Skip to content

“Death panels” are included in the new Medicare regulations

December 26, 2010

  Do you remember the “end of life planning” provision that was in the original version of the healthcare reform law? It was this provision in part which led Sarah Palin to claim that there were “death panels” included in the new law. This provision became so unpopular with the American people that it was dropped from the final version of the healthcare reform law. At least on this aspect of the healthcare reform law the American people were heard by those in Washington and they adhered to the message that was sent to them…..or did they?

  It now turns out that the “end of life planning” is not dead after all–for much like other mainstays of the Obama regime’s agenda–it has resurfaced once again. In the case of net neutrality and cap and trade the Obama regime looked to government agencies to enact through dictate policies which the Obama regime failed to get through the Congress, and now on the “end of life planning” the Obama regime has looked toward Medicare to implement a failed policy. Included in the new Medicare regulations is the very same “end of life planning” that the American people and the Congress have already rejected.

  The Obama regime was not able to pass the “end of life planning” provision in the healthcare reform law, so he has once again looked outside of the constitutional process in order to implement an agenda which failed to gain the necessary votes for passage in the Congress–this time he is using Medicare to implement through dictate what he was unable to pass through the Congress.

  This is a growing concern with the Obama regime–he is displaying utter contempt and disdain for constitutional procedures and he is showing us that he is all too willing to force his agenda on the American people by whatever means are necessary. When the Congress failed to pass cap and trade Barack Obama claimed that there was “more than one way to skin a cat.” In other words he was willing to bypass the constitution to implement his radical cap and trade agenda, and the EPA is doing just that. If he is willing to ignore the constitution on one issue there is no doubt that he will be willing to ignore all facets of the constitution.

  If Barack Obama feels there is more than one way to skin a cat on one particular issue, than we cannot assume that he doesn’t feel the same way about the other issues. With a Congress which is more than likely going to be more hostile to the president’s agenda–because the American people are becoming more hostile to the president’s agenda–there is no limit to the depths that this president is willing to sink.

  We are seeing numerous examples of this popping up, this is not an isolated event and it shows us that America is going to be in a fight for her very existence over the next two years and it is a fight that we cannot afford to lose.

25 Comments leave one →
  1. The Georgia Yankee permalink
    December 26, 2010 10:38 pm

    Instead of getting all hot and bothered about a headline or program name, why not explain what “end of life planning” is all about? I mean, when you’re talking about a healthcare insurance program the overwhelming majority of whose subscribers are age 65 or older, it seems to me that the end of life is a much greater concern than it is for, say, elementary school students.

    As for programs acquiring the force of law through regulation rather than legislation, that’s an unfortunate fact of life in a nation of over 300 million people. Our national legislature consists of fewer than 1000 people – which is probably a blessing. Nevertheless, it cannot be expected to pass on each and every facet of each and every mission of each and every federal agency out there, and I’m talking just about those that we can all agree are really necessary – like most of the military.

    Finally, with respect to the comment about net neutrality, note that the power sought by the big ISPs and comm companies is the right to exercise monopoly control over content as well as develop different tiers of service. That would mean that an ISP could simply turn off access to particular websites, like they do in China when they don’t like a website’s message. It started with Comcast getting caught degrading the signal of its internet subscribers who were downloading movies from non-Comcast sites – like MGM or UA, movies that they’d paid for. The problem, from Comcast’s perspective, was that the subscribers were paying a third party (MGM, for instance) for a movie they could be paying Comcast for. Net neutrality legislation is aimed at preventing ISPs from exercising that kind of control over what its subscribers can and cannot access on the internet.

    Me, I like an Internet with complete freedom of access. If I download more than a certain amount, I don’t mind paying for it, because I’m using bandwidth, but I don’t want my access to America’s Watchtower cut off simply because someone in the ISP doesn’t agree with what Steve Dennis is saying, and I don’t want Steve Dennis to feel intimated by an ISP – that is, I don’t want Steve Dennis watching what he says for fear of pissing off an ISP.

    Hope everyone had a grand Christmas and is planning for a great celebration Friday evening (but safe!!!).

    And may God bless us all!

    The Georgia Yankee


    • LD Jackson permalink
      December 27, 2010 7:42 am

      Let me say this about your comment about net neutrality. I can’t speak for Steve, but I know what my main problems are with the FCC trying to implement these rules. First, the courts have already ruled that the FCC does not have the authority to do this. That should have stopped them in their tracks, yet they forge on. Second, they haven’t even released the full version of the rules, saying they have to address the concerns of those members who voted against them. This makes me wonder if they are trying to hide something.


    • December 27, 2010 8:51 am

      I do not accept the fact that imposing laws through regulations instead of laws is something that we should learn to live with. There is a process set up in the constitution and that is the only legal way to pass rules in my opinion.
      As for net neutrality, I have not actually come out for or against the policy because as Larry said, we don’t even know what is in it. However I have a huge problem with the FCC moving forward on this after the courts told them that they did not have the authority to do so. You have to admit that it is more than a little scary to see a government agency implement policies against the ruling of the courts that are supposed to keep them in check.


  2. December 26, 2010 11:05 pm

    I happened to read an article on this subject that totally rattled me because I had a friend who was helped out of this life though palitive care and to this day it bothers me. Here is what the article said.

    “In that address, Soros spoke mainly about a new initiative he was launching called the Project on Death in America.

    With his Project on Death in America, Soros sought to promote “palliative care,” which means keeping patients comfortable while they are dying, but making no effort to save or extend their lives. [What happened to the Oath – Do no Harm?]

    In their book, Horowitz and Poe argued that Soros had a “covert purpose,” both in supporting Hillarycare and in funding the Project on Death in America, namely, “to save money by rationing health care.”

    Health-care rationing was the essence of Hillary’s health plan in 1994, just as it is today, Poe said, when Hillary now promises to slash medical spending in America by $120 billion per year.

    Horowitz and Poe saw Soros’ Project on Death in America as a*** back-door effort to salvage a key feature*** of Hillarycare, seeking to implement Hillarycare through the private sector, after failing to pass the agenda politically.”

    It really amazes me that people can just accept this as okay. This bothers me so much. I have actually been thinking about how I make sure no one does this to me nor forces my family into making this decision. I want to die when God calls me home and without the help of anyone else. Period.

    I no longer assume that any of these programs are for the compassionate benefit that are being touted. Especially if Soros is behind it.


    • December 26, 2010 11:06 pm

      Oops! Sorry. Here is the link to the full article.


    • December 27, 2010 8:54 am

      That is what this is all about: In order to cut down on healthcare costs older citizens are no longer going to be given the healthcare services they once enjoyed. It is cheaper for the government to “ease” their transition into death than it is to keep that patient alive. This is a choice that should be left up to the patient, not made by the government.


  3. December 27, 2010 12:13 am

    I knew Obama would resort to this, but I didn’t think it would be so blatant and so fast. Although, he did concede that he was willing to be a one term president if he could ram through his agenda. If Republicans can put forward one half way decent candidate he may get his wish.


    • December 27, 2010 8:55 am

      I just don’t see who the Republicans have just yet. The one thing that scares me about the 2012 election is the fact that we may not have a valid candidate to run agaisnt him.


  4. December 27, 2010 9:58 am

    There is a point that is often missed when the figures are quoted concerning end of life expenditures. Frequently we do not know for sure whether it is the end of life. If the patient recovers, then the cost was well worth it, and it is not counted as an end of life outlay. Much is learned when attempting new protocols of drugs administrated at this time. It may not help the individual patient, but others that follow will benefits from what is learned when attempted. New combinations of drugs, dosing and so forth. We will be frozen in time if “Best Practices” of medicine are forced upon us. There will simply be a flow chart outlining what treatment is to be given for certain conditions. Just what they do in the third world.


    • December 27, 2010 7:57 pm

      Great point! And that is exactly why the decision should be left up to the individual.


  5. December 27, 2010 5:26 pm

    Someone always wants to play God.
    We’ve got two more years of Obama continuing his plan to destroy America via agency administrative edicts. I hope there is enough left of America to save when he gets done.


    • December 27, 2010 7:59 pm

      I hope so also. The only hope that we have is for the Congress to step in and stop these agencies from implementing Barack Obama’s agenda. I don’t think they will look on it kindly if Obama bypasses them because there is one thing that they love above all else–their power.


  6. December 27, 2010 9:39 pm

    I caught this conversation halfway thru on the O’Reilly Factor this evening. Nice to know what they were discussing. “Voluntary” I have no problems with… “mandatory” because you’ll be denied the treatment you need is something else. Haven’t reached that point yet, I hope.


    • December 28, 2010 7:18 am

      As of right now it is voluntary but we all know what happens once the foot is in the door. The other question is: will the people who volunteer for this be persuaded to do something they otherwise would because they have been manipulated by someone trained to do just that?


      • December 28, 2010 4:08 pm

        Those are the interesting questions. I do not believe people will be forced to pull the plug and end-of-life counseling is not a bad thing. I think this might be overblown but the issue of the Government cutting out certain drug treatments is more serious.


  7. December 27, 2010 11:25 pm

    What part of support and defend the constitution did Obama not understand? I’m afraid this is going to be the norm for the next two years while the House is under republican control. He will use agency like the FCC, EPA, and so forth to advance his agenda by implementing policy over law. Unless congress decides to greatly diminish the power these agencies wield, which I don’t believe they will, then expect more of the same. The answers rest with the states.


    • December 28, 2010 7:19 am

      I am afraid you are right, I don’t see the Congress doing anything to limit the power of these agencies. We already have lawsuits in 20 states over healthcare, maybe if he continues to push the boundaries other states will step up on these other issues as well.


  8. December 28, 2010 3:22 am

    You know, this is a red herring, sorry to say. It was from the beginning. This is not the “Death Panel.” IPAB is. I covered that months ago, when Orzag was caught on video discussing it. Then, Krugman slipped about it on This Week. End of life planning is not, by itself, devious. It’s relatively common. That it’s being made an incentive via regulation says a lot about this administration. But, then again, it’s completely consistent with their contempt for our legislative process and Constitution.

    As for the comments on Net Neutrality, It’s a solution to a non-existent problem. It’s only a way to get the government into the regulation of the internet. From there, it can be expanded to control of content, which I believe is the end goal.


    • December 28, 2010 7:21 am

      And while net neutrality is only a foot in the door, this “end of life planning” is much the same in my opinion. Once the door is oped we know that this will not end here.


  9. Mike permalink
    December 28, 2010 1:47 pm

    I agree with the principal of leaving it up to the patient and the doctor but at what point do we start discussing the ethical and economic issues. The father of a friend of mine recently passed away — cancer. During the last 5 months of his life he ran up medical bills of just over $400,000. His last months of life were not pleasant and the extension of his life was not good for anybody including the patient. As a country we can’t afford those kinds of bills or we will bankrupt Medicare and drive our nation into the economic abyss. My friends father wanted to “try everything” and basically he did. Isn’t there ever a point where we can with good conscience say “enough”?


    • December 28, 2010 9:17 pm

      First, my condolences to your friend. But while there may come a point where we say enough is enough I just can’t get past the fact that it should be the person who is going through it to make the final decision. I could never in good conscience say to anybody that they should just let it go and stop fighting when they have the will to live on.


  10. December 28, 2010 4:22 pm

    You know… I’m starting to think Barack Obama is dishonest lol



  1. Obama Inserts Death Panels By Decree « rjjrdq's America II
  2. GEORGE SOROS AND HIS EVIL EMPIRE – part 5 | askmarion

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: