Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

OBAMA ADVISER ADMITS: 'WE NEED DEATH PANELS'

Posted by on Oct. 3, 2012 at 6:35 PM
  • 53 Replies
1 mom liked this

OBAMA ADVISER ADMITS: 'WE NEED DEATH PANELS'

Makes shocking admission about Obamacare, advocates rationing for elderly

Published: 2 days ago

 by AARON KLEINEmail Archive

Aaron Klein is WND's senior staff reporter and Jerusalem bureau chief. He also hosts "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio" on New York's WABC Radio. Follow Aaron onTwitter and Facebook.More ↓

 Follow author  Subscribe to author feed

 

A top Democrat strategist and donor who served as President Obama's lead auto-industry adviser recently conceded that the rationing of heath services under Obamacare is "inevitable."

Steven Rattner advocated that such rationing should target elderly patients, while stating, "We need death panels."

Ads by Google

•·         Top 5 Ways to Buy SilverSilver could go from $30 per ounce to $200 soon. Here's how to profit.www.StreetAuthority.com

•·         Stop Karl RoveDon't let Karl Rove and special interests buy our elections.action.kirstengillibrand.com

Rattner serves on the board the New America Foundation, or NAF, a George Soros-funded think tank that was instrumental in supporting Obamacare in 2010. Soros' son, financier Jonathan Soros, is also a member of the foundation's board.

Rattner was the so-called "car czar," the lead auto adviser to the Treasury Department under Obama.

Last month, Rattner penned an opinion piece in the New York Timestitled "Beyond Obamacare" in which he proclaimed "We need death panels" and argued rationing must be instructed to sustain Obama's health-care plan. His comments have been virtually ignored by traditional media as the president campaign's for a second term.

"We need death panels," began Rattner. "Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health-care resources more prudently - rationing, by its proper name - the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget."

Read all about the idea of "Medical Murder" and find out what Barack Obama would do in a second term, in "Fool Me Twice."

Continued Rattner: "But in the pantheon of toxic issues - the famous ‘third rail' of American politics - none stands taller than overtly acknowledging that elderly Americans are not entitled to every conceivable medical procedure or pharmaceutical."

Rattner lamented how Obama's Affordable Care Act "regrettably includes severe restrictions on any reduction in Medicare services or increase in fees to beneficiaries."

Rattner said the numbers don't add up unless Obamacare utilizes rationing.

"If his Independent Payment Advisory Board comes up with savings, Congress must accept either them or vote for an equivalent package," stated Rattner. "The problem is, the advisory board can't propose reducing benefits (a k a rationing) or raising fees (another form of rationing), without which the spending target looms impossibly large."

Rattner singled out elderly patients for benefit cuts.

He wrote: "No one wants to lose an aging parent. And with price out of the equation, it's natural for patients and their families to try every treatment, regardless of expense or efficacy. But that imposes an enormous societal cost that few other nations have been willing to bear. Many countries whose health care systems are regularly extolled - including Canada, Australia and New Zealand - have systems for rationing care."

He concluded, "At the least, the Independent Payment Advisory Board should be allowed to offer changes in services and costs."

"We may shrink from such stomach-wrenching choices, but they are inescapable."

Rattner serves on the NAF's 22-person board of directors alongside Jonathan Soros, CNN's Fareed Zakaria and Google's Eric Schmidt.

Soros' Open Society Foundation is a primary donor to the NAF.

Other major donors include the Ben & Jerry's Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Ford Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Google Inc. and the Rockefeller Foundation.

Another donor is Free Press, a group that advocates for more government control of the airwaves and Internet.

Free Press is also funded by Soros. Free Press was founded by Robert W. McChesney, an avowed Marxist who has recommended capitalism be dismantled "brick by brick."

The NAF, meanwhile, bills itself as bipartisan and "the radical center."

NAF fellow Michael Lind wrote, "Our goal [is] not to repeal the New Deal [of Franklin Roosevelt] but to adapt it to the circumstances of the 21st century."

Discover The Networks notes how the NAF approved of Obamacare because it would "offer a new image" of how Americans view dying; and it would help "patients and their families to recognize" that, "[S]ometimes ‘doing everything' results in more burden than benefit. High-tech medicine can prolong life, but for some patients, it merely draws out the process of dying."

With research by Brenda J. Elliott.

 

by on Oct. 3, 2012 at 6:35 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
broncfan
by Silver Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 6:42 PM
4 moms liked this
There ya' go. How you going to feel when it is your Mom or better yet when it is your kids being told Mom is not worth much to the government anymore so say your goodbyes. What is going to happen when your child is in an accident and there is little chance of quality life (happens everyday on playgrounds) and guarantees of huge medical bills for years to come, are you going to think it is ok to pull the plug?

Wake up folks, this is not good, it is not what America should be.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
gsprofval
by Gold Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 6:44 PM
1 mom liked this

Even obama's advisors says death panels are "needed" with obamacare so it must be true that death panels are in obamacare.

Another reason to not vote for obama. He would kill my dad and I love my 99.75 year old Daddy!!!!

_Kissy_
by on Oct. 3, 2012 at 6:44 PM
World nut daily strikes again


Thats why he's a FORMER advisor
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Kathy489
by Bronze Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 6:47 PM
4 moms liked this

 

Quoting broncfan:

There ya' go. How you going to feel when it is your Mom or better yet when it is your kids being told Mom is not worth much to the government anymore so say your goodbyes. What is going to happen when your child is in an accident and there is little chance of quality life (happens everyday on playgrounds) and guarantees of huge medical bills for years to come, are you going to think it is ok to pull the plug?

Wake up folks, this is not good, it is not what America should be.


Nor is it what America wanted!

joey125
by Silver Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 6:49 PM
1 mom liked this

Ridiculous, beyond words     Lets face it folks, would anyone expect a 95 year old to receive a kidney transplant get real.  My dad signed a do no resuscitate form at the hospital he was 82 when he died and did not want to be hooked up to machines to stay alive.    I loved him dearly and respected what he wanted, which was a quality of life

GagaNTattooS
by on Oct. 3, 2012 at 6:50 PM
1 mom liked this
No thanks you will not vote for that monster
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
broncfan
by Silver Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 6:52 PM
2 moms liked this
But that is your Dad and his wishes, not everybody.


Quoting joey125:

Ridiculous, beyond words     Lets face it folks, would anyone expect a 95 year old to receive a kidney transplant get real.  My dad signed a do no resuscitate form at the hospital he was 82 when he died and did not want to be hooked up to machines to stay alive.    I loved him dearly and respected what he wanted, which was a quality of life


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Kathy489
by Bronze Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 6:53 PM
2 moms liked this

At least he was allowed to have a choice.

Quoting joey125:

Ridiculous, beyond words     Lets face it folks, would anyone expect a 95 year old to receive a kidney transplant get real.  My dad signed a do no resuscitate form at the hospital he was 82 when he died and did not want to be hooked up to machines to stay alive.    I loved him dearly and respected what he wanted, which was a quality of life


gsprofval
by Gold Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Just for you, Kissy, here is the original from the New York Times:

Beyond Obamacare

  • FACEBOOK
  • TWITTER
  • GOOGLE+
  • E-MAIL
  • SHARE
  • PRINT
  • REPRINTS

WE need death panels.

Related

Related in Opinion

Opinion Twitter Logo.

Connect With Us on Twitter

For Op-Ed, follow@nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow@andyrNYT.

Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget.

But in the pantheon of toxic issues — the famous “third rails” of American politics — none stands taller than overtly acknowledging that elderly Americans are not entitled to every conceivable medical procedure or pharmaceutical.

Most notably, President Obama’s estimable Affordable Care Act regrettably includes severe restrictions on any reduction in Medicare services or increase in fees to beneficiaries. In 2009, Sarah Palin’s rant about death panels even forced elimination from the bill of a provision to offer end-of-life consultations.

Now, three years on, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, Paul D. Ryan, has offered his latest ambitious plan for addressing the Medicare problem. But like Mr. Obama’s, it holds limited promise for containing the program’s escalating costs within sensible boundaries.

The Obama and Ryan plans are not without common ground; both propose an identical formula for capping the growth in Medicare spending per beneficiary. And both dip into the same toolbox (particularly lower payments to providers) to achieve a reduction of nearly $1 trillion in Medicare expenditures over the next decade from projected levels.

That’s where the agreement ends. Mr. Ryan believes that meeting the goal over the long term requires introducing more competition into Medicare through vouchers to purchase private insurance.

But Ryan’s approach was rendered toothless when the issue’s brutal politics forced him to retreat from his initial tough plan to simply cap the growth in government spending on Medicare and stick the inevitable overage onto beneficiaries. Under his revised plan, private insurers would be required to offer the same level of benefits as traditional Medicare, meaning that any savings would have to come from unidentified efficiencies (the ever-popular “waste, fraud and abuse”).

If the cap was breached — as it almost certainly would eventually be — Mr. Ryan blithely says, “Congress would be required to intervene.” Fat chance; Congress regularly does the opposite when it rolls back caps on payments to doctors and hospitals.

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama’s hopes for sustained cost containment are pinned on a to-be-determined mix of squeezing reimbursements, embracing a selection of the creative ideas that have spewed forth from health care policy wonks and scouring the globe for innovations.

To Mr. Obama’s credit, his plan has more teeth than Mr. Ryan’s; if his Independent Payment Advisory Board comes up with savings, Congress must accept either them or vote for an equivalent package. The problem is, the advisory board can’t propose reducing benefits (a k a rationing) or raising fees (another form of rationing), without which the spending target looms impossibly large.

That’s the view of the bipartisan Medicare trustees, whose 2012 report stated: “Actual future Medicare expenditures are likely to exceed the intermediate projections shown in this report, possibly by quite large amounts.”

To be sure, health care cost increases have moderated, in part because of the recession and in part because Medicare has been tightening its reimbursements. But those thumbscrews can’t be tightened forever; Medicare reimbursement rates are already well below those of private providers.

Let’s not forget that with the elderly population growing rapidly, even if cost increases for each beneficiary can be contained, Medicare would still claim a rising share of the American economy.

Medicare needs to take a cue from Willie Sutton, who reportedly said he robbed banks because that’s where the money was. The big money in Medicare is not to be found in Mr. Ryan’s competition or Mr. Obama’s innovation, but in reducing the cost of treating people in the last year of life, which consumes more than a quarter of the program’s budget.

No one wants to lose an aging parent. And with price out of the equation, it’s natural for patients and their families to try every treatment, regardless of expense or efficacy. But that imposes an enormous societal cost that few other nations have been willing to bear. Many countries whose health care systems are regularly extolled — including Canada, Australia and New Zealand — have systems for rationing care.

Take Britain, which provides universal coverage with spending at proportionately almost half of American levels. Its National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence uses a complex quality-adjusted life year system to put an explicit value (up to about $48,000 per year) on a treatment’s ability to extend life.

At the least, the Independent Payment Advisory Board should be allowed to offer changes in services and costs. We may shrink from such stomach-wrenching choices, but they are inescapable.

Steven Rattner, a contributing opinion writer, was a counselor to the Treasury secretary in the Obama administration.

 


 

Quoting _Kissy_:

World nut daily strikes again


gsprofval
by Gold Member on Oct. 3, 2012 at 6:58 PM

My parents both had/have specific instructions for end of life too. We complied with my mother's wishes as she was dying.

However, my point is that now at least my 99.75 year old dad can get antibiotics for a sinus infection or pnemonia. Under obamacare, he would not be able to get any medical help at all--it's called rationing--and obama doesn't want old people to live at all.

Quoting joey125:

Ridiculous, beyond words     Lets face it folks, would anyone expect a 95 year old to receive a kidney transplant get real.  My dad signed a do no resuscitate form at the hospital he was 82 when he died and did not want to be hooked up to machines to stay alive.    I loved him dearly and respected what he wanted, which was a quality of life

 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)