Grassley Clarifies 'Death Panel' Position

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has attempted to clarify his comments on end-of-life care meaning the government could "pull the plug on grandma." He says he never used the phrase "death panel," but that there is the "possibility of unintended consequences" from the health care bill.

His full statement:

"I've said for a long time and repeated last week that we all ought to consider how we want to be treated if we are struck by an incapacitating illness, and that advanced care planning is a good thing to do. As far as legislation goes, it's not the case that provisions in the Pelosi health care reform bill this year are just like provisions Congress passed in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. I've never called the Pelosi provisions a 'death panel.' The issue is whether end-of-life provisions should be part of legislation that's about controlling health care spending, and which also creates a government-run health care program, as the Pelosi bill does. Doing so escalates concerns about the rationing of health care, since government-run plans in other countries ration to control spending. Putting end-of-life consultations alongside cost containment and government-run health care causes legitimate concern. This context and the details of this year's proposal are different than the 2003 legislation, which covers advice from specialized physicians outside of any larger effort to control spending on health care. It's not fair to Americans who are asking questions to gloss over those facts and, in fact, end-of-life provisions haven't been part of ongoing Senate Finance Committee discussions as a result of those realities and the possibility of unintended consequences. On this subject and others, it's important that the debate is fair-minded and based on an accurate representation of the issues involved."

But Greg Sargent points out that Grassley's spokesperson walked back the whole claim in a comment to the Washington Post.

Grassley says he opposes that counseling as written in the House version of the bill, but a spokesman said the senator does not think the House provision would in fact give the government such authority in deciding when and how people die. The House bill allows patients to decide for themselves if they would like such counseling.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[Nancy84]

05:43 PM on 08/17/2009

I refuse to engage Silence.....1776 anymore until he/she steps up and answers some of our legitimate questions.

[Wingit]

02:44 AM on 08/18/2009

Treat it as a robo-call. They give you their pitch and that's all you get.

If they are old enough, these are the same people who were against Lend Lease in the days before WWII. These are the same people who were against the Marshall Plan after WWII. These are the same people who were against Medicare. Thank goodness the majority of Americans, can understand the need for programs like this despite these people calling them "socialistic".

[citizensrus]

05:27 PM on 08/17/2009

Today a death panel denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions. Today somebody died because the insurance company denied care. Today someone died because they did not have health insurance. This happens everyday in America. These are the death panels, the reality of today's health care.
Health Care is a human right.

[nana4g]

08:50 PM on 08/17/2009

Simply correct.

[biabouman41]

03:20 PM on 08/17/2009

Brown suit Grassley wants "accurate representation of the issues" but he is angling his comments still to imply that provisions in the "Pelosi" health care reform bill has the possibility of being a "death panel'.
Grassley cannot be trusted, his intention is to deep-six health care reform, or at minimum to water it down so much that it would be unrecognisable as any kind of reform. Side line him or suffer the consequences.

[peener]

02:40 PM on 08/17/2009

if ppl get sick, and cant afford care, or are rejected care because of their "status" (pre-exisiting condition), theres a possibility they could die.

how can republicans/conservatives be anti abortionists, but not want ppl to have proper health care, and the right to life?

[SilenceDoGood1776]

02:30 PM on 08/17/2009

Pwm
So you want socialism?

[schemola]

04:55 PM on 08/17/2009

So you dont want social security or medicare? Willing to do without?

[Nancy84]

05:32 PM on 08/17/2009

I've been asking him that all day. I guess he doesn't have an answer......typical ultra-conservative tactics....... ignore anything from the other side that might make sense.

[rick390]

10:41 PM on 08/18/2009

Don't strain yourself with an intellectual argument, just label something with no facts or evidence and then sit back satisfied that you have contributed to the debate. Newsflash: you haven't.

[Genep34]

02:24 PM on 08/17/2009

Conrad, Baucus, and Grassley - 3 o fthe 6 on the senate finance committee that draws up health care reform bill.

Those 3 states have the combined population of less than NYC and other cities in this country - yet they set the tone for the entire country on health

care reform.

Harry Reid did this and should fix it. But he won't. The dems are self destructing because they have no balls. They are constantly on defense.

They should tell the American people that the GOP wants to kill this and next they are going to go after Medicare and Social Security. All so they can

take the money and give it back in tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations and to wage war on Muslims.

[chancho24]

02:17 PM on 08/17/2009

No, one is saying anything about handing out freebies for nothing, but rather fair and just opportunities for things like health care without getting exploited by Big Pharma and the Insurance companies.
Big Pharma and Insurance is piling such obscene profits out of the backs of people who find themselves with such huge debts, that some of them have to declare bankruptcy.
And with an ordinary salary, these debts can last for years. People deserve better than this.
Other countries have a reasonable health care system, why can't the mighty USA with so much money, the so called beacon of hope do the same?

[MThomasNC]

02:16 PM on 08/17/2009

These are the same dicks that whined and moaned about no tax cuts in the 'stimulus package' until the plan contained 33% tax cuts, same ones complained that there was money in the plan to refurblished the National Mall until the dems took that out, too - along w other whining and complaining until a lot of the things they disagreed with were taken out. Still they didn't vote for the 'stimulus plan'. The same thing is happening w the HCR. The dems will let the repubs water down the HCR bill to their likening but won't vote for it. Mark my words.. The repubs are liar, liar pants on fire.

[chancho24]

01:53 PM on 08/17/2009

General welfare of he United States? The United States is a country, and what is in that country? People.
So it can be inferred that people in this country are part of that general welfare, or well being of the people.

[SilenceDoGood1776]

01:59 PM on 08/17/2009

Chanco
Then why not give everyone a house? Give everyone free food? Give everyone a job. Free clothes. Wouldn't these promote general welfare? It must also be given to all regardless of income.

[chancho24]

02:15 PM on 08/17/2009

No, one is saying anything about handing out freebies for nothing, but rather fair and just opportunities for things like health care without getting exploited by the consumer.
Big Pharma and Insurance is piling up such obscene profits out of the backs of people who find themselves with such huge debts that some of them have to declare bankruptcy.
And with an ordinary salary, these debts can last for years. People deserve better than this.
Other countries have a reasonable health care system, why can't the mighty USA with so much money, the so called beacon of hope do the same?

[Nancy84]

05:35 PM on 08/17/2009

You're obviously not up on the issues. That or you work for the insurance company and issues don't matter to you.

[SilenceDoGood1776]

01:33 PM on 08/17/2009

Terry
This is where many people misinterpret the constitution. "general welfare of the United States" not the general wellfare of the people

[Nancy84]

01:35 PM on 08/17/2009

Okay; You're still here. Now please answer my question: Do you want to give up social security and medicare?

[lungfish]

01:40 PM on 08/17/2009

and expense writeoffs, and public schools, mandatory trauma care, tax exemptions for families, nonprofit status for charities, etc....?

[FR]

01:55 PM on 08/17/2009

Answer people's questions.
There's the one about medicare.
There's the one about where you were when Bush trampled on our constitutional civil rights.
Where in the constitution does it say women and minorities can vote? Is that unconstitutional too, according to your artificially limited definition???

If you're going to reflexively yammer about the constitution, tell us EXACTLY what Obama has done that is so un-constitutional. By the way: the definition of unconstitutional for the last 200+ years of this country is something that goes AGAINST the constitution, not something that you can't manage to find in there in a spelling that you will accept.

[Bronxdude]

01:26 PM on 08/17/2009

President Obama truly cares about the prosperity and well-being of every American—regardless of class or ethnicity. Afraid of the impact Obama might have on unifying America, republicans are villainizing, dehumanizing and delegitimizing him to advance their exclusionist and elitist agenda. Since Obama is not part of the entrenched Washington political establishment, or the elitist upper crust, he feels no pressure or obligation to return favors that would unnecessarily sacrifice precious political capital he’ll need in the future to coax or strong-arm career politicians. Republicans are singularly fixated on maintaining the status quo to ensure their continued generational access to wealth, influence and power. Similar to race-restrictive country clubs, republicans are concerned primarily with separating and distancing themselves from members of the working-class. After all, the purpose of the working-class is to serve the wealthy by cooking their meals, raising their children, cleaning their homes and doing whatever tasks deemed essential to ensuring their existence is awash in luxury, simplicity and overindulgence. Working-class republicans have been duped into believing that their concerns/interests are championed by republicans, a political party heavily comprised of wealthy, upper crust aristocrats. In reality, the GOP is only concerned with advancing their own self-serving interests, which is why they exploit working-class republicans, are against worker rights and want to keep America angrily divided by class and race. Universal health insurance would provide hope and elevate the standard of living for working-class Americans, something republicans vehemently oppose.

[Genep34]

02:23 PM on 08/17/2009

Well said.

[Bronxdude]

01:26 PM on 08/17/2009

No matter what concessions democrats make, duplicitous, two-faced republicans will never offer bipartisan support for healthcare reform, as evidenced by Chuck Grassley telling President Obama he’s for reform, while telling Iowans he’s against it and that government sponsored euthanasia is real. For their efforts to sabotage reform, republicans have received millions in bribes from insurance corporations. It was UnitedHealthcare (not the government) that recently told me I couldn’t have the medication and treatment my doctor prescribed. With the public option, subscribers will pay premiums, patient care (not profit) will be the central focus and government will not use federal subsidies to create an artificial marketplace by which the public option will enjoy an unfair competitive advantage over private insurers. Real competition will end the monopolistic stranglehold enjoyed by private insurers. President Obama inherited a $2.2 trillion deficit from Bush—$700 billion (Wall Street bailout), $900 billion (Prescription Drug Bill) and $600 billion (Iraq War). President Clinton left office with a $759 billion surplus. What happen? According to the CBO, the public option will cost $100 billion per year. Per year, ending Medicare subsidies to insurance companies will save $30 billion, cutting subsidies to pharmaceutical companies will save $20 billion, repelling the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent will save $30 billion, and scaling back the Iraq War will save $20 billion. According to ten year CBO projections, the Bush/Cheney War will cost $3.8 trillion.

[Genep34]

02:23 PM on 08/17/2009

Well said.

[Bronxdude]

01:25 PM on 08/17/2009

Grassley, Blount and Coburn are two-faced charlatans and insurance industry prostitutes. President Obama is not advocating a government takeover of healthcare. He just wants to level the playing field by ending the monopolistic stranglehold enjoyed by immoral private insurers. With no competition or regulatory oversight, UnitedHealthcare is free to deny medical care, restrict physician choice and demand exorbitant copays. Consumers pay premiums in exchange for a service, yet insurance companies get to pick and chose who lives or dies. In Georgia, UnitedHealthcare executives colluded with sleazy republican politicians to control competition, with the end result being higher premiums, reduced benefits, and greater profit. When compared to the second quarter of 2008, UnitedHealthcare profits increased by a whopping 155 percent, yet premiums continue to climb 4 times faster than wages. By paying millions in hush money to their republican whores, UnitedHealthcare is leading the civil disobedience to defeat reform. The insurance industry will not retreat quietly from billions in annual profits. Repelling the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent and ending the Iraq War would generate $100 billion in immediate revenue. I want access to the same health exchange enjoyed by Congress and 8.5 million federal employees. The current healthcare system is wholly unsustainable and will surely bankrupt America, which is what republicans want. Conversely, a public option will reduce costs, precipitate real marketplace competition, expand coverage and end the single profiteer insurance system exploiting and robbing Americans.

[Genep34]

02:23 PM on 08/17/2009

Indeed!

[moodyring]

01:25 PM on 08/17/2009

Of course he "clarified" his position. It's very convenient for him to do that once the provision has been eliminated from the health care bill.

[Bronxdude]

01:24 PM on 08/17/2009

Contrary to Coburn’s lies and mendacious scare tactics, generational debt paid for WWII, Korea and Vietnam and will also pay for Iraq, Afghanistan and the republican prescription drug bill. Since the cost associated with goods and services is linked to inflation and increases exponentially, those currently paying into the Medicare fund with 2009 dollars are not doing so to safeguard their future access to benefits, but, instead, are paying to make up for the short fall in revenue necessary to cover the cost of benefits purchased by fund recipients with 1970 dollars, which when adjusted for inflation to compensate for the difference in buying power between 1970 and 2009 dollars, meets the operational definition for generational debt; thus, those who pay today are paying to insure access for those who paid in the past. In essence, I’m paying for people who paid into the system 35 years ago, because their 1970 dollars can’t buy healthcare at 2009 prices. Giving everyone the option to buy into the Medicare would increase the pool size, with the end result being enhanced benefits, lower costs and greater access to healthcare. Of course republicans would oppose such a move because opening up Medicare to everyone would decrease the profit margin for the insurance industry, which in turn would reduce kickbacks funneled to criminal republicans by sleazy corporations like UnitedHealthcare. Republicans have blood on their hands: 20,000 Americans die every year because they don’t have health insurance.