“Death Panel” Three Years Later

by Sarah Palin on Monday, June 25, 2012 at 11:11am – on Facebook

As we wait for the impending Supreme Court decision on Obamacare, I reiterate what I wrote in my first post on this topic nearly three years ago. I stand by everything I wrote in that warning to my fellow Americans because what was true then is true now, and it will remain true as we hear what the Supreme Court has to say.

It was a pretty long post, but a lot of people seem to have only read two words of it: “death panel.” Though I was called a liar for calling it like it is, many of these accusers finally saw that Obamacare did in fact create a panel of faceless bureaucrats who have the power to make life and death decisions about health care funding. It’s called the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), and its purpose all along has been to “keep costs down” by actually denying care via price controls and typically inefficient bureaucracy. This subjective rationing of care is what I was writing about in that first post:

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. 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.

Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion.

Rep. Michele Bachmann highlighted the Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff, in a floor speech to the House of Representatives. I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors.

We must step up and engage in this most crucial debate. Nationalizing our health care system is a point of no return for government interference in the lives of its citizens. If we go down this path, there will be no turning back. Ronald Reagan once wrote, “Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” Let’s stop and think and make our voices heard before it’s too late.

If the Supreme Court doesn’t strike down Obamacare entirely, then Congress must act to repeal IPAB and Obamacare before it is indeed “too late.” All of Obamacare must go one way or another.

- Sarah Palin

Related:

Obamacare Has Literally Replaced the Constitution

Obamacare to Herd Disabled Seniors to Bare-Bones Medicaid Plans

Meet the ObamaCare Mandate Committee

Eugenics In Action: 3 Year Old Girl Denied Kidney Transplant …

"People 70 and over will not be treated under Obamacare… and you thought DEATH PANELS were gone"

Dirty Little Secret: Rationing is at Heart of ObamaCare

Obama “Fixed” Medicare…With Rationing

FYI: Every American Concerned With Health Care Needs To Read This Conversation

UPROAR OVER OBAMACARE‘S ’RATIONING PANELS’ INTENSIFIES

Obama Embraces 'Death Panel' Concept in Medicare Rule

ObamaCare and me – Doctor Zane F. Pollard, MD – For Anyone Who Still Doesn’t Believe in Rationing and Death Panels if ObamaCare Passes

Life With Trig: Sarah Palin on Raising a Special-Needs Child

Soylent Green Anyone???

Obamacare rationing panels an ‘immediate danger to seniors’: former AMA president

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,death panels,rationed healthcare,Sarah Palin,repeal and replace ObamaCare,seniors,disabled persons,IPAB,soylent green,wake-up,Independent Payment Advisory Board,America,stand-up America,rationing for seniors,special needs children,Supreme Court,Affordable Care Act,Palin

March 23rd Second Anniversary of ObamaCare… March 26th a Future Day in American Infamy?

Photo:  The Foundry Blog

Friday March 23rd, 2012 is 2nd-year anniversary of the signing of the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, into law,  Monday March 26th is the day the states take their case against the ObamaCare individual mandate (as well as the full law itself) to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).  It could end up being the day that saved America, or the day the Supreme Court helped America sink further into debt and further down the road toward Socialism.

If SCOTUS strikes down the individual mandate, ObamaCare will implode and die, giving America another chance at both surviving and re-addressing healthcare and Medicare.  If SCOTUS does not strike down the mandate, we will get a second chance to overturn the bill that will be the final nail in the coffin of American freedom in November 2012.  After that the only thing that will save us from ourselves is a total financial collapse.

Government-controlled/run healthcare is the jewel socialism and the most Progressive president and congress America has ever had crammed this bill down the throats of the American people without most of them ever realizing what happened. They even managed to force both the House and Senate to vote on this program, several times each, without reading the bills. Think about it.

There was a small group of people, the Tea Party and other patriots, who were engaged and did read those bills (at least one version), reviewed and  shared their findings, spoke out and traveled to Washington D.C. to stand up. I was one of those people… but nobody in Washington and not enough people in America listened.

Nancy Pelosi said, We have to pass the bill (without reading it… because there was not time) to find out what was in it?”.   They did… and now we, the American people, are beginning to find out what is in it… in dribs and drabs… one bad provision at a time. ObamaCare is fraught with broken promises and misrepresentations:  Obamacare’s Top 5 Broken Promises 

Well, we now have a group of doctors who have come together to get out the truth, the whole truth on how Obamacare will impact the health and welfare of your loved ones at: www.AmericanDoctors4Truth.org.  It is information absolutely vital for every American, especially if the SCOTUS does not over the full law or at least the individual mandate.

Remember the Democrat ad showing Paul Ryan throwing grandma off a cliff?

Well here is the response to that ad by www.AmericanDoctors4Truth.org based on the information of what really is in ObamaCare, now coming out. Please watch:

Video: The Whole Truth

It helps make the point by point case against ObamaCare.

My question is why nobody in Washington has read the full ObamaCare Bill in the meantime after it was passed and then spoken out… yelling from the rooftops?  Why?

Recently several important provisions have come to light.  Below are back-up articles and information for those who did not read the bill or at least the reviews of those who did:

Abortion, Birth Control an Woman’s Health:

Rep. Chris Smith on Obama Violating Own Executive Order, Funding Abortion

Obama Admin Finalizes Rules: $1 Abortions in ObamaCare

The Obamacare Second Anniversary: No Gift for Women

Sebelius: Decrease in Human Beings Will Cover Cost of Contraception Mandate

Timing of War Over ObamaCare Mandatory Birth Control Payments… God’s Answer to Prayers for Intervention?

What is the real purpose of birth control? Why is all of this so important to progressives?

Obamacare Will Not Value Human Life – Proof Lies In A Killer Theory

Costs and Funding of ObamaCare:

Democratic Leaders Run From Budget Deadline As Health Law Threatens Nation’s Finances

Oops ObamaCare’s Cost Has Doubled

ObamaCare 2nd Birthday, No Surprise: Still Not Lowering Costs

Insurance and Doctors:

Side Effects: Doctors Fear Obamacare

Obamacare Knows Best?

Power Grab:

Updated: 5-Reasons Obama is Losing the Contraceptive Mandate Battle… But Could be Winning the Power Grab Mandate War

Religious Liberty:

Stand Up For Religious Freedom Nationwide Rallies Friday - Coalition to Stop the HHS Mandate

Religious Liberty: Obamacare's First Casualty

War On: Obama and ObamaCare verses Constitutional Patriots and Religious Freedom

‘We Will Not Comply’: Catholic Leaders Distribute Letter Slamming Obama Admin Contraceptive Mandate

Seniors and Rationing:

Meet the ObamaCare Mandate Committee

Obamacare rationing panels an ‘immediate danger to seniors’: former AMA president

Obamacare’s Second Anniversary: No Gift for Seniors

IPAB Spells Gloom And Doom For Medicare  -  Just yesterday (03.22.12) the House of Representatives voted to repeal key 'Obamacare' provision” IPAB  (the CLASS ACT has also been nullified)

Was told by a friend whose husband who works for one of our major hospitals here that the HR department posts upcoming news on a weekly basis on their bulletin boards throughout the hospital.

Late last week a posting went up stating: PER THE US FED GOVT, AS OF APRIL 24, 2013 THERE WILL BE NO CHEMO/RADIATION/MEDICATIONS/FOR ALL PERSONS DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER AT AGE 76. SURGICAL PROCEDURES WILL BE DONE ONLY IF THE SURGEONS CAN GET IT ALL. 

Taxes and ObamaCare Tentacles on house sales:

Thinking About Selling Your House After 2012?

Four Small Business Hikes in ObamaCare

Foundry:  The 10 Terrible Provisions of Obamacare You May Not Have Heard Of      

Alyene Senger  -  March 7, 2012 at 1:00 pm  (218)  - posted on the Foundry

Photo: The Foundry Blog

Obamacare includes such a variety and volume of negative policies that it’s hard to keep track of them all. Here is a list of 10 terrible provisions that every American should be aware of:

1. It increases taxes on families earning over $250,000. In 2013, the employee portion of the Medicare payroll tax will increase from 1.45 percent to 2.35 percent for families earning $250,000 or more and individuals earning $200,000 or more. The income threshold is not indexed for inflation, so more and more middle-income families will be hit by the tax hike as time goes on.

1. It adds a new tax to investment income. The increased payroll tax rate is also applied to high-earners’ investment income for the first time beginning in 2013. It will hit capital gains, dividends, rents, and royalties, discouraging investment and harming economic growth.
2. It puts new limitations on those with HSAs and FSAs. Starting in 2012, Obamacare restricts the products that consumers may purchase with a Health Savings Account (HSA) or Flexible Savings Account (FSA)—such as over-the-counter medications—and increases the penalty for such non-qualified uses of HSAs. It also limits the amount taxpayers may deposit into an FSA to $2,500 a year in 2013.
3. It adds a new tax on those who purchase medical devices. In 2013, a 2.3 percent excise tax will be applied to medical devices, causing a $28.5 billion tax hike on medical device manufacturers. The industry will pay for this tax by reducing jobs and passing additional costs on to consumers.
4. It penalizes marriage. Obamacare creates new taxpayer-funded subsidies for the low and middle classes to purchase health coverage, but the structure of the subsidies allows two individuals to claim more in subsidies alone than if married. This discriminates against married couples and discourages marriage at almost all age and income levels.
5. It violates religious liberty. The Department of Health and Human Services included the full range of contraceptives, including abortion-inducing drugs, among the women-specific preventive services that Obamacare requires insurers to include with no cost-sharing. This mandate violates Americans’ conscience rights and religious liberty. Its narrow exemption for religious employers will force many who find these products morally objectionable—including religious charities, hospitals, and schools—to pay for them.
6. It puts Medicare decisions in the hands of an unelected board. The Independent Payment Advisory Board, a board of 15 unelected officials, will have the power to cut Medicare spending without congressional approval. These unaccountable government appointees will be able to restrict seniors’ access to providers, treatments, and services.
7. It puts a premium tax on health insurers. Obamacare adds a premium tax on health insurers that offer full coverage beginning in 2014. On average, the tax is expected to increase premiums by 1.9 percent to 2.3 percent in 2014 and between 2.8 percent and 3.7 percent by 2023. Combined with the other provisions in Obamacare, this tax will have a huge impact on the cost of premiums.
8. It creates a new unsustainable entitlement program. On top of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, Obamacare created a new long-term care entitlement called the CLASS program. It is actuarially unsound, unworkable, and unsustainable. As a result, the Administration has already put its implementation “on hold.”
9. It puts over half of all Americans on a government program. Because of Obamacare’s huge expansion of Medicaid and creation of taxpayer-funded subsidies to purchase health coverage, more than half of all Americans will be dependent on a government health care program (Medicare, Medicaid, or the government exchanges) by the end of this decade.

Again, we only have a few chances of getting rid of ObamaCare, 4 if you consider a total financial collapse:

1. Having the Supreme Court overturn it after the court hearing on March 23rd.
2. Rep. Paul Ryan has just released the GOP’s new budget proposal that includes the repeal and replacement of ObamaCare, however, short of a miracle, that budget will pass in the House but will never even be put up for a vote in the Senate.
3. Voting in anyone (anyone but Obama… ABO) in November and then having them overturn and repeal as much of the entire bill as possible, on day one of their presidency, and start over, which all the GOP candidates have vowed to do.
4. Experiencing a total financial collapse of the United States after which there will be no money for any programs, especially ObamaCare.

If none of the first three above is done, the government will gain control of an additional 6 to 10% of the U.S. economy through ObamaCare and the tentacles will go so deep and wide that it can never be unwound after 4-more years of Obama and his radical team. Government controlled healthcare is always the crown jewel and center of socialism, especially with what is written into the Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare.  And if you realize what is in this bill and what has been done, it is also obvious that Nancy Pelosi,  Harry Reid and President must be ousted or shamed into quitting!!

Realizing how unpopular ObamaCare is the President and the White House have been very quiet about the 2-year anniversary, but Nancy Pelosi held a celebration in Washington on Thursday.

The SCOTUS decision is going to be a nail-bitter.  Many feel that the individual mandate will be struck down in a 5 to 4 decision; the 4-conservatives on the bench plus Judge Kennedy against the 4-liberals on the bench, which include Sotomayor and Kagen appointed by Obama just for this fight.  We shall see.  And unwinding this monster will be a mess no matter what SCOTUS decides or which method with use.

Meet the ObamaCare Mandate Committee

Think the contraception decision was bad? Wait until bureaucrats start telling your insurer which cancer screenings to cover.

Offended by President Obama's decision to force health insurers to pay for contraception and surgical sterilization or my religious institutions mandated to go against their core beliefs? It gets worse: In the future, thanks to ObamaCare, the government will issue such health edicts on a routine basis—and largely insulated from public view. This goes beyond contraception to cancer screenings, the use of common drugs like aspirin, and much more.

Under ObamaCare, a single committee—the United States Preventative Services Task Force—is empowered to evaluate preventive health services and decide which will be covered by health-insurance plans.

The task force already rates services with letter grades of "A" through "D" (or "I," if it has "insufficient evidence" to make a rating). But under ObamaCare, services rated "A" or "B"—such as colon cancer screening for adults aged 50-75—must be covered by health plans in full, without any co-pays. Many services that get "Cs" and "Ds"—such as screening for ovarian or testicular cancer—could get nixed from coverage entirely.

That's because mandating coverage for all the "A" and "B" services will be very costly. In 2000, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the marginal cost of similar state insurance mandates was 5%-10% of total claims. Other estimates put the cost of mandates as high as 20% of premiums.

Health plans will inevitably choose to drop coverage for many services that don't get a passing grade from the task force and therefore aren't mandated. Insurance companies will need to conserve their premium money, which the government regulates, in order to spend it subsidizing those services that the task force requires them to cover in full.

David Klein

Americans first became familiar with the task force in November 2009, when it made the controversial decision to recommend that women ages 40-49 shouldn't get routine mammograms. More recently, it rebuffed routine prostate-cancer screening and the use of tests that detect the viruses that can cause cervical cancer.

The task force relishes setting a very high bar. Like the Food and Drug Administration in approving new drugs, it usually requires a randomized, prospective trial to "prove" that a diagnostic test or other intervention improves clinical outcomes and therefore deserves a high grade of "A" or "B."

This means its advice is often out of sync with conventional medical practice. For example, it recommended against wider screening for HIV long after such screening was accepted practice. As a result, many of its verdicts are widely ignored by practicing doctors.

The task force is a part-time board of volunteer advisers that works slowly and is often late to incorporate new science into its recommendations. Only in 2009 did it finally recommend aspirin for the prevention of stroke and heart attack among those at risk—decades after this practice was demonstrated to save lives and had become part of standard medical practice.

The task force is also the only federal health agency to have the explicit legal authority to consider cost as one criterion in recommending whether patients should use a medical test or treatment.

Over time, the task force will surely recommend against many services that patients now take for granted, while mandating full insurance coverage for things that they'd be just as happy paying for. Among the interventions that it plans to consider in 2012 are screening for hepatitis C in adults, for osteoporosis in men and for depression in children; counseling for obesity in adults and for alcohol use in adolescents; and daily aspirin for heart-attack and stroke prevention in people over 80.

The task force's problems are compounded by the fact that it is deliberately exempted from the rules that govern other government advisory boards and regulatory agencies. Thus it has no obligation to hold its meetings in public, announce decisions in draft form or even consider public comments. Consumers have no way to directly appeal its decisions. And health providers or product developers affected by its decisions can't sue it for recourse.

To begin addressing these problems, Congress should make the task force subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which would at least require it to hold its deliberations in public. Congress could also make it a full-fledged part of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, which already convenes its meetings. That would make the task force subject to the Administrative Procedures Act and all the rules that bind other regulatory bodies, including the legal requirement to consider public comments and provide avenues for appeal.

Better still, Congress could let private health plans—and their members—decide on their own how preventive tests and treatments should be covered. If not, Americans will soon be surprised by all the important tests and treatments that become more costly, and all the less relevant stuff that's suddenly free.

It's all a reminder that President Obama's decision on contraception isn't a one-off political intervention but the initial exploit of an elaborate new system.

by Dr. Gottlieb, a physician and resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, has served as deputy commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and senior policy adviser to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. He consults with and invests in health-care companies.  -  WSJ

As time goes on… if people don’t start reading the ObamaCare Bill and make sure it is repealed in its entirety, either by the Supreme Court or a New President and a primarily new Congress in November 2012, Americans will soon find out that former Alaska Governor and GOP VP candidate in 2008, Sarah Palin plus others who were paying attention, was 100% right about rationing, death panels or whatever you want to call it in ObamaCare and a lot more that we all won’t like… especially seniors, the disabled and special needs children and adults!  Wake-up America… before it is too late.

Related:

** Breaking:  U.S. Supreme Court Meeting Today on Health Care/Eligibility Challenge (Purpura vs. Sebelius) **

Senate Republicans Ask Supreme Court to Strike Mandate

Judge Rejects Health Care Law

SCOTAS ObamaCare Hearing

More Doctors Fire Vaccine Refusers

Is it Time to Push Cass Sunstein over the Cliff? - American Thinker

They laughed when Sarah Palin (R) mentioned death panels. And remember the liberal Agenda Project’s commercial showing a Paul Ryan look alike pushing Grandma off a Cliff? 

It is not Paul Ryan or the GOP… it is Cass Sunstein and the Democrats who will be pushing grandma over the cliff if ObamaCare is not repealed!!

You've seen the Democratic commercial of a man pushing a terrified wheelchair bound grandma off a cliff.  In real life the head driver and chief  pusher is Professor Cass Sunstein.

So now Cass Sunstein isn't laughing.  Because he is one of the chief proponents of death panels.  Of course he didn't call them that but nevertheless Palin accurately picked up his intention.  The former University of Chicago law professor (and doesn't that sound familiar?) and now Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, (yes,  this is a real position, not a fabrication of George Orwell) has disavowed them; has made light of his early academic research.

"I'm a lot older now than the author with my name was, and I'm not sure what I think about what that young man wrote," Sunstein, 56, told the House panel. "Things written as an academic are not a legitimate part of what we do as a government official. So I am not focusing on sentences that a young Cass Sunstein wrote years ago. So the answer is no."

Uh, Professor Sunstein, "things written as an academic," often funded by the government, are often exactly "a legitimate part of what we do as a government official;" the basis of programs for government officials.  So no, you can't ooze out of your past evil drivel so easily.  You wrote that paper "Lives, Life-Years, and Willingness to Pay" a mere eight years ago in 2003 when you were a not so young pup of 48, inhabiting the ivory towers of the University of Chicago located on the academic island of Hyde Park, so safely removed from the realities of Chicago and the real world.  No, you can't dismiss your responsibility for this.

Read what the 48 year old academic now turned government official wrote about older folks; they're worth less (one or two words depending on their age and infirmities).

Lives, Life-Years, and Willingness to Pay

"Many analysts, however, have suggested that the government should rely instead on the 'value of a statistical life year' (VSLY), in a way that would likely result in significantly lower benefits calculations for elderly people, and significantly higher benefits calculations for children," the 2003 paper said.

"I urge that the government should indeed focus on statistical life-years rather than statistical lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people," it added.

(snip)

"Older people are treated worse for one reason, they are older. This is not an injustice.

(snip)

A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people. Nor does a focus on life-years run afoul of ethical limits on cost-benefit analysis. It is relevant in this connection that every old person was once young, and that if all goes well, young people will eventually be old," Sunstein added.

"In fact, a focus on statistical lives is a more plausibly a form of illicit discrimination than a focus on life-years, because the idea of statistical lives treats the years of older people as worth far more than the years of younger people," the 2003 paper continued.

"The hard question involves not whether to undertake this shift, but how to monetize life-years, and here willingness to pay (WTP), despite its many problems, is generally the place to begin. Discussion is also devoted to the uses and limits of the willingness to pay criterion in regulatory policy, with reference to the underlying welfare goal and to the nature of moral and distributional constraints on cost-benefit balancing," it added.

The 2003 paper goes on to say, "Under the life-years approach, older people are treated worse for only one reason: They are older. This is not an injustice. Every old person was young once, and every young person will be old too (if given the chance). In fact an important form of reciprocity is built into the life-years approach. If regulatory policy is based on life-years, every person will, in a sense, be both benefited and burdened, and in exactly the same way. Indeed, every person will be both a beneficiary and a victim of the relevant discrimination. People--the same people--will be benefited when they are younger and burdened when they are older."

Cass Sunstein, over the cliff you go.

Source:  American Thinker  -  hat tip to: www.lucianne.com

Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness by Cass Sunstien

Red Alert!!!!!!  Related Video:  ObamaCare at the Center of Obama Depopulation Policy Exposed!

In True Alinsky Fashion… the Left Accuses the GOP of What They Are Planning

If you are not familiar with Saul Alinsky and his book that is a Bible to our present administration,  Rules for Radicals, its time…  The Obama White House and election committee will use Alinsky Methods, Cloward and Piven’s blueprint, Cass Sunstein’s Nudging and if necessary the tactics of their friends, like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn of the Weather Underground to promote their globalism, their Progressive goals and to steal the 2012 election if America does not wake up!!

It is ObamaCare that will through the Grandma over the cliff and in front of the death panel through rationing, but one of the Rules for Radicals is to turn the focus from yourself and from what you plan to do onto your adversary or opponent.

AARP is in the bag for the administration, but they are using their power and database to scare seniors into voting the opposite of what will save them and their healthcare… Medicaid and Medicare.  ObamaCare is big money for AARP!

Video:  Commercial shows Paul Ryan "Throwing Grandma over the cliff" commercial

How moral is it to create an anti-GOP political ad showing "Grandma thrown off a cliff" asks Neil Cavuto, today, interviewing  progressive advocate and creator of that ad, Erica Payne, Agenda Project Founder, "when you know that the plan being discussed exempts those  55 and older?"  Cavuto's outrage was enough to make him resurrect the "Death Panels".  Read Rest of Article Here

Obama Embraces 'Death Panel' Concept in Medicare Rule

Sunday, 26 Dec 2010 06:41 PM

During the stormy debate over his healthcare plan, President Barack Obama promised his program would not "pull the plug on grandma" and Congress dropped plans for death panels and "end of life" counseling that would encourage aged patients from partaking in costly medical procedures.

Opponents of Obama's plan, including former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, dubbed such efforts as "death panels" that would encourage euthanasia.

But on December 3rd, the Obama administration seemingly flouted the will of Congress by issuing a new Medicare regulation detailing -- "voluntary advance care planning" that is to be included during patients' annual checkups. The regulation aimed at the aged "may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment," The New York Times reported.

The new provision goes into effect Jan. 1, 2011 and allows Medicare to pay for voluntary counseling to help beneficiaries deal with the complex and decisions families face when a loved one is approaching death. Critics say it is another attempt to limit healthcare options for the elderly as they face serious illness.

Incoming House Speaker John Boehner said during the healthcare debate that, “This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia.”

Specifically, the measure was known as Section 1233 of the bill passed by the House in November 2009. It was not included in the final legislation, however. It allowed Medicare to pay for consultations about advance care planning every five years. In contrast, the new rule allows annual discussions as part of the wellness visit.

Elizabeth D. Wickham, executive director of LifeTree, a pro-life Christian educational ministry, told the Times was concerned that end-of-life counseling would encourage patients to forgo or curtail care, thus hastening death.

“The infamous Section 1233 is still alive and kicking,” Ms. Wickham said. “Patients will lose the ability to control treatments at the end of life.”

The rule was issued by Dr. Donald M. Berwick, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, according to The New York Times. He is a longtime advocate for rationing medical procedures for the elderly.

Before being tapped by Obama to his Medicare post, Berwick had long applauded Britain's National Health Service, which uses an algorithm to determine if the aged are worthy of additional expenditure for medical care and advanced treatments.

Berwick has argued that rationing will have to eventually be implemented in the U.S, stating, “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”

Seniors appear to be a major target for precious resources under the Obama healthcare plan. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Obama plan cuts nearly $500 million in Medicare benefits to seniors as the federal government adds 30 million uninsured Americans to private and public health care systems.

The cost of caring for the elderly has not been lost on Berwick.
“The chronically ill and those towards the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here… there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place,” he said.

During the heated healthcare debate, supporters of the Obama vigorously denied rationing for seniors would take place and scoffed at "death panel" critics like Palin.

Last month, however, economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman told ABC News that rising Medicare costs could only be dealt with by "death panels and sales taxes."

He added: "Medicare is going to have to decide what it's going to pay for. And at least for starters, it's going to have to decide which medical procedures are not effective at all and should not be paid for at all. In other words, it should have endorsed the [death] panel that was part of the healthcare reform.’"

Read more: Obama Embraces 'Death Panel' Concept in Medicare Rule

The NY Times Concedes Governor Palin “Forced [Obama] Onto the Defensive.”

The NY Times concedes that Governor Palin put Obama “onto the defensive” with “death panels” (emphasis added):

Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate, and Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, led the criticism in the summer of 2009. Ms. Palin said “Obama’s death panel” would decide who was worthy of health care. Mr. Boehner, who is in line to become speaker, said, “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.”

Has any other potential Republican presidential candidate other than Palin been able to force the New York Times to concede that he or she put Obama on the defensive? Has any other potential Republican presidential candidate other than Palin destroyed a liberal policy to such an extent that the Democrat Party is afraid to publicize what it is doing and can only get it implemented through channels outside of the legislative arena?

“Death Panels” Regulation Begins Obama’s Rule by Fiat

by Ben Johnson – Posted at

In a foretaste of outrages to come, the Obama administration managed to sneak out a federal regulation paying doctors to provide “end of life counseling” to those covered by ObamaCare. The Medicare rule, which Congress never voted on, may encourage thousands to forego lifesaving treatment. This move is a voluntary precursor to the inevitable rationing engendered by socialized medicine. Many conservative media outlets have objected to the pro-death aspects of this decision. However, they have ignored a vital aspect of this story: the way he implemented the policy. This federal regulation inaugurates Obama’s two-year strategy to rule by executive order. The New York Times reports:

When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

Although the NYT just discovered this, Steven Ertelt at LifeNews.com reported the regulation nearly a month ago. (We covered it at the time.) For once, the Times included some salient facts along with its whitewash of the administration’s activities.

This program will be overseen by the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dr. Donald Berwick, a fanatical believer in limiting (read: denying) care. The paper quotes Berwick as saying, “Using unwanted procedures in terminal illness is a form of assault. In economic terms, it is waste.” Berwick added advanced directives were one of “several techniques” that led “to both lower cost and more humane care.” There is no question they lead to lower costs, in addition to providing an economic stimulus to tombstone carvers, morticians, and cemetery plot salesmen.

The Times reports the regulation was pushed by two Congressional Democrats: Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Sen. Jay Rockefeller IV of West Virginia. This backing unintentionally reveals the measure’s greater significance: The liberals could not ram a death panels provision through even the Democratic-controlled 111th Congress, so Obama is imposing it with the stroke of a pen, without a single vote. The New York Times admits this is the wave of the future:

While the new law does not mention advance care planning, the Obama administration has been able to achieve its policy goal through the regulation-writing process, a strategy that could become more prevalent in the next two years as the president deals with a strengthened Republican opposition in Congress.

This author first exposed Obama’s plan to rule by executive order, in October. The following month, the Center for American Progress released a lengthy report compiled by Sarah Rosen Wartell calling for the president to implement a “progressive” agenda by fiat over the next two years. In its foreword, CAP president and CEO John Podesta called on Obama to rule through:

• Executive orders
• Rulemaking
• Agency management
• Convening and creating public-private partnerships
• Commanding the armed forces
• Diplomacy

Just last week, the inside-the-Beltway Bible Politico featured an article by John F. Harris and James Hohmann which concluded, “Republican gains in Congress make it essential for [Obama] to use new avenues of power,” including regulations and executive orders.

The Left is irresistibly drawn to collecting as much unbridled power as possible, because its agenda is so unpopular it could never receive sufficient popular support to pass an election. Since the November election, Obama, Reid, and company have followed the authoritarian path I predicted. I wrote in November, “Look for an aggressive agenda in the lame duck session of Congress, focused especially on passing the DREAM Act and repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’” Harry Reid unleashed precisely these two measures (and passed one of them) in his lame duck power grab, cramming in a bid to pass a $1.27 trillion budget besides. Next, I wrote, “After January, Cabinet agencies will issue regulations at a faster clip.” This follows that prediction. Finally, I wrote, “Obama will rule increasingly through executive orders and appeals to the United Nations.” If this regulation means anything, it means we have not seen anything yet.

How fitting one of the first expressions of Obama’s new strategy was a measure to let people die. He seems to have the same fate planned for the U.S. Constitution.

Update on HC Debate - Latest Compromise: Public Option on Steroids, Death Spirol for Medicare and Thumbs Down From Hospitals

I am watching the Senate Healthcare Debate. Senators Wyden, Bayh and Collins are offering a bipartisan amendment to allow people who are not getting subsidies from the government to purchase insurance with a high deductible in order to keep costs down. They actually admitted during the debate that premiums would increase for these people without this amendment. We keep saying WE DON"T WANT THIS BILL and they are saying to us, "this will make it better". They are treating us like children who don't want to take our medicine.

This morning on the Senate floor Senator Mitch McConnell said the recent CNN poll showed that 61% of Americans oppose this bill. I wonder if any of the Democratic Senators care?
It was announced on the Senate floor by Senator Enzi this morning that the CMS (Center for Medicare Services) announced that the Reid bill bends the cost curve up and is unsustainable. I hope the Democrats hear this.

I also just heard Senators McConnell and Johannis on Fox News state that this bill will definitely cost everyone more... as we know the entire premise of reform and cutting costs was a big fat lie. The GOP had the CMS go over the bill and the actuary verified that cost would be much higher than the CBO and Congress are saying and that the cost will continue on an upward curve.

Cavuto (FNC) had a surgeon that said there is also a provision in the new Medicare provision of the HC bill that will only someone 90-days in the hospital in one year. So if you have been in perfect health all your life and never collect a dime from insurance, but all of a sudden come down with a major illness, accident or condition, you will have to pay out of pocket for your hospital stay beyond 90-days, if it all falls into one year.
And the bad news just keeps on coming....

At one point the GOP explored the option of expanding Medicare and they were told that it would cause an immediate death spiral to this already ailing program… yet now the Dems are selling this as their Public Option.

Add the above to:

John Thune & The Senate Health Care Bill – New Compromise is Public Option on Steroids

There is a crisis, and it appears to be located in the U.S. Senate. My esteemed Keloland colleague and colleague Emeritus, David Newquist, has this:

John Thune has become the voice of the GOP–Groundless Obstinence and Petulance–according to the Huffington Post. He says his party will unanimously oppose any health care reform, no matter what is proposed.

For someone who complains a lot when he thinks that others have distorted his words, he seems very careless in describing what Senator Thune said or what the Huffington Post said he said. The Huffington Post article he links to makes it clear in the title that Thune was only speaking about "the Newest Heath Care Compromise," and hardly ruling out GOP support for any bill.

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) told the Huffington Post that he did not think the dropping of a public option for insurance coverage from the bill would be enough for Democrats to win even the support of moderate Republican Senators Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins, both of Maine.

"I just think that our side believes that it is a really bad idea to take a program that is already sinking and put more people into it."

Here is how the Washington Post describes the "newest" idea that Reid is floating:

The 11th-hour "compromise" on health-care reform and the public option supposedly includes an expansion of Medicare to let people ages 55 to 64 buy into the program.

This deal, which the WaPo dates back to the Clinton Administration, seems designed to get something like a "public option" into the bill without calling it a public option. Republican opposition may be obstinate and petulant, or maybe not; however, it is hardly groundless. The WaPo points out that it is difficult to tell what effect this "buy in" would have on the reform scheme.

Presumably, the expanded Medicare program would pay Medicare rates to providers, raising the question of the spillover effects on a health-care system already stressed by a dramatic expansion of Medicaid. Will providers cut costs -- or will they shift them to private insurers, driving up premiums? Will they stop taking Medicare patients or go to Congress demanding higher rates? Once 55-year-olds are in, they are not likely to be kicked out, and the pressure will be on to expand the program to make more people eligible. The irony of this late-breaking Medicare proposal is that it could be a bigger step toward a single-payer system than the milquetoast public option plans rejected by Senate moderates as too disruptive of the private market.

As the perhaps obstinate and petulant, but hardly Republican WaPo presents it, there is no way to predict what unintended consequences may follow.

But Republican opposition is based on broader considerations. Expanding Medicare would be a step towards a single payer plan. But it was also mean expanding a program that is on schedule to go broke in only a few years. It also looks like more sleight of hand on the Democrat's part. They are already counting on dramatic cuts in Medicare to make other parts of the bill look more affordable. As the WaPo points out, Medicare reimbursement rates are already too low to sustain hospital and doctor care, which results in a shift of costs to private insurance. The medical establishment is vehemently criticizing the idea.

This looks like a big mess. Rumors that a deal has been reached appear to be greatly exaggerated. I am not even certain that there is a coherent idea here. Meanwhile the petulant and obstinate public continues to oppose the bill by wide margins. Quinnipiac and Rasmussen put the 52% opposed/38% in favor, and 51/41 respectively. Worse news for reform is the CNN poll, which has 61% opposed and only 36% in favor. That's the first time to my knowledge that opposition has risen above 60%. If it's on track, the CNN poll is disastrous news for Harry Reid.

In opposing the Senate reform bill, Senator Thune is not only exercising common sense. He is standing on behalf of the majority of the American people.

Posted by Ken Blanchard

New Compromise… Bet That Makes You Feel Better?!? – Video

Democrats: Medicare Expansion the Ultimate Public Option - Video

WASHINGTON - -- The unexpected new proposal for breaking the impasse over the so-called public option won President Barack Obama's endorsement Wednesday and sent hopes surging among a wide array of Democrats that the way may be clearing to pass their massive Senate health care bill by Christmas.
The deal, which emerged late Tuesday night after days of secret negotiations, would eliminate the new government-run insurance plan that many liberals had seen as the linchpin of meaningful reform.

But paradoxically, what lies at the heart of the compromise may be a more durable, if initially smaller, form of the public option: an expansion of Medicare, the huge federal health insurance program for seniors, to include millions of Americans ages 55 through 64.

And by enlarging Medicare eligibility, the compromise could sharply expand the base of political support, giving ordinary Americans a concrete stake in what many may have seen as a distant battle among drug companies, doctors and other interests.
Under the deal hammered out by 10 Democratic negotiators, potentially millions of Americans 55 to 64 could sign up for a program that has become a vital safety net for the country's retirees since it was created more than four decades ago.
That prospect has excited some proponents of creating a single-payer system, who saw even the weak government program in the original bill as a "camel's nose under the tent" in their drive to ensure that all Americans get a government-provided insurance plan.

"Expanding Medicare is an unvarnished, complete victory for people like me," said Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y. "It's the mother of all public options. We've taken something people know and expanded it. ... Never mind the camel's nose, we've got his head and neck under the tent."

Todd Swim, a partner with the health benefits consulting firm Mercer, said a Medicare expansion could also have profound effects on employers and their workers.

"Access to medical care is one of the biggest inhibitors to retiring early, and a lot of people are going to be looking at that as an option," he said.

Although Americans in this age group are more likely to have insurance than those in their 20s or 30s, they often have a very difficult time getting coverage because many have pre-existing medical conditions.

Next year, most Medicare beneficiaries will pay a monthly premium of $110.50.

"The price point will be much more affordable than any option they have," Swim said.

Chicago Tribune

**Everyone I have heard talk about this today has said that this new Medicare enlargement will absolutely bring us to a single payer system much much sooner than any of the other options in any of the other bills. They took out the "Public Option" wording and intend to roll over us and pass this regardless of what we want. The GOP has been standing up but the Dems are not listening to anything they say. We absolutely need to keep up the pressure and hammer the possible fence sitters letting them know that if they vote for this this are out, even if they are not up for election in 2010.

I heard Lieberman earlier today blabbering on about he didn't know what was in this new version/compromise. Who cares what is in it.... We don't want the whole thing and we know whatever is in it, it is full of lies and bad things. Lieberman needs to vote no and we really need to pressure him!!!!!!!!!!!

The Mayo Clinic has come out absolutely against this bill and the latest compromise!!!

20% of hospitals and convalescent homes announce that they will close their doors under the latest Medicare Compromise measure and many others will not take the coverage!!

HEALTH CARE SHOCKER: SPECIAL DEMOCRATIC VOTING COUNTIES WOULD GET PROTECTED MEDICARE BENEFITS - Video

A True Tale of Canadian (Socialized) Healthcare - Video

ALSO:

Gleeful Begala: Expanding Medicare is the 'Ultimate Public Option'
Medicare Sausage?
House Democrat: Senate Public Option 'Compromise' Is a Total Victory for Fans of ... Single-Payer

This could finally be the nail in the coffin of ObamaCare. 61% of the American people are absolutely against an form of ObamaCare; and another 20% are unhappy about the present reform. So the Dems in and Congress the White House are planning to ignore 81% of the American people and cram a bill that will increase costs, reduce services, invade your privacy, takeaway your choices and decision making, and in the opinion of more and more doctors reduce lifespans and increase early death due to rationing and the decrease of early detection.

Please call/Contact your senator!! Several additional Senators appear to be, at least waffling, and then there are the 17 initial Fence Sitters that Harry Reid and the White House are frantically trying to buy off and threaten to vote their way. Please stand up America~

17 Senators
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) 202-224-4843, Fax: (202) 228-1371
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) 202-224-5623
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) 202-224-2551
Sen. Michael Bennett (D-CO) 202-224-5852
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) 202-224-4041, Fax: (202) 224-9750
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) 202-224-5824
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) 202-224-6551, Fax: (202) 228-0012
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) 202-224-2043
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) 202-224-6154
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) 202-224-5274
Sen. John Tester (D-MT) 202-224-2644
Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK) 202-224-3004
Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) 202-224-2023
Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) 202-224-6324
Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) 202-224-4024

and Republican:

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME),((202)224-5344, Fax: (202) 224-1946

Info for all Senators (from your State) etc.

Full Contact Info Just Sent Me by the MOM’s patriot group out of Texas

Alaska
Begich, Mark - (D - AK)
144 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3004
F(202) 224-2354
Toll Free: (877) 501 - 6275*
Email
Begich Website
Arkansas
Lincoln, Blanche L. - (D - AR)
255 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2353
F(202) 228-1371
Email
Lincoln Website
Colorado
Bennet, Michael F. - (D - CO)
702 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5852
F(202) 228-5036
Email
Bennet Website
Connecticut
Lieberman, Joseph I. - (ID - CT)
706 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4041
F(202) 224-9750
Email
Lieberman Website
Florida
Nelson, Bill - (D - FL)
716 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5274
F(202)228-2183
Email
Nelson Website
Indiana
Bayh, Evan - (D - IN) Class III
131 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5623
F(202) 228-1377
Email
Bayh Website
Louisiana
Landrieu, Mary L. - (D - LA) Class II
328 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5824
F(202) 224-9735
Email
Landrieu Website
Maine
Snowe, Olympia J. - (R - ME) Class I
154 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5344
F(202) 224-1946
Toll Free: (800) 432-1599
Email
Snowe Website
Missouri
McCaskill, Claire - (D - MO) Class I
717 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6154
F(202) 228-6326
Email
McCaskill Website
Montana
Tester, Jon - (D - MT) Class I
724 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2644
F(202) 224-8594
Email
Tester Website
Nebraska
Nelson, Ben - (D - NE) Class I
720 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6551
F(202)228-0012
Email
Nelson Website
North Dakota
Conrad, Kent - (D - ND) Class I
530 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2043
F(202) 224-7776
Email
Conrad Website

Dorgan, Byron L. - (D - ND) Class III
322 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2551
F(202) 224-1193
Email
Dorgan Website
Pennsylvania
Casey, Robert P., Jr. - (D - PA) Class I
393 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6324
F(202) 228-0604
Toll Free: (866) 802-2833
Email
Casey Website
Virginia
Warner, Mark R. - (D - VA) Class II
459A RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2023
F(202)224-6295
Toll free: 877-676-2759 (VA Residents only)
Email
Warner Website
Webb, Jim - (D - VA) Class I
248 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4024
F(202)228-6363
Toll Free: 866-507-1570
Email
Webb Website

What Will the Year 2109 America Be Like for Babies Living to 100?

We Need A Strategy For An Aging Society

The Lancet asserts this morning that a baby born today into an affluent home can expect to live to 100.

That's obviously good news, in the sense of helping everyone enjoy the full blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

But at the same time, we had better be thinking harder about our plans for dealing with a geriatric population. Specifically, we can conclude that if people work for 40 years (say, age 25 to 65) and then live on retirement for 35 years (say, age 65 to 100) that'll be expensive. So we had better either a) increase economic growth, or b) delay the onset of work-incapacitation, so that seniors can stay in the workforce longer, past 65. Otherwise, we can be sure that others will have their own plan for dealing with oldsters.

POSTED BY JAMES P. PINKERTON AT 8:53 AM - The Lancet.com

1. An obvious solution is to incentivize older people to work longer by perhaps allowing them to collect partial benefits from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, as needed, allowing them to work part-time, contribute, and make some needed income without losing some benefits they need, on a case by case basis.

2. Another possibility is to delay the onset of work-incapacitation or retirement from 65 to 70, perhaps at first on a volunteer basis and then changing the official age if not enough seniors choose to stay in the work force voluntarily.

Both these options, however, are only possible in a good economy, otherwise you are taking jobs that could be done by people between the ages of 16 and 65, forcing them onto some type of aid or lowering their standard of living.

3. Another option is to cut “all” senior benefits from ‘the wealthy’, whatever that demarcation line is.

Part of what has brought us to this discussion, is not only the large number of retiring boomers and looking at people living longer in the future. Added to this situation is a combination of a decline in family values, including marriage and having children, and a shift to a “Me” philosophy, thereby reducing repopulating in a responsible way and decreasing the numbers in younger generations to help take care of the elderly. Plus the unrealistic social programs, and creation of a ‘Nanny State’ as well as waste in government that we have created the drain on the system of funds.

Plug in the ideals of American Progressivism, or socialism, being proliferated by the Obama Administration, which had emboldened the far left even more, and we are in big trouble!! Obama ran on a platform promising transparency; cutting spending including going through the government’s budget line by line and cutting waste; and hope and change (for the positive most Americans believed) for “all”, which included seniors. Instead, we have gotten the most secretive and underhanded administration in the history of the United States; an increase in debt and spending that is unprecedented with an additional agenda including a power grab and fundamental remaking of America, redistribution of wealth, and ultimate socialism; and a philosophy peppered with racism and elitism on many levels as well as policies against the elderly, special needs people and anyone who disagrees with Obama and the Obama philosophy and agenda.

Related Resources:

Are the elderly cost effective?

Doctor Shortage Will Worsen Health Bill Impact

Why Sarah Palin is right on the issue of “death panels”

ObamaCare a Death Panel in Itself

Alert! Swine Flu and Other Vaccine Have Immunocontraceptives secretly placed in them! - video

Go Granny Go!

Lieberman: “Without public option, health reform would pass” – Americans: “That will have to mean no co-op or “Trigger” that only means a public optio

Lieberman says major bipartisan reform is still possible. Let us make it does not include a “trigger”

U.S. Senator, Joseph Lieberman answers questions from the public over the internet during a live video interview session which was streamed over the Hearst Connecticut Media Group news sites. (Bob Luckey/Staff photographer)

STAMFORD -- U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman made it clear Wednesday that he would not vote for a health care bill that included a government-run option, but said that without it, he and most of Congress would support comprehensive health care reform.

Discussion on health care dominated an informal question-and-answer session with the fourth-term Connecticut senator, who spoke to the editors of The Advocate and Connecticut Post and answered e-mailed questions from readers.

If the public option "is off the table, we have the opportunity to achieve significant reform with bipartisan support," Lieberman said during the nearly two-hour meeting Wednesday afternoon.

The Stamford native touched on his concerns that in the current recession the country could not afford a complete health care overhaul.

"We're trying to do a lot at once," he said. "We're trying to bend down the increasing cost curve of health care, and at the same time, turn and say to people ... it will cost a trillion or a trillion-and-a-half over the next 10 years."

He said the people know who will foot the bill.

Still, comprehensive reform -- "big steps, not baby steps" -- is possible, Lieberman said, predicting that Congress will compromise and adopt 75 percent of what is in the bill.

Reform should also include malpractice reform and health exchanges, which would offer different plans for varying costs and coverage for individuals or small businesses, he said.

Lieberman added that he supports mandating that no one can be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions and that everyone be required to have health insurance.

As to how 47 million uninsured will afford coverage, Lieberman said only 12 million don't have insurance because they cannot afford it.

By allowing citizens who are not eligible for Medicare or Medicaid to buy in for a rate below the private market, the government can extend coverage to more of those who are currently uninsured, he said.

To arrive at his position, Lieberman said he reached out to "every conceivable group" in the state, including residents, providers, doctors and hospitals.

"People in Connecticut want to see health care reform," he said, "but (they) have growing apprehension that the proposed reform would leave them with less coverage than they have today."

The Democratic-turned-independent senator said he knows his opposition to the government-run option will probably foil the Democrats' efforts to pass the bill.

"There will be no shot at 60 votes, because I'm not the only one," he said.

But he added: "If we start this out and three years from now a case can be made that the private market is not working effectively, I would support the public option."

Staff Writer Devon Lash can be reached at 964-2242 or devon.lash@scni.com – Connecticut Post

Posted: Daily Thought Pad – Cross-Posted: Knowledge Creates Power

No Public Option

No Co-Op – Another Name for Public Option

No Trigger – Will Lead to Public Option

No – Duty To Die Lectures or Death Panels

No Centralized Database

Outcry Over Vets' 'End of Life Care

The guide, called 'Your Life, Your Choices,' was suspended under the Bush administration but has been revived under the current Department of Veterans Affairs.

Sen. Arlen Specter on Sunday called for hearings to scrutinize a guide for veterans' end-of-life care which one former Bush official says sends a "hurry-up-and-die" message to injured troops.

The guide, called "Your Life, Your Choices," was suspended under the Bush administration but has been revived under the current Department of Veterans Affairs.

Jim Towey, former director of the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, told "FOX News Sunday" that the document makes injured veterans feel like a burden, encourages the severely injured to die and should be tossed out.

Asked about the document, Specter, a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, said it raises "a lot of questions" and that he would call for hearings immediately.

"I think consideration ought to be given right now to suspending it pending hearings," Specter, D-Pa., told "FOX News Sunday."

Towey first wrote about the revival of the manual last week in The Wall Street Journal.

"This is a slippery slope," he said Sunday. "When you look at the book it makes people feel like they're a burden and they should do the decent thing and die. ... When a veteran comes back from Iraq, they shouldn't be given a book like this."

Towey called the guide "fundamentally flawed" and said it should be pulled from the Web site.

But Tammy Duckworth, an injured veteran who is the assistant secretary for the Department of Veterans Affairs, said the manual is still under revision -- as stated in a disclaimer on the official Web site -- and has not officially been "reinstated."

She said it was one of many options for injured veterans, calling it "simply a tool."

"This ultimately is about the ... health care for veterans," Duckworth said.

Though Duckworth said the document has not been fully vetted, an official directive from July tells VA health practitioners to refer veterans to the document. Duckworth questioned whether that directive had been authorized at the highest levels.

Towey said the questions posed by the guide embed the suggestion that veterans who are suffering may want to choose death.

One section titled, "What Makes Your Life Worth Living?," offers a checklist of scenarios -- the person filling out the form is asked to rate whether life would be worth living under each of them.

"I am a severe financial burden on my family," says one of them. "My situation causes severe emotional burden for my family," says another.

Click here to read the "Your Life, Your Choices" guide.

Posted: Daily Thought Pad

Related Posts:

• Marine vs. Politician: Marine Wins - Video