Remember the Facebook post about “Death Panels’ by Sarah Palin that caused so much protest from the left? Also recall the denials and the attempt to feign that no one ever imagined such scenarios for our senior citizens? The attempt by President Obama to obfuscate the issue with his own outright denials about such commissions should not be surprising at this point. The president has proved that, like Alinsky, any tactic can be justified if it leads to the desired result. As is often the case with obfuscation, it is wise to pay attention to the man behind the curtain or the end game behind the ruse.
As Americans turned their attention to family and holiday cheer, President Obama seized the opportunity to enact the repelling regulation equivalent to Palin’s correct surmising. Rep. Boehner, who will be the Speaker of the House in the very near future, said at the time.
“This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia.”
Forced onto the defensive, Mr. Obama said that nothing in the bill would “pull the plug on grandma.”
The provision that engendered so much controversy was passed in the House version of the healthcare bill in 2009 in the provision known as section 1233. The provision was removed from the legislation in order to gain enough support. It required end-of life counseling every five years, but was especially disturbing because it was paired with the primary objective being to lower cost. The Washington Post acknowledged this red flag that would likely amount to bureaucratic commissions that approved or denied care to seniors based on bending the cost curve.
Just as appalling was the open agenda, as reported this week in a New York Times article, articulated by Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon who originally penned the end-of-life proposal. He pleaded with supporters to be quiet about what was occurring behind the curtain, through the executive office and its misuse of executive power.
After learning of the administration’s decision, Mr. Blumenauer’s office celebrated “a quiet victory,” but urged supporters not to crow about it.
“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,” Mr. Blumenauer’s office said in an e-mail in early November to people working with him on the issue. “This regulation could be modified or reversed, especially if Republican leaders try to use this small provision to perpetuate the ‘death panel’ myth.”
His email continued:
“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.”
Dr. Donald Berwick, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and a longtime advocate for better end-of-life care, authored this new rule as part of new regulations issued for medicare. Berwick’s positions on nationalized healthcare are well-documented: he praises the British healthcare system of socialized medicine as far superior to American medical care and extols its virtues of redistributing wealth. He openly stated his own views, such as those regarding wasting money on “inappropriate care”, that he is now free to enact with the President’s cooperation:
“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.”
This administration has brazenly attempted to accomplish their necessary aim of reinstating the required meeting on an annual basis between doctors and their aging patients with a financial incentive for doctors to aggressively push the cheapest options in care for the elderly. The more moderate Democrats in Congress refused to pass the legislation with such a provision included. But the economist, Paul Krugman, has continued to point out that death panels would produce cost savings for the funding of Obamacare.
This strategy is already an integral part of the British healthcare system, which is also the main source cited by our government to justify implementation of this heinous practice that will undoubtedly lead to less care for the elderly and those on medicare.
This is not a president who values the life of the unborn as signified by his callous votes in the Illinois Senate on late-term abortions. Those who do not place a high value on the life of the unborn also may tend to place lower value on life that is in decline. It will eventually become a patriotic duty to forgo medical treatment as a senior citizen in order to fund a massive and monstrous healthcare system for everyone else. After all, Obama stated to a large audience that sometimes taking a pain pill may be better than expensive treatments that prolong life.
President Obama is a man of his word. He promised his constituency that this healthcare law would achieve the goals shared by the radical left. By the power of his pen and executive fiat befitting Chavez or Castro, Obamacare has now moved closer to its original form shaped by radical activists who seek to transform America through REGULATION if not legislation.
Rep. Blumenauer lamented that “Lies can go viral if people use them for political purposes.”
Let’s show Rep. Blumenauer how right he is about this administration’s untruths going viral!