Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)–one of the most influential health care legislators on Capitol Hill–has an explanation for everybody who groaned when he told a crowd of reform skeptics they were right to be concerned that Democratic health care reform would “pull the plug on grandma.”
You see, he says, “[t]he 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.”
Ah yes. End-of-life counseling is a good thing–but when it’s written in to a bill that creates a public option (which won’t cover seniors, who already enjoy Medicare) and is devoted to cost containment…well, people might begin to think that’s a recipe for coerced euthanasia. So paying Medicare doctors for providing end of life counseling should be codified in a stand alone bill. Or something.
I’m going way out on a limb here, but maybe deathers think what they think because people like Grassley go out and tell them they’re right to be afraid, despite knowing full well that House health care legislation won’t “give the government such authority in deciding when and how people die.”
You can read his full statement below the fold.
“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.”
