Candor From Eric Cantor – Government Healthcare Rationing Bad, But OK if Private Sector Does It

Back Door Euthanasia, class warfare, Eric Cantor, health care reform, healthcare rationing, Our News & Commentary Blog, reality check

I’ve long suspected that many – maybe most – of the Congressional conservatives posturing about “Obamacare” and decrying hypothetical healthcare rationing don’t really object to “rationing” at all – they just object to the government setting standards and limits that apply to everyone.  As most of the people I deal with on a daily basis are well aware, private health insurance already rations healthcare, and the cheaper your plan is, the more your healthcare is rationed.

For the most part, conservatives have been careful to avoid saying that they’re OK with “free market” rationing – rationing that is determined by how much you’re able to pay for private insurance.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor – in a rare (for almost any politician) honest moment, made his true feelings on “rationing” very clear, as first reported on The Hill:

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Tuesday that private healthcare plans ration care for profit but that consumers should be free to buy whatever coverage they can afford rather than depend on government rationing.

In remarks to the College of American Pathologists, Cantor warned that Democrats’ healthcare reform law mandates benefits that are too generous and will bankrupt the country as the government ends up having to offer ever increasing subsidies. That can only lead to government rationing, he said.

“That doesn’t mean those kinds of decisions aren’t being made now by the private sector,” Cantor added, “because they are.”

Even that last statement by Cantor is generally more than conservatives are willing to admit.  In and of itself, the statement wouldn’t be that important.  IMO, it’s what he said next that we should all take note of – and make sure that this gets included in any discussion of  healthcare rationing:

Cantor appeared to go further than Republicans have in the past by acknowledging that not all patients are certain to get optimal healthcare under a system of private insurance.

“I think that the fundamental nature of our system of third-party payer is the problem,” he said. Patients, he added, too often are left with “no decision about what they want and what they can afford.”

Later, Cantor said Republicans want a safety net for people who can’t afford care but that “we’re not for everyone having the same outcome guaranteed.” (Emphasis added.)

Let’s put that last bit into plain English.  What Cantor is saying here is that he and his colleagues are for people having different “outcomes” regarding their access to healthcare, with affluent people having good outcomes and middle class and below having pretty crappy ones.

In other words, if you’ve been thinking that the Republican proposals on healthcare are going to result in much poorer access to healthcare, Eric Cantor just told you that you are not paranoid at all.

This will hit the population of people with disabilities especially hard.  We tend to need more from the healthcare system and earn a lot less than the general population.  Here’s an excerpt from a report on Poverty in the United States for 2009, prepared for “members and committees of Congress”:

In 2009, persons who had a work disability  represented 10.6% of the 16-64 year old population, and 23.5% of the poor population within this age range. Among those with a severe work disability, 33.5% were poor, compared to 15.2% of those with a less severe disability and 11.2% who reported having no work-related disability.

This, of course, underestimates the financial hardships faced by people with disabilities, who often have significant expenses related to our disabilities that aren’t covered by any insurance or government program.

But I expect that people can get the idea here.  Those with significant disabilities and health conditions have lower incomes and won’t be able to afford insurance that provides a great deal of healthcare.  Affluent people, like Eric Cantor (whose assets are in the millions), will be able to get the “cadillac plans.”

In real terms, that means that people of modest means or less won’t be able to afford treatment for cancer, or surgery for heart conditions or any of a myriad of other health issues that can give us many added and enjoyable years.  Those will only be for the Eric Cantors who can afford the best insurance and associated deductibles.

On the bright side (sarcasm alert), it should put an end to “futile care” disputes.  Very few people will have insurance that would cover the type of intensive treatment usually at the center of those disputes.  My guess is that medical professionals and facilities will swallow their principles and tolerate those few affluent folks who insist on “futile” care.

I know that Republicans and conservatives hate the term, but this sounds an awful lot like “class warfare” to me.  But I guess it would be rude of me to call it that, wouldn’t it?  –Stephen Drake

ADAPT in DC This Week

activism, ADAPT, Back Door Euthanasia, disability rights, Our News & Commentary Blog, policy, protests

This week, ADAPT, the national grassroots disability rights group, has been in Washington, DC.  Some 500 members of ADAPT – most of whom have significant disabilities – are there to let Congress know that this group of stakeholders knows exactly what’s at stake with current budget proposals, especially the cynical and draconian budget proposal being pushed by Paul Ryan.

So why are we writing about it here?

First and foremost, NDY is a disability rights group – and without ADAPT’s example and longstanding leadership on disability rights issues, NDY might not exist at all.  Second, NDY’s concerns aren’t limited to opposing legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia.  We oppose any policies or practices that threaten the lives of people with disabilities.  And make no mistake – the proposed cuts to Medicaid and Medicare – under the laughable guise of “shared sacrifice” represents a big threat to the lives and welfare of people with disabilities of all ages.

I guess the idea of cutting off people’s supports for employment and living at home are more palatable than hypothetical “death panels” for some people.  The idea that people can be forced to be warehoused and quietly die in institutions as those supports are withdrawn can make the body count harder to ignore.

Enough from me, though.  Here’s some info on what ADAPT has been doing this week, including today:

Press Releases:

Press Coverage:

Remember – early deaths through withdrawal of life-sustaining supports and healthcare is every bit as much a government-sponsored “backdoor euthanasia” plan as any rationing plan you could come up with.  It’s also 100% predictable that, faced with being forced to living in institutions or living without support or treatment in the community, there will be a big increase in people with disabilities of all ages asking for euthanasia or assisted suicide as a more “humane” option.  People who want to yank supports from the old, ill, poor and disabled will bear responsibility for that when it starts to happen.  –Stephen Drake

UK: Pro-Euthanasia Group To Set Up Suicide Assistance “Help Line”

assisted suicide, media coverage, Our News & Commentary Blog, reality check, United Kingdom

Just a few years ago, this story could have appeared (with a few tweaks) as a satire in The Onion, or as a skit on Saturday Night Live – or the many British comedy shows that exist.

But no, a British pro-euthanasia group has created a partner organization — which will challenge satire writers, since the truth here already reads like yesterday’s parody.  From The Daily Mail, here is a sample of Outrage as ‘how-to-die helpline’ is launched by euthanasia charity:

A right-to-die pressure group provoked outrage yesterday over plans to sponsor the UK’s first helpline aimed at speeding the terminally ill towards ‘a good death’.

The free phone line, to be set up by a  charity called Compassion in Dying, will ‘promote greater patient choice and control where possible’.

The charity is an offshoot of euthanasia campaign Dignity in Dying and is led by the right-to-die group’s chief executive Sarah Wootton, a former sex equality and abortion campaigner.

Its plan to provide the desperately sick with advice on how to end their lives sparked protests from anti-euthanasia activists, who said the helpline would be used to shorten lives.

The charity says it exists to exploit ‘existing end-of-life rights’ and will pass on information to callers.

However, it comes against a background of growing tolerance of assisted suicide by prosecution authorities, increasing political pressure for the legalisation of assisted dying, and a rising toll of Britons travelling to the Dignitas suicide clinic in Switzerland to end their lives.

It’s doubtful there’s any real journalistic energy going into this story.  What would real journalism look like in covering this?  Here’s a list (not exhaustive) of questions I’d be looking for – directed at Sarah Wootton and others connected to the pro-euthanasia groups:

  • What specific types of “advice” will be offered? Will it include instructions on recommended ways to kill yourself?
  • Will callers be directed to euthanasia activists who will “help” them commit suicide?
  • How will this “helpline” verify that the callers are really terminally ill?  How will they sort them out from non-terminally ill people who want to kill themselves?
  • How will they screen for callers who misrepresent themselves so they can get information on “suicide” when their intent is to murder an elderly or disabled relative and pass it off as a suicide?

I won’t hold my breath waiting for this kind of inquiry.  I see no evidence that the British press is any more competent at covering this issue than the American press.  –Stephen Drake

Barney Frank Demagogues “End of Life” Policy in Budget Discussion on MSNBC.

"end of life", Barney Frank, budget reduction, demagoguery, media coverage, Our News & Commentary Blog

I’m probably being more self-disclosing than I would like to here, but it was no accident that we caught this bit of demagoguery by Rep. Barney Frank on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”.  The show usually has a good line-up of guests, representing a wide spectrum of political ideologies – and discussion occurs – mostly – with little shouting or talking over each other.  Below is an excerpt from Rep. Barney Frank’s appearance on the show today, in which he discussed the possible combination of spending cuts and revenue increases (taxes) that could possibly be worked out between the parties.  As you’ll see, Rep. Frank goes off the rails when he talks about “end of life” issues.

Anyone who wants to see or read the full exchange can go to this link.  The original video has options for both a synced transcript and closed captioning.

In this, Frank makes the outrageous claim that we can save a ton of money by stopping something that isn’t actually happening — medical professional “forcing” medical care to people at the “end of life” who just want to be left alone and die peacefully.

This is demagoguery because the right to refuse treatment – especially in the case of people in the final stages of a terminal illness – is a settled matter.  It is illegal for a hospital to “force” life-saving or life-extending treatment that you don’t want.  I give Barney Frank credit for being a pretty intelligent politician and policy wonk – in this case it was the grandstanding politician rather than the policy wonk who was talking.

In short, he offered up a nonexistent “problem” we could “fix” to save money.  It probably hit the right emotional notes with people.  The thing is, there will be same pretty intelligent Republicans he’ll have to deal with when negotiating – they won’t buy this any more than Frank will be inclined to believe some of the more outrageous stuff coming out of that camp.

Surprise! Compassion & Choices Weighs in on Arizona Final Exit Network Trial Outcome

Arizona, assisted suicide, barbara coombs lee, Compassion & Choices, Conflation and Con jobs, exploitation, final exit network, Our News & Commentary Blog, reality check

Not exactly a big surprise, but Compassion and Choices (aka “Conflation & Con Jobs“) has weighed in on the disappointing outcome of the trial of Final Exit Network (FEN) members in Arizona. 

I am cynical enough to believe that reporters who use this press release from the organization are too shallow, lazy or generally lacking in critical thinking skills to realize the text doesn’t really say anything of substance except to promote the organization and its primary agenda – legalization of phyisician assisted suicide.

Excerpt from the press release:

“This case demonstrates the problem with vague ‘assisted suicide’ statutes such as Arizona’s,” said Barbara Coombs Lee, president of Compassion & Choices. “Terminally ill patients across the nation ask their physicians for aid in dying. Many doctors, in an uncertain legal environment, rebuff such questions and fail to discuss their patients’ concerns about pain and suffering. When patients cannot talk openly with their doctors they may seek assistance from others. Sympathetic family members or friends are usually unequipped to assess a patient’s competence or end-of-life options. No one should have to risk prosecution to help a dying patient end life peacefully.”

Media accounts suggest Van Voorhis was not terminally ill and may have suffered from mental illness impairing her judgment. The trial judge did not allow prosecutors to present evidence of her psychological state. “In today’s legal framework, judges and juries do not distinguish between the choice of a mentally competent, terminally ill patient for a peaceful death via selfadministered medication, and the act of a distraught individual who is not dying, who may be mentally ill and suicidal,” said Coombs Lee. “The
former is a practice known as aid in dying, which has strong and growing support among the public and medical professionals. The latter is suicide. Our nation’s laws should recognize the difference.”

What’s most important is what Coombs Lee is not saying:

  • She is not saying that FEN members “assisting” the suicides of nonterminally ill people in Oregon or Washington state should be vigorously prosecuted — even though FEN has made it clear that they do operate in those states to “help” those the law doesn’t cover;
  • She may be silent regarding prosecution because, while she maintains a highly debatable distinction between “aid in dying” and “assisted suicide,” she hasn’t really said that assisted suicide is wrong – or something that should be prosecuted;
  • She hasn’t said that the FEN members have done anything wrong – and as near as I can figure it’s the fault of a “vaguely” constructed law that none of us can know if the actions of FEN members were wrong.

Oops.  I guess I was mistaken.  Coombs Lee did say something of importance – her words invite us to believe that it is the law, rather than the actions of FEN members, that was responsible for Jana Van Voorhis’s death.

I wonder what she’ll say if FEN activities in Oregon or Washington state come to light.  Whose fault will the deaths the group facilitates be then?  –Stephen Drake