Palin corrects the record on Obama's claim that there will not be any rationing in health care plan
I really don't understand how the NY Times and others couldn't claim that she is correct on all this.
Former Alaska GOP Gov. Sarah Palin defended her claim that the Democratic health care proposal would create “death panels” in a statement Wednesday night slamming President Barack Obama.
“Yesterday, President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these ‘unproductive’ members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care,” Palin wrote in a note on her Facebook page.
“The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled ‘Advance Care Planning Consultation.’ With all due respect, it’s misleading for the president to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients,” she continued.
“Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often ‘if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual ... or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility... or a hospice program.’"
The White House and Democratic lawmakers have blasted Palin in recent days for suggesting that her own son, Trig, would have had to face a bureaucratic panel to get access to health care under the provision in the House health care proposal because he was born with Down syndrome.
“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,” Palin wrote last week.
Labels: healthcare, ObamaDishonest, Palin
posted by John Lott at 12:17 AM
9 Comments:
"I really don't understand how the NY Times and others couldn't claim that she is correct on all this."
Call me crazy, but here's one account of how she's incorrect on this: the language of the bill clearly authorizes to PAY for such consultations, but in NO way implies that the government makes it mandatory. All it says is that if someone wants that, or if there doctor recommends it, they don't have to pay for it out of pocket. Really, what is so wrong with that.
The death panels are not the 'consultations', the death panels are the people who decide, in the interests of cost savings, what procedures are given to which people.
Like the death panels that insurance companies have?
Sorry, Yerobain, private insurance companies don't ration care. Please see this piece here to have an explanation about economics.
no apology necessary Mr. Lott. Your position is incoherent.
Dear yerobain:
Well, I suppose that if you don't have an actual response, you just say that the other person is wrong. I am sorry that you don't understand very basic economics. You pay for what you get. If you want more extensive benefits from insurance, you buy a better policy. It makes as much sense as saying that there is rationing at the grocery store. You want more food and you pay for it.
"Well, I suppose that if you don't have an actual response, you just say that the other person is wrong."
Look at your previous response for a good example of that.
At any rate, your comments about having to pay more to get more food totally sidesteps the actual meat of this whole issue: it is an ethical matter. Millions of people can't afford "more food", and by "more food" I mean necessary treatment, sometimes basic things that actually prevent more serious illness and cost down the road.
And yes, insurance companies do ration, don't play dumb on this one. It is precisely how they make their profit. Insurance companies are NOT like a local mom and pop grocery store that gets goods for a certain value and adds a reasonable profit to cover expenses and make a little bit back to grow their business. They aren't even corporate grocery store chains. They are casinos. The house always wins, that's the whole point. Please tell me you at least understand that much.
Furthermore, there are countless documented examples of rationing by such companies. I personally had a friend who was approved for a treatment, went into the hospital to begin weeklong stay that they had okayed, and at the last minute the company changed their minds, saying they would only pay for it if he was on the brink of death. that is not only rationing, but it is arbitrary rationing.
But yerobain,
Your friend was still able to purchase the procedure from the provider, sidestepping the insurance completely.
Under a government operated single payer health system, attempting to sidestep the government would not only be disallowed, but would probably be black market illegal.
As for 'arbitrary', you don't know arbitrary unless you've dealt with a government bureaucrat who disaproves of your paperwork that is not in triplicate with the i's dotted and the t's crossed.
guard duck:
actually, my friend was not "able" to purchase the treatment from a provider because he couldn't afford to. I'm able to buy a yacht I guess, if I had the money.
"Under a government operated single payer health system, attempting to sidestep the government would not only be disallowed, but would probably be black market illegal."
Please cite a credible source for such a claim.
Post a Comment
<< Home