Death Panels

Republicans (and Sarah Palin) started using the term "Death Panels" to describe part of the ACA, where a panel of 15 (called IPAB) could make life and death decisions over what treatments would be covered or not (which would control costs). Of course the left all called that untrue, but accounted for the savings these panels would bring by denying care, and far left places like Politifact called this the lie of the year in 2009. Then they screamed again when those panels that never existed were eliminated in 2018.

Details

In 2018, Death panels are dead. Not that they were ever completely living.

This article sums it up: https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/02/obamacare-death-panel-killed/

The Dems put in a fraud that they knew would never be implement called the IPAB (Independent Payment Advisory Board), which the republicans labeled the "death panel". The IPAB it was a panel of 15 would decide unilaterally on what life saving treatments would be covered or not. Since they were denying you service to what the democrats called a right, and denying those services would kill you, death panel was an unfriendly but not untrue name.

NOTE: There is another complexity, in there was also Section 1233 of bill HR 3200, which would have paid physicians for providing voluntary counseling to Medicare patients about living wills, advance directives, and end-of-life care options. In other words, paid agents of the government would be advising people based on the conflict of interest. If they advised people to fight some terminal or chronic maladies, it would be expensive. If they advised them on end-of-life options, they could save money. So it setup moral hazard. Many of the fact checkers glossed over the problem, by claiming since these panels weren't mandatory, and just because they were incentivized to kill people and save costs, doesn't prove that it would devolve into this. (Just that it was likely to, if you applied common sense). They protested that wasn't a "death panel".... yet. And called everyone that says it was, a liar, just because it was the probable outcome, and not the guaranteed one. Then they ignored the deeper problem which was IPAB and was a case where political appointees would decide what life and death treatments would be covered. (With no ability for appeal). And was a death panel. Proving all the fact checkers either ignorant, or they were intentionally deceiving their readers.

The Democrats claimed "death panels" (and the IPAB) didn't exist (it did), but then they claimed it did exist (when it wasn't yet implmented) when it came to imaginary cost savings that it would incur by eliminating expensive treatments. It was a double flim-flam.

The rational (non-democrats) knew that it would never do what it was designed to do (because politicians didn't want to get caught empowering a death panel), that meant the cost savings claimed by the Democrats was a fraud all along. (And thus the losses by cutting it, are also a fraud). But it was in the ACA/Law, so the facts are the Republicans were right to complain about the spirit of it, and it might have been enacted as it was written in for a reason, and fit the progressive agenda of exterminating non-productive members of society.

Sarah Murnaghan

There was a case in 2013 of Sarah Murnaghan, where she wanted a lung transplant, and another death panel, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), wouldn't make an exception to their "under-12" policy to give her the life saving treatment, and Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, refused to intervene to grant an exception to the rule. That was another example of death panels in the U.S. healthcare system, that the Democrats had denied existed, but obviously did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Murnaghan_lung_transplant_controversy

Charlie Gard

There was another case in 2017 of Charlie Gard, a terminally ill infant (with a very rare malady) stuck in the UK's infamously bad NHS system, where they denied him access to go to the U.S. for potentially life saving treatment. Despite the parents raising the money for the treatment themselves, the NHS decided that pulling the child's ventilators and letting him die, was better than giving the parents free will, and allowing them to try to save the life of their child, on a treatment that had proven successful on some others.

And that sums up Nationalized (Politicized) Healthcare in a nutshell. The politicians decide who gets what treatment (a death panel). Health services delayed are the same as health services denied -- and the NHS prove the road that ACA would lead America down, one where bureaucrats and lawyers argued over your end of life decisions, instead of leaving them up to individuals and doctors. So while this wasn't in the American system, it was a big foreteller of what the left wanted for America, and there was definitely a death panel in that case.

Alphie Evans

Just to prove that Charlie Gard wasn't a one-off anomaly, along comes the case of Alphie Evans: a child with a case of encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, which is medical speak for the kid is screwed and lost the quality of life lottery. And the NHS in the UK decided it would be in their best financial interest if Alphie just died and stop costing them so much money. So his ventilator was removed, against the Parents wishes... after the family lost a legal battle with the hospital, after they got him Italian citizenship (and the Italians warned them against murdering one of their citizens). The courts also decided that practical Eugenics (exterminating the infirm) was in everyone's best interests (e.g. the states), and individual liberty was convicted of the capital crime of costing too much money.

While the pro-socialized medicine folks will get apoplectic if you mention it, one of the things to know about countries with Socialized Medicine is that you don't own your own life (or that of your kids), that's the state's power (to decide who is worthy of resources or life). Even if you'll pay to leave and provide in another country, they'd rather murder you, than give you or your parents the freedom to decide.

Ben Shapiro summed it up as, "If you withheld water from your brain damaged toddler, you'd be brought up on child abuse charges. If a British hospital does it, it's just 'dying with dignity.'

Matt Walsh summed it up as, "If Alfie Evans Was A Royal Baby Would They Still Be Killing Him In A London Hospital?"... and we all know the answer is "of course not". There are two laws in the UK, one for the important people (politicians and royalty), and one for those on NHS.

Conclusion

The most insulting thing is that congress is not supposed to be able to do this under the law (create agencies like the IPAB) and defer their legaslative responsibilities to create law (regulations) to another group. It's called the nondelegation doctrine, not that progressives on the court or legislature have ever paid attention to it... never let the law of the land get in the way of a political agenda.

But anyways, this the Death Panels are dead. Which is impressive if you're a Democrat, as they claimed they never existed IRL, unless you were talking about imaginary accounting tricks, where they accounted for it. And while I'm not completely against the spirit of it (having some agency to decide what is effective healthcare or not), the political implementation was never ever going to work.

Every media agency, political pundit, and politician that claimed either there was no death panels, or that we would see the cost savings from having one, is proven a liar, fool or polemic. We just call them Democrats or Politicians: it's all the same thing.

References

Navigation menu