(And I also posted
here; I'm sure it will generate more wingnut umbrage, but oh well.)
Bucks County Courier Times propagandist J.D. Mullane has been spewing it fast and furiously for the last few days on the health care legislation in the House (I’ll try to wade through all this).
On Tuesday, he told us the following (
here)…
Could it be the government would limit medical treatment for the old and sick as a means to control health care costs?
Seems that way to me, after reading the thousand-page health care bill under review by the U.S. House of Representatives.
Seems that way to the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, too, an organization formed in 1943 to oppose government-run health care.
Actually, the AAPS is a lot more than that; as noted
here, the…
…AAPS is generally recognized as politically conservative,[4][5][6] though it describes itself as "non-partisan".[7] The organization opposes mandatory vaccination,[8] universal health care[9] and government intervention in healthcare.[10] The AAPS has characterized the effects of the Social Security Act of 1965, which established Medicare and Medicaid, as "evil" and "immoral",[11] and encouraged member physicians to refuse to accept or participate in Medicare and Medicaid.[12][13]
Somehow I don’t think “conservative” and “oppos(ing) government-run health care” really describe how reactionary and backward this group truly is.
(One more thing – here is a
link to the bill Mullane is referring to.)
Continuing…
An agitated octogenarian (upset over Mullane’s baseless accusation that the health care legislation ultimately would withhold treatment to contain costs) called Monday to say I'm "spouting nonsense."
"How would you know what they mean? Are you an expert on the thing?" he asked.
Not an "expert," I assured, but I did pay particular attention to section 1233 of the bill, which I call the "Angel of Death" clause.
I’ll get back to that a bit later, but continuing with Mullane for now…
The octogenarian, however, admitted he hadn't read the bill, but said he doesn't have to because he reads The New York Times, among other fine newspapers, to get his information.
For the octogenarian, Medicare (which he reminded me at least three times is "socialized medicine") works fine for him. He insisted it will work for the rest of the country.
We veered on a tangent, and I asked why should I - as the father of three little kids and with lots of bills to pay - have to pay for his medical care? During his working years, I asked, why didn't he anticipate what he would need in retirement and set it aside?
"You just can't work. You have to live," he said.
So do I. But I digress.
In his typically insipid way, Mullane is extolling the supposed virtues of health care retirement accounts, sponsored by Dubya of course;
this tells us the following, just to refresh our memories…
The idea behind health savings accounts is that Americans have too much insurance. You read that right. Those who came up with the idea believe Americans are overinsured, something that very few working families would likely agree with.
Despite the rhetoric, HSAs will do nothing to control skyrocketing health care costs or reduce the number of uninsured. In fact, they will just make matters worse for those who have health coverage.
By shifting the costs to workers, HSAs provide cover to employers to reduce or even eliminate health benefits. It will undermine employer-based health plans, where two-thirds of Americans get their coverage.
HSAs will drive the wealthy and healthy away from health care insurance, driving up the costs for those who need insurance the most. Seniors and those who need health care coverage will see their premiums skyrocket.
HSAs are brought to you by the same people who brought you the Medicare prescription drug disaster, and it will have the same consequences. It's a boon to the profit-driven drug companies and insurance industry. It's complicated, fragmented and costly.
So what of Mullane
today (
here)? Well, in the guise of addressing reader comments, he pretty much rehashes much of Tuesday’s column and, for good measure, tells us that the House health care bill (with Obama’s blessing, as J.D. sees it) is just another step closer to the type of health care practiced in Oregon (with a particularly astute commenter noting that the state’s “Right To Die With Dignity Act” was approved by a popular referendum.)
Also, on the matter of Section 1233, a friend of mine (who shall remain nameless) recently communicated the following to Mullane directly; I’ll let you know if he receives an answer…
I know people are "pulling the plug" daily in hospitals all over the country for one medical reason or other. I myself, as a sufferer of Severe Emphysema, will face this situation as I will eventually end up in a hospital on a ventilator. My family already knows not to sustain my life that way as I have already expressed my wishes, something I fear many people, ill or not, don't do but probably should. I read the section you refer to as an attempt to get information from physicians to patients regarding end of life situations, perhaps a living will in the event they find themselves in a situation similar to mine.
I read that section twice and haven't found why you refer to it as the "Angel of Death clause.", can you enlighten me?
You also take to task the octogenarian by writing; "..I asked why should I---as the father of three little kids with lots of bills to pay---have to pay for his medical care?"
I ask you; who pays for those who don't have insurance, using, instead of a primary care physician for the flu at the cost of perhaps $140.00, go to emergency rooms as the untreated flu develops into pneumonia requiring an 8 day hospitalization at a cost of perhaps $15,000? You're already paying for people without insurance through higher insurance premiums and deductibles for you and your employer. Remember the infamous $15.00 aspirin a hospital patient received?
As noted above, Mullane claims that he has read the entire bill, which totals 1,018 pages. Though I doubt it, I have no evidence to indicate that Mullane is lying, so I must take him at his word (though of course he cannot prove conclusively that the plan seeks to prevent the elderly from receiving treatment for cost reasons – and as we know, that would
never happen in our wonderful, private, for-profit health care system, as noted above).
However, I find it a strange coincidence, to say the least, that Mullane devotes his columns only to Section 1233, which, as noted
here, has been the subject of partisan mythology also by Ceci Connolly of the Washington Post and former New York Lieutenant Governor Betsy McCaughey
here, about which the site PoliFact.com stated the following…
For our ruling on this one, there's really no gray area here. McCaughey incorrectly states that the bill would require Medicare patients to have these counseling sessions and she is suggesting that the government is somehow trying to interfere with a very personal decision. And her claim that the sessions would "tell [seniors] how to end their life sooner" is an outright distortion. Rather, the sessions are an option for elderly patients who want to learn more about living wills, health care proxies and other forms of end-of-life planning. McCaughey isn't just wrong, she's spreading a ridiculous falsehood.
(And by the way, here is a Balloon Juice
post exploding other conservative lies on this subject, such as Medicare and Medicaid’s costs supposedly outpacing those of private insurance – they’re not – and Obama’s supposed pursuit of a British-modeled, “single-payer” system – unfortunately, this isn’t true either.)
Finally, I know personally of an individual whose name I also won’t mention whose son lost his job, didn’t meet the qualifications for COBRA (which, even if you qualify, is still vastly more expensive than employer-paid insurance), but was turned down for insurance on his own because of a pre-existing condition. Take a guess as to what the condition was:
Acid reflux.To me, if that isn’t an excuse for a genuinely robust public option, than I don’t know what is.
One more thing…in the past, I’ve said that both Senators Bob Casey and Arlen Specter support a public option, which, as I’ve subsequently found out, isn’t really true. What they support are the much-weaker “co-ops” that cannot compete effectively.
While Casey will not pay any penalty for that I realize, I hope at least that, somewhere out there, Joe Sestak is taking careful notes.
Update 1: I'm sure Mullane will spin
this as more "big government" intrusion, though it sounds pretty good to me (h/t Atrios).
Update 2: Despite the
relentlessly negative corporate media drum beat on this story, we can take some solace from
these numbers.Update 3 7/31/09: Just when I felt "up," Nate Silver brings me back down again
here (food for thought, though - sigh).
