Death Panels by Another Name Would Smell the Same

Oregon Ping

Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Oregon Ping List.

Death Panels by Another Name Would Smell the Same

There has been a lot of talk about whether "Death Panels" are a part of the proposed massive health care bill. Sarah Palin made news by saying:

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.

Many main stream news sources went out of their way to rescue President Obama and prove that the massive piece of legislation contained no such thing. The President himself has said it was "offensive" to him to suggest that there were Death Panels.

They were right. Nowhere in the legislation does it state "Death Panel."

But a recent story in the Detroit Free Press reports that Palin wasn't all that far off. According to the Free Press:

President Obama has proposed a new body that would enhance Medicare’s ability to deny care to the elderly and disabled based on government bureaucrats’ arbitrary valuations of those patients’ lives.

Say what?

So if this bill ever passes, what would an arbitrary valuation by a government look like?

Let's look at the state of Oregon, Pajamas Media reports that the Oregon Health Services Commission headquarters have come up with a master list of 503 treatments and conditions their “public option” will cover for its enrollees. They have ranked them in ascending order of priority. Should the state ever run out of money or determine that its budget would not allow for a procedure, then top ranked procedures would get priority.

Toward the bottom of the list in priority:
Emergency appendectomy (prioritized 84th)
Covering injuries to major blood vessels (86th),
Surgery to repair injured internal organs (88),
A “deep wound to the neck”
or open fracture of the larynx or trachea (91),
A ruptured aortic aneurysm (306).

Also of note is the fact that treatments for esophageal, liver, and pancreatic cancers take up priority slots 337 through 339, with treatment for stroke at 340

Samples of higher ranked (more important)maladies are:
Obesity (8)
Depression (9)
Asthma (11)
“Tobacco dependence” (6th)
Reproductive services are 7th
HIV 15
Syphilis is 19

As some of you long time readers remember, I underwent an aortic heart valve replacement last year that required open heart surgery. This ranks 116 on the list. Better than cancer, but way behind syphilis

After this bill is voted upon and passed, the Government then is free to "interpret" the bill and we end up with something that sets a valuation on your life. Why, they could even decide to save a little money based upon you terminal status.

Couldn't happen you say? Vast right wing conspiracy lies?

Here is story of how one woman went up against the Oregon State run health care program:

---Video that won't post can be found here.---

Essentially, it costs less produce suicide pills than to give a dying patient pills that may extend her life a bit longer. SO the State decided she wasn't important enough to live. Besides, I'm sure the 18 - 35 voter group will be pleased.

So no, Virginia, there is no Death Panel. What there is may be worse.

Here is a Guest Viewpoint I gave to the Register Guard yeasterday. Now that the liberals have destroyed logging and fishing, and are in the process of destroying grass seed farming Blomenhauer wants create a new industry of “death with dignity” clinics.

The contention of Peter DeFazio, Barack Obama, and others that HR3200 does not mandate end of life discussions may be truthful, but lacks credibility. Health care reform means government intervention to control health care. As with any other commodity or service, the two methods of control are price or technical allocation methodologies.

To discover Congressional intent the 1,017 pages of HR3200 must be evaluated after they metastasize throughout the entire U.S. Code. The bill profoundly impacts diverse bureaucracies including the IRS, but for this analysis one impact on HHS requires review.

The stimulus bill provided the HHS Secretary the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology and the Health Information Technology Research Centers to implement HR3200 provisions and Congressional intent. These bureaucracies will duplicate private sector information bases, utilizing computer technology for coordination and flow of recommendations and policies for medical knowledge.

Decisions will be guided by a panel exceeding 20 members allowing the dominate political regime over 90% of appointments, while requiring only one physician. Among three separate reports, one evaluation must include health technologies meeting senior and disabled individual needs. Health care provider participation becomes mandatory under Section 13112 of the HITACT Act, if one participates in any government program, including Medicare serving seniors and disabled.

In the stimulus bill Congress provided no direction for regulations implementing changes, so bureaucrats can liberally interpret HR3200 for guidance. Obviously, they must define gate keeping guidelines by deciding what information resides within their comprehensive system.

Regulations developed reflect the momentum of intent of Congress; not the will of the people. The regulations would utilize disquieting provisions of HR3200 to incorporate ideas politicians consider too sensitive for public debate. Medical professionals would join other private sector professionals such as education financial aid directors and CPA’s I know, who often serve as federal agents instead of client advocates.

Congressional intent without equivocation was recently presented in the New York Times by Princeton bioethics professor Peter Singer. “Rationing health care means getting value for the billions spent by setting limits on which treatments should be paid for from the public purse….There’s no doubt that it’s tough – politically, emotionally, and ethically - to make a decision that means that someone will die sooner than they would have if the decision had gone the other way….If the U.S. system spent less on expensive treatments for those who, with or without drugs, have at most a few months to live, it would be better able to save lives of more people who, if they get the treatment they need, might live for several decades….The task of health care bureaucrats is then to get the best value for resources they have been allocated….If a teenager can be expected to live another 70 years, saving that life gains 70 years, whereas a person of 85 can be expected to live another 5 years, then saving the 85-year-old will gain of only 5 life-years. That suggests saving one teenager is equivalent to saving 14 85-year-olds”.

Peter Singer’s rational, scientific approach reminds me of what I read in the Geneva Conventions, which attempt to find some rational, moral threads to hang onto during the barbarity of war. For my experience pulverizing a major enemy base camp in Vietnam, I especially like the clear and obvious reading of Articles 28 and 29 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The VC were responsible for any civilian deaths on that base. Those civilians qualified as Protected Persons within the enemy’s physical control, and could not be used to render certain points and areas immune from military operations.

The passages formed the basis for the rules of engagement we followed in attacking a legitimate military target. I was also blessed by not having to clean up after-wards for the mess I helped make. Our task force was certainly an effective “death panel”, because we permanently shattered that VC main force unit, forcing it to surrender control of the region.

Physicians currently discuss end of life issues when explaining proposed procedures and drugs, so legislation only confiscates privacy and freedom. Worthwhile initiatives would locate dialogue and diagnosis with families, nurses, and doctors; not with lawyers, insurance companies, academics, and bureaucrats. However, such suggestions are not contemplated or appreciated.

I really wonder if we the people are ready to embrace government rationed health care in order to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Can we take Peter DeFazio’s, the President’s, and others assurances about voluntary end of life counseling at face value? Is Dan Bryant’s appeal for government health care really consistent with his understanding of our Christian heritage?