Right Wing's "Kill Granny" anti-UHC agitprop

[Patrick Degan]

Just another example of the moral bankruptcy of the Right:

‘Kill Granny’ media campaign alarms seniors
Conservatives lead many to fear bill will lead to ‘euthanasia’ counseling
By Ceci Connolly
The Washington Post
updated 8:27 a.m. CT, Sat., Aug 1, 2009

A campaign on conservative talk radio, fueled by President Obama's calls to control exorbitant medical bills, has sparked fear among senior citizens that the health-care bill moving through Congress will lead to end-of-life "rationing" and even "euthanasia."

The controversy stems from a proposal to pay physicians who counsel elderly or terminally ill patients about what medical interventions they would prefer near the end of life and how to prepare instructions such as living wills. Under the plan, Medicare would reimburse doctors for one session every five years to confer with a patient about his or her wishes and how to ensure those preferences are followed. The counseling sessions would be voluntary.

But on right-leaning radio programs, religious e-mail lists and Internet blogs, the proposal has been described as "guiding you in how to die," "an ORDER from the Government to end your life," promoting "death care" and, in the words of antiabortion leader Randall Terry, an attempt to "kill Granny."

Though the counseling provision is a tiny part of a behemoth bill, the skirmish over end-of-life care, like arguments about abortion coverage, has become a distraction and provided an opening for opponents of the president's broader health-care agenda. At a forum sponsored by the seniors group AARP that was intended to pitch comprehensive reform, Obama was asked about the "rumors." He used the question to promote living wills, noting that he and the first lady have them.

Democratic strategists privately acknowledged that they were hesitant to give extra attention to the issue by refuting the inaccuracies, but they worry that it will further agitate already-skeptical seniors.

Highly charged subject
The side battle also undercuts what many say is the more fundamental challenge of discussing sensitive, costly societal questions about how to align patient wishes at the end of life with financial realities, for both the family and taxpayers.

"I don't think it's about cutting costs; it's about quality," said Tia Powell, director of the Montefiore-Einstein Center for Bioethics. Pointing to extensive research, she said: "The good news is if you get people in an environment that is of their choosing, where there is support and they have good pain control, it is very likely to extend their life."

Not since 2003, when Congress and President George W. Bush became involved in the case of Terri Schiavo, who lay in a vegetative state in a hospice in Florida, have lawmakers waded into the highly charged subject, said Howard Brody, director of an ethics institute at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston.

The attacks on talk radio began when Betsy McCaughey, who helped defeat President Bill Clinton's health-care overhaul 16 years ago, told former senator Fred D. Thompson (R-Tenn.) that mandatory counseling sessions with Medicare beneficiaries would "tell them how to end their life sooner" and would teach the elderly how to "decline nutrition . . . and cut your life short."

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Republican Policy Committee Chairman Thaddeus McCotter (Mich.) said they object to the idea because it "may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia."

‘An excellent idea’
Brody says the proposal to reimburse counseling sessions "is an excellent idea," because too few doctors or adult children know what an elderly person wants, even sometimes when the patient has signed a medical directive.

About one-third of Americans have living wills or a document designating a health-care proxy who would make decisions if they become incapacitated, said Barbara Coombs Lee, president of Compassion & Choices, a nonprofit group that focuses on the rights of the terminally ill. "But it's alarming how rarely they actually get honored because often doctors haven't familiarized themselves with the patient's wishes," she said.

Wesley Smith, an attorney for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, said Obama's focus on controlling costs and the legalese in the bill have contributed to the confusion. "People fear these counseling sessions will push toward less care because the point is to cut costs," he said. The average cost of care for a chronically ill Medicare patient in the final six months of life is $46,400, according to Dartmouth University data.

The emphasis on cost containment means "you'll end up with denial of care for the elderly," said Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, who also testified against the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. Possible abortion coverage and end-of-life care in the health bill will be "a watershed battle for the life community."

In the past two weeks, AARP has fielded a few thousand calls from people who mistakenly think the legislation would require every Medicare recipient to "choose how they want to die," said James Dau, a spokesman for the organization.

Though he is "willing to give the benefit of the doubt" to some who may be confused, Dau complained that the effort to "intentionally distort" the proposal "is just plain cruel to anyone who is forced to make one of these difficult decisions at the end of life."

Inquiries and protests
The American Medical Association, which supports the provision, has received similar inquiries and protests from patients who fear doctors will begin denying care late in life.

"These are important discussions everyone should have when they are healthy and not entering a hospital, so they are fully informed and can make their wishes known," said association President J. James Rohack. "That's not controversial; it's plain, old-fashioned patient-centered care."

After letting the controversy simmer on talk radio and the blogosphere, expecting that it might blow over, Democrats have begun to respond.

The allegations of mandatory counseling and euthanasia "are blatantly false," Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) and Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) wrote colleagues. The accusations are "as offensive as they are untrue."

© 2009 The Washington Post Company

So now it's down to outright scaremongering aimed at the most emotionally-vulnerable segment of this society to try to derail healthcare reform and split retirees from the Democratic coalition. What's next? A new "Harry & Louise" ad barrage depicting the eponymous couple signing their Goverment-mandated euthanasia forms to ominous music in the background and the announcer saying "Don't Let Socialised Medicine Happen to YOU. Call Your Congressman To Tell Him YOU WANT TO LIVE"?

[Serafina]

Wait - they are seriously claiming that socialised medicine leads to euthanasia !?

Wow, they are even more retarded than i thought.

How often do they claim such extreme things? I mean, they are accusing their opponents of planned euthanasia - there would be an public outrage if something like this happened in Germany.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It happens all the time, of course, Serafina. This is essentially par for the course in the US.

[Knife]

Now, though, the Dem's can retaliate with all the GOPers who voted to keep Medicare. GOPers want national healthcare....just not for YOU!

[Thanas]

Wait - they are seriously claiming that socialised medicine leads to euthanasia !?

Wow, they are even more retarded than i thought.

How often do they claim such extreme things? I mean, they are accusing their opponents of planned euthanasia - there would be an public outrage if something like this happened in Germany.

I have debated some idiots about "socialised" health care when I was in the USA - and yes, people claim that. If you point out to them that germany is not doing any of that, they either retort with a) HITLER DIT IT AND HE WAS A NATIONAL SOCIALIST b) The USA is uber-special and it will never work in the USA c) I don't want to trust the government with my health d) *insert made up horror story/ancedote over here e)repeat myth about wait times in canada or f) ignore the point.

[RedImperator]

Wait - they are seriously claiming that socialised medicine leads to euthanasia !?

No, they're seriously lying about it and counting on a spineless media not to call them on their bullshit. I'd do it too if my mission was to derail UHC at any cost. Stampede a critical mass of old farts in any one direction and no politician of either party will get in their way.

[Serafina]

It's the "at all cost"-part that shocks me. Because htats seems to be the actual case.
I mean, we have politicans that claim absurd stuff, too, but they just made fools of themself (there are exceptions, but mostly, no one takes them seriously).

The only parties i can imagine that will claim something as absurd as this in Germany are small and/or radical ones, like the NPD (nazis), MLPD (marxists) or Bayernpartei (ultra-conversative seperationists).
If any serious politican would claim something like this, he would ruin his career.


Ok, something else: We actually have a debate about voluntary euthanasia. to be specific, there is a discussion whether or not to shut down lifesupport if there is absolutely no hope of recovery. It is not a major debate, but it crops up from time to time. It boils down to "well, you should be able to choose and make a declaration what happens if" and people who see it more sceptic, fearing a bureacratic mess.
Is there any debate about this in the US? Or do you not deal with this, due to having no unified health care?

[Samuel]

Ok, something else: We actually have a debate about voluntary euthanasia. to be specific, there is a discussion whether or not to shut down lifesupport if there is absolutely no hope of recovery. It is not a major debate, but it crops up from time to time. It boils down to "well, you should be able to choose and make a declaration what happens if" and people who see it more sceptic, fearing a bureacratic mess.
Is there any debate about this in the US? Or do you not deal with this, due to having no unified health care?

Not since 2003, when Congress and President George W. Bush became involved in the case of Terri Schiavo, who lay in a vegetative state in a hospice in Florida, have lawmakers waded into the highly charged subject,

Some states allow voluntary euthanasia, but the last time it poped up it involved congress getting personally involved in a single persons medical case. The Terri Schiavo case is an extreme example of the government keeping people alive at all costs.

[Phantasee]

You know what should lead to euthanasia? Quoting an entire article in italics for no reason. Italics in quote boxes are hard to read, Degan. Can you please stop doing that?

We've begun to see some of this blatant lying up here in Canada from the Conservative Party. I really wish they wouldn't take their cues on how to behave from the GOP.

[RedImperator]

It's the "at all cost"-part that shocks me. Because htats seems to be the actual case.

I'd guess it's one part ideology and two parts "the GOP is a pack of loathsome whores who'd sell out their constituents' interests to their corporate paymasters for two hot dogs and a bag of wooden nickels, and the Democrats aren't much better".

I mean, we have politicans that claim absurd stuff, too, but they just made fools of themself (there are exceptions, but mostly, no one takes them seriously).

The only parties i can imagine that will claim something as absurd as this in Germany are small and/or radical ones, like the NPD (nazis), MLPD (marxists) or Bayernpartei (ultra-conversative seperationists).
If any serious politican would claim something like this, he would ruin his career.

Well, from what I've heard, your Greens talk a bunch of bullshit about nuclear power, but that's right out of the tree-hugger anti-nuke playbook, and it's not like we don't have those idiots here. But yeah, American politicians are a bunch of pig-fucking liars, and the GOP's talk radio-Fox News propaganda arm is even more shameless.

Ok, something else: We actually have a debate about voluntary euthanasia. to be specific, there is a discussion whether or not to shut down lifesupport if there is absolutely no hope of recovery. It is not a major debate, but it crops up from time to time. It boils down to "well, you should be able to choose and make a declaration what happens if" and people who see it more sceptic, fearing a bureacratic mess.
Is there any debate about this in the US? Or do you not deal with this, due to having no unified health care?

In the States, euthanasia is defined as actively killing a patient, which only Oregon allows. Cutting off life support is a separate issue, and is, so far as I know, legal in all 50 states if a patient asks for it (and is competent to give consent), or the patient has a living will, or the patient is brain-damaged beyond all hope of regaining consciousness and someone with legal authority to make medical decisions for the patient decides it (spouse, next-of-kin, anyone with power of attorney).

What I find especially bitter and disgusting about this whole thing is this: what we have here is the Republican Party scaring the elderly (who already HAVE government healthcare which everyone else pays for) with boogeyman stories of enforced euthanasia, in order to get them to block government healthcare for everyone else, without which thousands of people are dying unnecessarily because they're cut off from medical care.

[Broomstick]

How often do they claim such extreme things? I mean, they are accusing their opponents of planned euthanasia - there would be an public outrage if something like this happened in Germany.

That's because something like that did happen in Germany a while back - and no one was pleased with the results. Including a lot of non-Germans. For that reason, no sane government on Earth is likely to propose such a thing in the foreseeable future.

This is blatant scare-mongering. I've also heard it as "attack the hospice" on another message board, because that is also what they're doing. Which I find horrifying, as it could potentially lead to hospice care either being hard to get or outright impossible which is just... I don't want to go there so soon after my mom's death. Really, that's just horrifying.

[Zixinus]

We've begun to see some of this blatant lying up here in Canada from the Conservative Party. I really wish they wouldn't take their cues on how to behave from the GOP.

Actually, I wish they wouldn't do it here too. I recall that the local facist young-nationalistic-party have specifically hired propagandists campaign managers from the USA.

[dr. what]

Wait - they are seriously claiming that socialised medicine leads to euthanasia !?

Yes.

On another forum I hang out on, we started a 'Paranoid Anti-UHC' thread collecting some of the more choice sayings.

It's already up to 5 pages.

Rachel Maddow has collected some of the more amusing ones

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#32195170

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#32211804

[Serafina]

How often do they claim such extreme things? I mean, they are accusing their opponents of planned euthanasia - there would be an public outrage if something like this happened in Germany.

That's because something like that did happen in Germany a while back - and no one was pleased with the results. Including a lot of non-Germans. For that reason, no sane government on Earth is likely to propose such a thing in the foreseeable future.

Um, you got that wrong (propably due to bad wording by me):

If a german politican would claim that "proposal xyz leads to euthanasia" (or whatever) he would be be scorned by nearly every other politican, propably including his own party. Unless he is from some unimportant, radical party.
You just do not claim something like that - its practically a taboo around here.

[Broomstick]

Ah, yes, I see your clarification.

Yes, a different reason for it being taboo. It still dates back the to Nazis, of course, but it's a different slice of the pie. It's not just "RAR! NAZI'S DID IT!" but also "it's ludicrous to thing that that would be allowed to happen again using this as a mechanism, that's not how it happens." One thing I do admire about the Germans these days, they really have taken the lessons of WWII to heart, I only wish the rest of the world had done equally well.

[Big Orange]

Over on the ThatGuyWithTheGlasses forum I've started a long thread on the lack of socialized healthcare in the United States. It has been... interesting to say the least. This is what Thorbie has to say on the matter, he's gotten odder and odder as the thread has gone on:

But that has nothing to do with your original post. What you're recommending clearly will exacerbate the national debt. Private healthcare doesn't have any affect at all on government spending. If increasing the national debt is your biggest fear, the US should therefore not be trying to provide universal healthcare and should start reducing the amount spent on other social programs.

Secondly, I don't see why "income inequality" is a bad thing. Poverty is not an injustice. There is no such thing as causes for poverty, only causes for wealth. Poverty is not a wrong, but taking money from those who have it to equalize incomes is basically theft, which is wrong. Poverty is also relative. The poorest people today in America are way better off than the poorest people in America 100 years ago. If there's someone making more money than another, there will always be someone classified as being in "poverty."

(so great I've put that in my sig)

Also here is another scandal story on America's healthcare, with poor people getting treated in the car park for a big hospital. I mean fucking look!

I think this proves my point on healthcare. It's a free clinic. If you remove the role of prices, this is what you're going to get. Long lines of people waiting for free care. Sound familiar? That's basically what happens with universal healthcare.

Did you read the article?! The reason that thousands of patients were herded into a carpark and were willing to tolerate the appalling conditions was because they couldn't get healthcare anywhere else for hundreds of miles. And why the fuck should NASA sell some of their scientific discoveries? NASA is a quasi-military service that was established in the Cold War to rival the Soviet Union's expansion into space, remember.

I did read the article. I read other articles about it too. It's a charity group that does that service ever year in remote areas of the US since 1985. My point is that when you give stuff out for free, you're going to get long lines. Your conclusion would be similar to if I said that when Denny's has a Free Grand Slam Breakfast Day, that there's a hunger crisis in America, because millions of people can't afford to get food anywhere. Prices are meant to make supply match demand. If you have prices that are too high, you're going to have a surplus of goods that won't get sold. If you have prices that are too low, you're going to have a shortage of goods for the people who want it. This is what happened there.

If you give stuff out for free, you're going to get extremely long lines of people wanting that service or product. It will be much more than if there were prices involved. You said it yourself that there are longer lines for care in nations with universal healthcare. This is the very reason. With private care, prices reduce the demand so it matches the supply of care. If you're willing to pay for it, you can walk into a doctor's office the next day most likely and get treated without any delay. If you disrupt the role of prices, you're going to get what this article illustrated.

As for NASA, I never said they should sell their technologies, I just said it's preposterous to say NASA is responsible for the last 40-50 years of technological innovation. If you want technological innovation you turn to the private sector. The government doesn't have the same incentives that the private sector has. NASA isn't concerned with profit, nor does it have to worry about it's supply of money, because it gets funding through tax dollars. Private businesses need to innovate and be more efficient in order to survive. I was simply saying that NASA couldn't produce the products created by various companies today such as Dell or Apple, because they lack these incentives.

I also agree that Bill O'Reilly isn't much more reliable a source than The Young Turks.

[Axis Kast]

No, they're seriously lying about it and counting on a spineless media not to call them on their bullshit. I'd do it too if my mission was to derail UHC at any cost. Stampede a critical mass of old farts in any one direction and no politician of either party will get in their way.

While some people are doubtless lying, many, including those in high places, have bought the argument hook, line, and sinker.

A hallmark of Republican political theory is that government, by definition, cannot more efficiently provide services than the private sector. They also fear that public medicine will become a new "culture wars" battleground as the Democratic president and a Democratic Congress infuse the new program with their values.

These beliefs are sustained by an enormous library of often-contradictory mythologies. Thus, some conservatives complain on the one hand that the cost of medicine will be grossly inflated by bureaucracy - and on the other that reckless cost-cutting will lead predictably to rationalizations that lower the overall quality of care and inspire programs designed to identify groups whom it is no longer "worthwhile" to support.

It is very easy for somebody who is suspicious of government efficiency - and of the moral quality of some of its agents - to accept the argument that an end-of-life counseling service will become a natural pulpit for those interested in pushing for things like assisted-suicide and, ultimately, denial-of-care. Also contradictorily to their stated preference for individualism, some conservatives are probably doubtful of seniors' ability to really understand the issues at hand, or even to make the "correct" choices, which is code for a choice in step with Christian values.

It's all quite incorrect. Sadly, I think it is also often quite honest, your talking heads perhaps aside.

[Samuel]

A hallmark of Republican political theory is that government, by definition, cannot more efficiently provide services than the private sector.

I don't think that is quite right. After all, Republicans are good for police and military- it is social services that they tend to make that argument against.

[Axis Kast]

The private sector does not provide police and military services, according to most accepted definitions.

The Republican Party is the party of "small government" because it contends that individuals are the most productive when left alone to do what they will with the fruits of their labor.

I agree that there is a self-contradictory aspect to it, some of which you've just hit on: they value certain services that require a heck of a lot of overhead and infrastructure.

[Uraniun235]

In the States, euthanasia is defined as actively killing a patient, which only Oregon allows.

No. We do not have euthanasia; we have doctor-assisted suicide. The physician does not actually kill the patient; he merely gives the patient the means to do it with a prescription for a fatal dose of drugs. It's then up to the patient to use it.

[Darth Wong]

A hallmark of Republican political theory is that government, by definition, cannot more efficiently provide services than the private sector.

If only you were correct, and this was actually treated as a theory. Unfortunately, it is not treated as a theory. If it were treated as a theory, it would be subject to testing. Instead, it appears to form more of a religious doctrine. It is simply assumed to be correct no matter what contradictory evidence is presented. That's why it is essentially impossible to hold a rational discussion with a party-line Republican about the validity of this doctrine. His responses will invariably incorporate it as an assumption, and nothing will dissuade him from this circular logic.

[Samuel]

The private sector does not provide police and military services, according to most accepted definitions.

Rent a cops and mercanaries can actually provide both of those services- we simply don't use them because the loyalty and competance of such individuals is suspect.

[Imperial Overlord]

The private sector does not provide police and military services, according to most accepted definitions.

Rent a cops and mercanaries can actually provide both of those services- we simply don't use them because the loyalty and competance of such individuals is suspect.

Actually the US uses several times more rent a cops than public police if you count private security services.

[Samuel]

Actually the US uses several times more rent a cops than public police if you count private security services.

I didn't realize the proportion is that high. Is the majority night watchmen and other stationary security?

[Broomstick]

Likely.

Keep in mind, too, there is some overlap - current police officers moonlighting, and former police officers, aren't uncommon in private security forces in the US.

As an example, most buildings in the Chicago Loop have some sort of building security, and those folks are typically hired by the building owner or management company from private security services. My landlord, who is a general contractor, has been known to hire private security to guard job sites overnight. Shopping malls often employ security. After a few nasty incidents my local Aldi hired a security guard (actually, several, the work in shifts) as crowd control. Hospitals hire security services, particularly for the ER.

Not all of these folks are authorized to carry weapons, though many are. The advantage is that private security allows you to hire the level of security people you need - unarmed just to keep an eye on things, and call the cops if needed, to actual armed guards. The disadvantage, of course, is that they aren't police officers and if they overstep their bounds there are potentially serious liability issues.