The “End of Life” Provision: Republicans’ Latest Repeated Lie to Kill the Health Reform Bill

Republicans John Boehner (OH) and Thaddeus McCotter, recently put out a statement saying that a key provision in the Health Care bill being proposed by Democrats “may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted into law”.

Republican Virginia Foxx (NC), in a speech on the House floor (0:56 of clip): “republicans have a better solution that won’t put the government in charge of people’s health care, that will make sure we bring down the cost of health care for all Americans, and that ensures affordable access for all Americans, and is pro-life because it will not put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government”.
Though the willful deception and appeal to the blind emotions of their audience is not to the degree reached by the representatives quoted above, other conservatives (Hannity, Limbaugh, and health “expert” Betsy McCaughey) have still managed to misrepresent exactly what the provision calls for. Specifically, these misinformed pundits claim that it REQUIRES medicare patients to submit to such consultations, when in fact IT DOES NOT.

The provision responsible for all this partisan and idiotic ruckus essentially describes the availability of consultations and the provision of information for Medicare patients regarding end of life decisions, including living wills, health care proxies, life support decisions, etc. I welcome you to read the provision itself here, for your own determination.

Instead of relying on the intelligence of the republican leadership and its echo chamber on the tv and radio airwaves, I read the provision myself, and found that it does nothing more than have Medicare cover the provision of such critical information at a time when the utilization of such information, such as the recommendation of putting into writing a patient’s wishes and decisions, would be of great benefit for both the patient and their family.

Such important consultations are not required, nor would they be given to a patient who does not ask for them; they are merely a service for which medicare will cover. Furthermore, if the state of residence of the patient already covers the provision of such information, the federal responsibility to provide the option for the relevant information would likely be limited.

My suggestion? Re-word the provision. Fighting the good fight against intentional ignorance aside, the entire bill and what it could accomplish for health reform in America should not be derailed by those who apparently failed to comprehend exactly what it says. Admittedly, for myself, the provision was not the easiest read, but the entire bill has not yet come to a vote, thereby allowing some modifications to be made.
So let’s dumb down some of the “controversial” language for the benefit of those who argue that it is controversial in the first place. It’s not acquiescing to their objections as much as it is putting it in simple terms which they can understand and can’t intentionally misinterpret.

Read more: politics

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Past Member .

12:24PM PDT on Aug 9, 2009

Garold, you can actually go out in public and ask if providing health care to the poor is the right thing to do? Did I read that correctly? Maybe our health care reform should be to restrict health care to the rich and just let those inconvenient poor people die off. It fairly boggles the mind that anyone in this country would even think of purposely withholding health care from some of its citizens, especially the one who most need it and can least afford it. It sounds as though those freedoms you talk about should belong only to those who can afford to pay for them.

And my Reps don't have to apply; they already enjoy free, government-run health care.

send a green star

12:06PM PDT on Aug 9, 2009

Good work, Ray. Unfortunately it was probably all for naught. Those who so rabidly oppose health care reform (any health care reform) aren't interested in those pesky facts that are propogated by us Pinko-Red-Commie-Socialist-Fascist-Lefties. They would rather be ignorant and angry than informed and insured.

Garold L.

10:55AM PDT on Aug 9, 2009

I don't believe that there should be any reference in the bill to "End of Life" counselling; it is not a function of basic health care for the uninsured, for those who don't hold a job with benefits, can't afford the payments, choose to spend their money on cigarettes, or alcohol, or 12 million illegal aliens. Can someone tell me what "End of Life" counseling entails; the type of services this provides? Does it include an option for euthanasia, or it provide for legal services, such as directing executors to an estate or creating a current will? Preparation for the end of life is a matter of family and religious beliefs. If one is an atheist, the worth of their spiritual life is coming to a conclusion, and for the theist, they have their faith counselors.

The question isn't whether providing health services for the poor is the right thing to do. The reality is that with each intervention of government into our lives, we lose more freedom, and many want things that way, while the majority of us embrace the freedom, which our forefathers, in their wisdom, provide us with the greatest system of government the planet has ever known... a system of limited government, to protect us from it. America is the most generous country the world has known, because it has boasted a free market system which has made us the most prosperous, and the people have guarded against the federal government with the 10th Amendment; recently upheld by the Supreme Court,

Will your Reps apply

Carrie B.

8:05AM PDT on Aug 9, 2009

Ray, thank you so much for that extra long post showing the truth of the matter. I sent the same thing out to many, if not all of my friends over a week ago, but I'm not sure the people who NEED to read it will. Let's face it, a lot of folks out there are in denial. They want health care reform to fail, they don't like Obama, and they refuse to listen to anyone who presents rational logical hard evidence that is contrary to their personal agenda. You keep up the good work, and maybe those of us who really care about this issue can make a few of those other guys change their minds! You gotta love Barry's sense of humor! How many out there actually beieved him?

Tierney G.

5:59PM PDT on Aug 8, 2009

I would like to know what the GOP has been smoking???

2:17PM PDT on Aug 8, 2009

"Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage."

TRUTH: Covering marriage and family therapy, as many private insurance plans do, does not mean that the government "intervenes in your marriage." The types of individuals who are recognized as therapists are clearly defined on page 491; in brief, professionals only, not bureaucrats.

"Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services."

TRUTH: This section expands government coverage for mental health services under various government programs, and ensures that all mental health services will be offered by qualified professionals.

I realize that addressing these claims will not stop the lies, but what else can we do? Seriously...

2:14PM PDT on Aug 8, 2009

"Page 425-430: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?; Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time; Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death; Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends; Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT; Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life."

TRUTH: All of these hysterical claims have been debunked elsewhere. HR3200 provides for the reimbursement of a voluntary session of end-of-life counseling with your physician once every five years. This in no way means the government will make decisions for patients or encourage doctor-assisted suicide. Counseling simply makes patients and their families aware of their options.

"Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN."

TRUTH: ACORN is not a Community-Based Medical Home.

"Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN."

TRUTH: This is clearly still referring to community health groups, not ACORN.

2:13PM PDT on Aug 8, 2009

"Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing."

TRUTH: This provision is included in order to allow the government to base payments on practices that work. Nowhere does it say health care will be rationed. The attempt to isolate what works and what does not work in Medicare Advantage plans only benefits the health care system in general.

"Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc."

TRUTH: The government can disqualify some Medicare Advantage Plans from receiving some additional payments, but only if those plans are not meeting necessary requirements.

"Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals."

TRUTH: This section only deals with how to handle special needs individuals who need to enroll outside of the open enrollment period. Almost every type of plan operates with open enrollment periods. This section does not create more restrictions.

"Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone)."

TRUTH: This section merely expands existing Telehealth programs, which supplement but do not replace other health coverage, and provide a vital resource to Americans in rural and remote areas.

2:11PM PDT on Aug 8, 2009

"Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited from owning and investing in healthcare companies!"

TRUTH: This provision only limits Doctor's investments in health care facilities that they refer patients to The effort to limit self-referral has been ongoing for many years as an effort to reduce fraud and abuse. This is, essentially, the medical community equivalent of insider trading. Limiting this incentive works to put the patient's health above all other considerations. Doctors remain free to engage in investment opportunities in areas that don't create a significant conflict of interest.

"Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval."

TRUTH: This section regulates physicians' investment in hospitals to make sure that physicians are not unfairly benefiting from their power to refer patients to hospitals they have a stake in. The section does not prohibit hospital expansion.

"Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on 'community' input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN."

TRUTH: In the ongoing effort to demonize community-based groups such as ACORN, every instance of the word "community" has become associated with that group's efforts. In reality, this provision allows for anyone to provide input. This includes homeowners, religious leaders, neighborhood groups, and others. There are no payoffs. There is no money exchanged in any way.

2:09PM PDT on Aug 8, 2009

"Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions."

TRUTH: This is almost correct. The section is one of the first efforts at targeting excessive readmissions. Excessive readmissions are physically and emotionally damaging to patients, while simultaneously putting them, and the health care system, in far more financial risk than is necessary. The American Hospital Association recommended reduced payments for avoidable readmission in testimony to Congress.

"Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government."

TRUTH: This is patently false. The section is about possible methods that the Secretary of Health and Human services might consider in order to address the growing problem of patient readmission. This section does not, in any way, create a penalty, nor does it even mandate policy. It merely provides examples of recourses that might be considered.