Those "Death Panels" Really Do Exist
At this point, if anyone still believes that progressive proposals for health insurance reform contain ominous "death panels" designed to kill their grandparents, I have a bridge to sell them in Arizona. Fear not, my conservative friends: The bridge connects a tea bag manufacturing plant with a militia training camp stuck in the 1990s, so you should feel right at home.
The "death panel" smear goes something like this: President Obama and his comrades in Congress are hell-bent on instituting mandatory end-of-life counseling sessions for American seniors as part of their socialist takeover of the health insurance industry. They will choose who gets to live and who will die. You know, just like Adolf Hitler and the Nazis did in Germany.
To date, the media have debunked the "kill granny" lie more than 40 times. The nonpartisan FactCheck.org says the claim of mandatory counseling on ending seniors' lives is "a misrepresentation." ABC's chief medical editor, Dr. Tim Johnson, said "the idea about death panels" is "not at all legitimate." PolitiFact.com has called "death panel" claims "a ridiculous falsehood." When the Associated Press conducted a fact check of the bogus charge, it reported, "No 'death panel in health care bill.' "
After former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin claimed that "Obama's 'death panel' " could decide the fate of her parents or her son who has Down syndrome, conservative radio host Larry Elder aptly called her comments "over the top."
Having been called on the carpet repeatedly for their "death panel" claims, other media conservatives like ABC's John Stossel and Fox News' Glenn Beck have taken a new approach. Many now claim that while proposals for health insurance reform may not actually force seniors into end-of-life counseling, they will result in "de facto death panels" via the government's rationing of care. Seriously.
The dubious right-wing spin surrounding health insurance reform is a bit like that bad cough that just won't go away -- persistent and annoying.
Despite the coverage allotted to debunking the right-wing "death panel" smear, the bigger picture remains intact. Americans face real death panels from their own health insurance providers. Rather than simply debunking the right's false talking point, the media should have gone one step further and pointed out that health insurance companies make life-and-death decisions every day when they decide what they are willing and not willing to cover.
Largely lost in the media discussion surrounding health insurance reform is the reality of the status quo -- you know, why we need reform in the first place.
Back in June, the evening news broadcasts on ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS ignored a congressional hearing on insurance companies' practice of investigating the medical histories of people who become ill and submit claims for expensive treatments, and then rejecting those claims on the grounds that those individuals had pre-existing conditions. The goal is quite simple. Find something -- anything -- and cancel or deny coverage for needed, potentially life-saving treatment. Why save a life when you can save a buck?
Robin Beaton, a former policyholder, testified in the hearing that she had been subject to this very practice. A retired registered nurse, Beaton's dermatologist had mistakenly indicated that she may have been suffering from a pre-cancerous skin condition. Soon after, she was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer. A few days before her scheduled double mastectomy, Blue Cross launched an investigation into her health records going back five years, convinced she was hiding a serious pre-existing condition.
Many Americans have stories just like Beaton's. Congress ultimately concluded that three major American insurance companies rescinded 19,776 policies for over $300 million in savings over five years, a number that Wendell Potter, a former senior executive at CIGNA health insurance company, said "significantly undercounts the total number of rescissions" by the companies.
It's not to say that the media ignore all stories like Beaton's; they don't. The modern media are in the drama business. Too often, media of all stripes characterize this important policy debate as a "he said, she said" over the government's role in health care, something that conservatives no doubt relish, and in the process, they fail to paint a picture of the way things currently exist.
This practice plays not only with the health of too many Americans, but with the health of modern journalism as well. We can hardly solve this crisis if we aren't being told the whole story.
Death panels are real. They do exist. Your own insurance provider could be in on it. And it's time the media said so.
Karl Frisch is a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog and research and information center based in Washington, D.C. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, or sign up to receive his columns by email.
Follow Karl Frisch on Twitter: www.twitter.com/KarlFrisch
J. Richard Stevens: Reporting on 'Lies' and 'Liars' ...
If I say that a statement is a "lie," does that mean that I have now accused every person who passes along the statement of lying? Where is the space for misunderstanding? Ignorance? Faulty logic?
What Arlen Specter's opportunistic party switch has taught us is you can take the Senator out of the Republican Party, but you can't take the predilection towards manufactured offense out of the Senator.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Exactly right. The cluelessness of the rightwing white morons is amazing. It's hard to believe that they don't get it about the way their own insurance companies constantly "ration" their healthcare with decisions about what to authorize and what not to. But apparently, such realities fly out the window when the Dittoheads get their marching orders from their media handlers on the right.
Excellent blog. Like you, I can'tcomprehend why all this debunking by the media doesn't (except for you and a few others) emphatically state that what the health insurance companies are doing right now.is akin to "death panels" Yes we have very stupid people in this country who would jump off a roof. if a fringe leader suggested it, but the rest of us still need all the fact. The insanity has gone too far.
President Obama should go forward without the horrible, vile republicans, and get this health reform bill passed and include a public option. He currently has enough votes to do it. I would declare any attempt of bi-partison inclusion into the negotiations, GONE! The GOP doesn't deserve it. They blew it, and proved again and again they are not worthy.
No 'death panels' in this plan. The only possibility is a cap on the maximum amount of money that can be billed to the account.
No one ever covers the elephant in the room. So true
Oh, crap, I meant THIS plan -
http://64.
Obama's plan? Sure, they just keep the same old death panels in place, then add a government one, plus the death congress over them.
"Those death panels really exist."
You bet they do and it is called the Senate Finance Committee. Senator Max Baucus is the chairman and Senator Chuck Grassley is his henchman who are ready to pronounce a death sentence on thousands of Americans with their oppostion to any form of public option.
Our blood will be on his hands, and that spot won't wash out.
At this very moment Rush Limbaugh is make fun of old people wirth dementia and reading the VA end of life planning documents. If this doesn't make his primarily old folk audience angry then they truly have no souls.
NO ONE can be sure in the existence of GOD....tha
If you don't do this, like in the ads for Legal Zoom that run on Rush's show, GOVT will ultimately decide your fate. Had that poor woman in Florida made her wishes known ahead of time President Bush would not have had to fly home to sign the only piece of US legislation written for one person nor would we all have had to witness that horror of politicians grandstanding for cash and votes.
the gop disgusts me.
Yes, we are aghast at Wall Street excesses but have no trouble whatsoever leaving our health care decisions up to them and their money-grubbing system. Amazing!
I have an interesting quandry. My nurse practitioner and I were discussing management of a normal pap smear with a positive human papilloma virus test. Human Papilloma Virus or HPV causes most cases of cervical cancer in this country but not everyone with HPV gets cervical cancer. Checking for HPV is now the standard of care for women when they get their pap smear, but now 1. have we compromised this woman's ability to get health insurance in the future? or 2. given the insurance company a reason to deny coverage should she actually develop cervical cancer? In this country, people maintain their health insurance with a particular company for only 2 years-they switch because either they change jobs or their employer changes coverage.
I fear every time I have a head ache or other issue..... that if I go to the doctor....
I dis agree with people who say....pic
We were lucky this time! if this goes on much longer the companies will all be offering these type of policies cause it is all they can afford!
the real death panel result is much more pervasive than this and rests more in the practice of allowing the market to decide your health care. if you are not productive enough ( or dont have accumulated wealth) the market will decline to provide care or insurance. there is no need for a death panel if the decisions are left to the market. if you are not able to produce enough you will not receive timely and effective treatment. we dont need a death panel when the market will kill automatically.
The classic argument against health care reform plays on the fear of having "government bureaucrats" making medical decisions instead of doctors.
But both patients AND doctors have "insurance bureaucrats" making these decisions!
Aside from what we as consumers are forced to pay out of pocket, people don't realize that most doctors are constrained by the reimbursements they receive from insurance companies. All the insurance company has to do is lower the reimbursement for "reasonable and customary" charges on any procedure they like. When patients are only responsible for a co-pay, who picks up the slack for the cost of that procedure?
It costs more money all the time for medical practices to stay in business because they can't get fairly reimbursed for what they see as reasonable and necessary treatment. Just like our out-of-pocket expenses are going up, the reimbursements for procedures are going down.
Health insurers are not just gouging consumers. They are gouging the medical profession too.
Addressing the end-of-life care will see an immediate improvement in the out-of-control costs of healthcare. It has been reported that 27% of the Medicare budget goes towards care in the last year of a patient’s life. Dartmouth Healthcare Project reports expenditure in the last phase of life, ranges from around $54,000 at Mayo, and Cleveland Clinics, to $93,000 + at UCLA, Cedars-Sinai, and New York University Medical Center. The significant variations in the practice-patterns and the cost of care (with the same outcomes), across the country is confounding.
The ‘low-cost’ hospitals provided better care. In “high-cost” hospitals, patients spend more time dragged more frequently to see doctors, especially specialists; admitted to hospitals (including intensive care units), and dying in a hospital, than do patients at “low-cost” hospitals.
The greater tragedy is these patients are more in need of TLC from their families, and reconnect with relatives and friends than undergoing repeated tests and procedures, in futile attempts. This is not an indictment of medicine, but a failure of modern society and absence of close bonds.
Long before and after patients need high-technology care, doctors with a caring staff, can lay the groundwork, including repairing family bridges, for such patients to reconnect and spend quality time with family and friends, long before the acute crises arises. A high-tech facility is a poor substitute for a caring and loving home at the end of life.
What's amazing and outrageous is: "Congress ultimately concluded that three major American insurance companies rescinded 19,776 policies for over $300 million in savings over five years..."
Considering the billions that insurance companies rake in, $300m over 5 years is pocket change. That works out to $3033.98 per policy rescinded. You can barely get an elevator ride in a hospital wheelchair for that.
Even more outrageous is the fact that the president and congress are going to knuckle under to these bas.tards.
Here's a simple law. If you drop someone's coverage, you have to give all their money back. For any type of insurance.
The faceless bureaucrat is nothing but a boogeyman. It's Melissa Jones, the woman who is an "upstanding claims representative" when she denies people's claims for a for-profit health insurer, but turns into Melissa Jones, the faceless bureaucrat when she approves your claim for Medicare. What causes approvals or denials are the incentives -- for-profit insurers clearly deny more because they have a financial interest in doing so. I'd take the faceless bureaucrat any time.
I speak from experience. I've worked in a hospital for 25 yrs and have been very involved in "end of life" issues both professionally in patient care and as a member of the ethics committees at 3 different hospitals. I have seen the way living wills are used(and misused) in many cases. Most people have an opinion as to what should be done when an elderly patient develops a chronic illness or is judged by some to have a poor quality of life. These preconcieved opinions are brought to bear in the application of the living will. 90 % of health care workers strongly believe quality of life issues should be used to determine when treatment is futile. Futile in the sense that treating the acute problem will not improve the pre-existing qualiy of life problem, Thus a demented patient(poor quality of life) is not treated aggressively for a pneumonia.
It is time to get rid of the middle man. Okay?
Another myth about government provided healthcare is that there will be some heartless bureaucrat standing between you and your doctor. Actually, the insurance companies already have these "heartless bureaucrats". They get bonuses based on how many claims they deny. Maybe it is just me, but I would rather have a government employee, who has no financial outcome in their decision, between me and my doctor, than someone who stands to make a buck off of my misery.
Ok, so why trade one heartless bureaucrat for another?
If one person gets paid extra money if they deny a claim, and the other gets paid the same if it is approved or not, which one do you want to make the decision about your grandmother's claim?
But the best part is that you don't have to make a choice. You can keep the insurance company you currently have.
Easy. Really, really, easy. In other gov-run health programs such as medicare, 95 cents on the dollar go to actual care. In our insurance industry, it's more like 80. This should be a no-brainer to conservos and progressives alike. Also, the for-profit insurance companies are under pressure from shareholders to constantly reduce costs. So, that 80 cents on the dollar will keep falling (as it has) and the amount you pay for the privilege of being fleeced will keep doubling and tripling (as it has).
why have police when the mafia would gladly provide the same services. right?
Because the insurance company GIVES OUT BONUSES for denying claims - bonuses paid for with insurance premiums.
Because we can vote.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
