate the “death panel” myth.

> > > > We would ask that you not broadcast this accomplishment out to any of

> > > your

> > > > lists, even if they are “supporters” — e-mails can too easily be

> > > > forwarded…Thus

> > > > far, it seems that no press or blogs have discovered it, but we will

> be

> > > > keeping

> > > > a close watch and may be calling on you if we need a rapid, targeted

> > > > response.

> > > > The longer this goes unnoticed, the better our chances of keeping it.

> > > >

> > > > No wonder Blumenauer wants to keep this quiet.

> > > > Did you catch that word “us” in the sentence from Dr. Berwick’s

> > > > spokesperson?

> > > > Here’s the sentence again:

> > > > When the time comes, do you want us to use technology to try and

> delay

> > > your

> > > >

> > > > death?

> > > > The word “us” refers not to a doctor and his patient. It refers to

> the

> > > > government.

> > > > When Obama health care adviser Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel was cited by

> > longtime

> > > > health

> > > > care expert Betsy McCaughey as discussing the idea that patients with

> > > > dementia

> > > > should be denied treatment, Emanuel’s defenders (he is also the

> brother

> > > of

> > > > ex-Obama White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel) floated a Time

> > magazine

> > > > story

> > > > saying Emanuel “only mentioned dementia in a discussion of

> theoretical

> > > > approaches, not an endorsement of a particular policy.”

> > > >

> > > > Oblivious to the fact that that no less than the President himself

> > > > expressed a

> > > > version of the same sentiment (as has Berwick) when he went on

> national

> > > > television to answer a woman’s observation that at over a hundred her

> > > > mother was

> > > > very vital with a lot of spirit, and shouldn’t that be taken into

> > account

> > > > in any

> > > > government health care decision? Said Obama: “I don’t think that we

> can

> > > > make

> > > > judgments based on peoples’ spirit. That would be a pretty subjective

> > > > decision

> > > > to be making. I think we have to have rules….”

> > > > Government rules. Like the rule just issued by Dr. Berwick.

> > > > A rule that effectively is now going to bully individuals — doubtless

> > > many

> > > > of

> > > > them poor, disabled or elderly. Ironically creating a system where

> you

> > > will

> > > > only

> > > > escape Obama’s government sponsored Big Chill if you are, say, a rich

> > > > liberal.

> > > > In effect the administration is trying to bully Congress by making an

> > > > end-run

> > > > with a regulation because Congress said no to Section 1233.

> > > > The Heritage Foundation has accurately noted yesterday that, quite

> > aside

> > > > from

> > > > the substance here — the new Berwick death panel rule or the FCC’s

> new

> > > net

> > > > neutrality rules and so on — the real issue is the Obama

> > administration’s

> > > > clear

> > > > intent to govern by executive fiat now that it has lost control of

> the

> > > > House

> > > > and, effectively, the Senate as well. Government-by-Obama fiat will

> be

> > > the

> > > > subject of a furious struggle in the new Congress.

> > > > Says Heritage by way of focusing on a return to government by elected

> > > > officials

> > > > rather than a central government of rule-making un-elected

> bureaucrats:

> > > > “There is also the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to

> > > > review and

> > > > overrule regulations issued by government agencies.”

> > > >

> > > > Which is to say, the Berwick rule can be undone — if the Congress

> > orders

> > > it

> > > >

> > > > undone.

> > > > This episode is a reminder that Governor Palin took a lot of heat for

> > > > bringing

> > > > attention to this issue. No one expects her critics — now proven

> wrong

> > by

> > > > Berwick — to give her any credit for being right. Or for that matter

> to

> > > the

> > > > new

> > > > Speaker Boehner.

> > > > But the fact remains that Palin has shown leadership here — one might

> > > call

> > > > it

> > > > presidential-style leadership — in persisting with an issue that is

> now

> > > > coming

> > > > back to bite the American people in the form of a new Medicare rule

> on

> > > > death

> > > > panels — reported of all days on Christmas day.

> > > > No wonder Boehner will be Speaker of the House.

> > > > From:

> > > >

> > http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/28/berwick-sets-up-death-panels-b

> > > > By Lord on 12.28.

> > > >

> > >

> > > ------------------------------------

> > >

> > >