Truth - noun: the Democrat narrative

On August 28, 2009 NPR's Julie Rovner reported on a new angle for the health care debate - In Health Care Debate, Fear Trumps Logic. In yet another "you won't notice how partisan I am" moment Rovner's piece asserts the only reason to oppose the current health care reform legislation currently before Congress is because conservative groups are scaring you with lies. Part of the problem here is the vast majority of "fears" about this latest rendition of health care reform are well founded, even if she wouldn't admit it, something Rovner would know if she would take the time to actually read the bills.

If you listen to the mp3 file you'll notice Rovner mentions nothing what ever as to the contents of the bill, but she does blindly mention objections to the legislation have been widely "debunked." And what loyal reporter to the Democratic Party wouldn't mention the name of the current favorite scapegoat? Like the typical Obama supporting journalist Rovner is sure to mention Sarah Palin's "death panels" argument, as if it were merely rhetoric. Admittedly, the term "death panels" is inflammatory, but so are accusations that anyone who opposes the currently health care "reform" initiative is racist, stupid, un-American or what have you. We don't see NPR or any other main stream media outlet condemning that rhetoric, do we?

The American Thinker reports on a real life example of precisely what Sarah Palin was warning about. In Ethel Fenig's August 11 article 'Death Panels' in Oregon Fenig begins with this:

Perhaps former Governor Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) was referring to the tragic predicament of Barbara Wagner of Oregon when she wrote how she feared for the fate of her Down Syndrome son under "Obama's 'Death Panels.' "

Susan Donaldson James of ABC News reports on the letter Ms. Wagner received from the Oregon Health Plan in response to a $4000 a month drug her doctor prescribed after her lung cancer, long in remission, returned..

the insurance company refused to pay.

What the Oregon Health Plan did agree to cover, however, were drugs for a physician-assisted death. Those drugs would cost about $50.

Hmmmm, let's do the math. Yep, a one time prescription of $50 sure is cheaper than $4000 a month for who knows how many months to keep a 64 year old woman alive. So the Oregon "Death Panel" graciously offered suicide pills. Or doctor assisted murder.

Why shouldn't the American people interpret this situation as the reality of government death panels? And what is the anti-health care rhetoric that has been debunked? Is it that the death panels were not really in any Congressional bill? Well, no. What has been debunked in the notion that the term "death panels" appears in the language of any of the proposed bills. The provision that gave rise to the death panels label actually was part of the legislation, and the Senate made it known they eliminated such provision after Palin's label spread across the country. On August 14 the L.A. Times reported on the fact that this provision did in fact exist in the bill:

Senate committee scraps healthcare provision that gave rise to 'death panel' claims

In their L.A. Times piece, Christi Parsons and Andrew Zajac also try to persuade the reader that death panel claims are "widely discredited." But then there is this admission:

Recently, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin speculated that Obama and other Democrats wanted to set up "death panels" to decide who gets medical services and who does not.

In reality, the provision was designed to allow Medicare to pay doctors who counsel patients about planning for end-of-life decisions. The consultations would be voluntary and would provide information about living wills, healthcare proxies, pain medication and hospice.

Did you catch that? "Doctors who counsel patients about planning for end-of-life decisions" will get payed to do this. President Obama recently asserted paying doctors to perform a specific task counted as incentive to do more of it when he said My plan might stop doctors from cutting off your foot. So why pay doctors to counsel patients on planning for end-of-life decisions if paying them to cut off your foot is such a bad idea? If a doctor is willing to needlessly cut off your foot why wouldn't they needlessly encourage you to consider doctor assisted suicide?

The Washington Post's Charles Lane noticed this problem as well. In his August 8th piece Undue Influence Lane says:

Section 1233, however, addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones. Supporters protest that they're just trying to facilitate choice -- even if patients opt for expensive life-prolonging care. I think they protest too much: If it's all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what's it doing in a measure to "bend the curve" on health-care costs?

Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren't quite "purely voluntary," as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, "purely voluntary" means "not unless the patient requests one." Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive -- money -- to do so. Indeed, that's an incentive to insist.

Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they're in the meeting, the bill does permit "formulation" of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would "place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign," I don't think he's being realistic.

Opponents of this so-called reform use warnings, many time emotionally charged warnings. But why do so many in the main stream news media act as if these opponents never used reason and logic? "The opponents" of health care reform are not some monolithic organization as Rovner's story and selected sound bites suggest. As Barbara Wagner's story shows us such a thing is already happening. But her's is not the only example.

On August 18th the Wall Street Journal published The Death Book for Veterans by Jim Towey. You tell me if this sounds like death panels:

If President Obama wants to better understand why America's discomfort with end-of-life discussions threatens to derail his health-care reform, he might begin with his own Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). He will quickly discover how government bureaucrats are greasing the slippery slope that can start with cost containment but quickly become a systematic denial of care.

Last year, bureaucrats at the VA's National Center for Ethics in Health Care advocated a 52-page end-of-life planning document, "Your Life, Your Choices." It was first published in 1997 and later promoted as the VA's preferred living will throughout its vast network of hospitals and nursing homes. After the Bush White House took a look at how this document was treating complex health and moral issues, the VA suspended its use. Unfortunately, under President Obama, the VA has now resuscitated "Your Life, Your Choices."

Who is the primary author of this workbook? Dr. Robert Pearlman, chief of ethics evaluation for the center, a man who in 1996 advocated for physician-assisted suicide in Vacco v. Quill before the U.S. Supreme Court and is known for his support of health-care rationing.

"Your Life, Your Choices" presents end-of-life choices in a way aimed at steering users toward predetermined conclusions, much like a political "push poll." For example, a worksheet on page 21 lists various scenarios and asks users to then decide whether their own life would be "not worth living."

The idea of death panels applies both to a bureaucratic panel deciding who does and does not get the resources needed for adequate health care to continue living and it applies to government coercion into "helping" people choose to end their lives.

Getting back to Rovner's NPR story, "Fear is crowding out the truth, and the truth ought to count for something" says Jonathan Oberlander. The truth is that despite inflammatory rhetoric by many, opponents to the current health care reform initiative have good reason to worry about it. That's why Rovner and so many others in the main stream news media treat the Democrat narrative as the truth. Therefore any disagreement with the left wing narrative equals some nefarious and manufactured excuse to prevent change. Had Rovner been interested in impartial journalism she would recognize the fact that the vast majority of Americans all agree something needs to change regarding the current health care system. But government intrusion is often considered just as bad as the current health care situation. We don't want another instance of "the cure is worse than the disease."

The rationing of health care in a government run system is inevitable. Just this week we learned the government, under the administration of President Barack Obama, will cut Social Security payments.Why would they do that if there is plenty of money in the Social Security system? And what is the biggest problem in public education? It's a lack of funding, of course. Resources in both S.S. and in public education have to be rationed. Why wouldn't rationing occur in a government run health care system? But saying this out loud is just a scare tactic, right? Even NPR has uncovered another example of this rationing problem. Remember that government mandated health insurance scheme in Massachusetts?: Mass. Health Care Reform Reveals Doctor Shortage.

Democrats are pros at using scare tactics. Scaring senior citizens has only recently become distasteful, because the fear leads seniors to oppose a Democrat agenda. But when Democrats scare seniors into thinking Republicans might take away their medicare or their Social Security, as was frequently done in past national elections, well let's just say we don't see many news stories about distasteful scare tactics in those instances. And what about the biggest scare mongering charade on the political scene, global warming? How can anyone support the scare tactics used to justify the green movement but pontificate about the supposedly "cheap tactic" of legitimate warnings to Americans about government taking over health care?

The main stream news media is in the tank for Democrats. The Democrat narrative is treated as the truth. Critics of the Democrat narrative are accused of racism, being uncaring, cruel, un-American, and more - and I'm talking journalists publicly making or supporting such accusations. What we are NOT told by the news media about the health care bills in Congress can hurt us. It is clear so many in the media support this health care initiative - accompanied by the assertion there are no concerns with the legislation. There are legitimate concerns, and they won't be given a chance in a left-leaning news media.

Please write your Senators and Representatives and tell them to vote against the current health care legislation. If they vote for it, you'll know not to vote for them during the next election cycle.