Death Panels Are Not Real

I can't believe I'm still hearing people talk about this notion of a "death panel" being a part of the health care bill. I switched over to Sean Hannity during my lunch hour (for my daily dose of increased blood pressure) and he's going on with this ridiculous lie as if it's true, using words like "mandatory" and "orwellian".

There is no such thing as a death panel. Nothing even close.

Here's what's in the bill:

A provision in the House bill written by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., would allow Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling sessions that address end-of-life issues. The conversations between doctor and patient would include living wills, making a close relative or a trusted friend your health care proxy, learning about hospice as an option for the terminally ill, and information about pain medications for people suffering chronic discomfort. The sessions would be covered every five years, more frequently if someone is gravely ill.

It's a voluntary counseling session to help people set up living wills and make other legal arrangements. These are things people do on their own now. This is nothing new. The only difference is that now these counseling sessions will be covered my Medicare.

Or not. You don't have to do this if you don't want to.

And for people like Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and Sen. Grassley (just to name a few) to continue telling blatant lies about what this provision actually says, and the fear that's being cultivated by these people, and people like Glenn Beck, is truly shameful.

People are being lied to in order to scare them. If you scare people enough, they just might do anything to fight back. We need to remember that when something horribly wrong happens at one of these town hall meetings.

It will be the lies and the people doing the lying who will be to blame.

Shame on them.

Comments

  1. phairnessdoctrineAugust 13, 2009 at 9:28 AM

    Shame on them is right! What are those fear-mongers trying to do? Incite a riot? Or, possibly further jeopardize the safety of our President? It's a terribly dangerous game they are playing, and it’s amazing they are willing to push the violence button that could incite the worst possible outcome. For God’s sake, stop it!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Jesus Loves The Little Children (wait, not you)

Image
Jesus loves the little children All the children of the world Red and Yellow, Black and White They are precious in his sight Jesus loves the little children of the world Singing this song is one of my earliest memories from growing up going to Sunday school. It taught me that all of us, no matter what we look like or where we come from, are loved by the God we were gathering to worship twice on Sundays and Wednesday nights.  This song taught me that I should accept those who might look differently than me (which, growing up in a small, whites only town in Indiana, was a rare occurrence, to be sure), because GOD loved them.  That was the point, wasn't it? That if God loved these people, then we should, too? This week we saw a story about the popular, and notoriously anti-LGBTQ, food chain Chick-fil-A and the reaction some on the right had when discovering Chick-fil-A's website included a section on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) and that they had "just hired" a...
Read more

Impeach Trump: Now

Image
The Democrats should be moving full speed ahead on impeaching the president. This is the moment where, historically, Democrats have chosen to take the sensible, well-thought out, reactionary way forward, when what was needed was for them to grab ahold of the narrative and shape it to THEIR will. We don’t need to wait and contemplate while hoping the unredacted version of the Mueller Report gets released soon (we’ve seen enough already). What Trump does so well is to set the framing of the narrative. For instance, when he repeatedly made his racist birther claims about President Obama, Trump introduced a frame, a worldview, that included the possibility of Obama not being an American citizen. The narrative within that frame, whether for or against, necessarily included discussion of Obama’s citizenship, a topic we’d never addressed before in reference to a sitting president. It didn’t matter that his birtherism claims weren’t true, they became a part of the narrative, the disc...
Read more

McConnell's Misplaced Historical Precedent

“You have to go back to 1880 to find last time a Senate controlled by a different party from the president confirmed a Supreme Court justice to a vacancy created in the middle of a presidential election,” McConnell said on CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday morning, turning to historical precedent. This isn’t even an honest point (shocking!). It’s a complete Red Herring. A misdirection. The point isn’t that this particular situation hasn’t happened since 1880, the argument McConnell should be making is to point out ALL the times since 1880 where this exact situation actually presented itself , and then a nomination wasn’t even considered. Just like Merrick Garland wasn't even considered. That would be historical precedent.
Read more