New Ads Sheds Light on Real 'Death Panels'

(WASHINGTON D.C.) - Americans United for Change unveiled a new television ad today called “Real Death Panels” that turns the table on the thoroughly debunked myth advanced by conservative politicians and pundits -- that ‘death panels’ are part of President Obama’s proposal for health insurance reform.

The ads spotlight the real death panels that exist in America today: private insurance companies that routinely deny claims made by policy holders or refuse to issue policies altogether, citing “pre-existing conditions,” with sometimes deadly consequences.

The ads include footage of congressional testimony from Dr. Linda Peeno, former Blue Cross/Blue Shield medical director, who on May 30, 1996 testified before the House Subcommittee on Health and Environment that “I’m haunted by the thousands of pieces of paper in which I have written that deadly word: denied.”

Jeremy Funk, of Americans United for Change, said, "Conservative politicians and pundits will do anything to keep the 'death panels' fantasy alive as part of an unscrupulous and concerted effort to kill health insurance reform."

"But where’s the hysteria from these same conservatives over the real death panels that exist right now in America with the big insurance companies denying millions of claims made by policy holders or refusing to issue policies altogether, citing 'pre-existing' conditions? As we learned from the personal experience of insurance industry whistleblower Linda Peeno, this routine behavior by the big insurance companies can have deadly consequences."

A recent report from U.S. Health and Human Services entitled “Coverage Denied: How the Current Health Insurance System Leaves Millions Behind; “Pre-Existing Conditions” Affect Millions of Americans” found:

* A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults5 – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years.

* In another survey, one in 10 people with cancer said they could not obtain health coverage, and six percent said they lost their coverage, because of being diagnosed with the disease.

* It is still legal in nine states for insurers to reject applicants who are survivors of domestic violence, citing the history of domestic violence as a pre-existing condition.

* Even when offering coverage, insurers can exclude whole categories of illnesses related to a pre-existing condition. For example, someone with a pre-existing condition of hay fever could have any respiratory system disease – such as bronchitis or pneumonia – excluded from coverage

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Jason August 24, 2009 2:41 pm (Pacific time)

Henry to answer your below questions, the problem does not end with the state government either condoning or encouraging suicide. Rather, it comes as a result of the public option’s bureaucratic masters, who have made Oregon’s government the first in the world to officially prioritize treatments for the express purpose of rationing care. Bureaucrats crunching the “comparative effectiveness” numbers — a benign-sounding term that is government code for “rationing” — at Oregon Health Services Commission headquarters have come up with a master list of 503 treatments and conditions the “public option” will cover for its enrollees. They have ranked them in ascending order of priority. Under this rationing program, a patient enrolled in the public option who was in need of a treatment or procedure the commission decided was not a top-503 priority would be out of luck; the procedure or treatment simply wouldn’t be covered. This is not terribly troubling; private insurers have a similar set of guidelines about what they will and will not cover. What is insidious is the fact that state bureaucrats balancing Oregon’s figurative checkbook could decide the public option’s budget only had enough cash left for a given fiscal year to fund some of the procedures on the list. This is where the prioritization comes in — to guide bureaucrats approving and denying treatments in the rationing of care. This is happening in other national health plans. Maybe that is why England and Canada are developing more private insurance programs? A question of morality?

Henry Ruark August 24, 2009 9:35 am (Pacific time)

'Anon": You wrote:"Only around 20% of the population is liberal as evidenced by most pollsters, so if you don't like that reality, you are going to have to deal with it, because that's just the way things are. " Au contraire, sir ! You cite distorted propaganda as if it were checkable fact. "Depends solely on how you phrase questions" is right out of manual on poll-building, as you may well know and as ANY reliable pollster (Including Rasmussen, with whom I have worked in checkered past) will rapidly confirm. Happens I've done some-such work related to education and media developments. (Ten-year national surveys in both media and education, and Annual Report pro-photography, too.) What's your experience, if any ? Anything published ? If so, where, when,source ? I'd like to check-and-read !! OR is that "Anon" simple action forced by lack of any credibility when queried ? ID self with working phone to Editor so we can continue without undue impact for any others with sense to share, so we all can learn.

Jason August 24, 2009 8:32 am (Pacific time)

If the current Health Bill passes, by law, government will be empowered to manage minute details of our lives. Over time — then a "1,000+-page health-care law explodes into many thousands of pages of regulatory codes” — that is precisely what government will do. Just look at the recent "Clunker" program and it's snafu's, well that is nothing compared to what may be coming down the pike. Right now wavering congressional representatives are discovering that they have more to fear from their districts than from their leadership and the White House. The ardor of public opposition will determine whether this bill passes or not in it's present form. Of course the democrats have more than enough votes to pass the "public option", so why are they saying others are stopping it? Diversion? The stakes here couldn’t be higher, time is short, and the metaphor “death panel” cuts to the chase. What, after all, is “end of life” counseling in a bill that, we here all agree, rations care (i.e., redirects it away from those who consume most of it now: the elderly and the infirm) and raises fast-track-to-euthanasia worries? Add to that a complete lack of resources. There must be another way, but we have no successful model to go by, especially considering our growing population and diminishing resources.

Henry Ruark August 23, 2009 5:44 pm (Pacific time)

Jason: Would YOU have approved the drugs for Wagner ? If so, which ones ? Pain- killers or life-ending ? WHO would YOU have pay ? IF she cannot, has to be carried by someone else -your choice. Charity ? Friends ? Strangers ? Tin-cup at door ? OR leave her in pain, and hopeless ?? WHO decide her suicide ? No state official demanded her use of drug by easing her own choice without further burden on others and with knowledge of approaching death anyhow. That is standard psychiatric approach based on merciful mental treatment, as you obviously do not understand. "Been there, done that" - so 'nuff said ?? WHO decide, those qualified at government agency, via full public record, as medical/drug specialists ? OR profit-drive entrepreneur types hyping Wall St. value of stock ? Own dollar-interests at stake ?? Nations run deficits by damned necessities; cannot possibly count on complete tax and other payments, so MUST finance --as does every other business, both for operations and for any profitable growth. Gross national product backs huge demands in all emergency, with U.S. well ahead of most nations in ratios involved. We chose to allow wasting wars wiping out trillions on neocon nonentity-cabal action, now we must pay in full for consequences --for policy and decisions made long before we chose Obama for any hope-left. Should we then abandon some 46-million/plus Americans to the disasters of healthcare bankruptcy and/or healthcare neglect, and /or family, kids included, failing preventive care, sure to end in ER at high costs and some fatalities whiile others pay for personal nose-jobs ??? OR weight loss ? OR whatever private profit can "cover" and make some bucks ? If NOT full protection and breaking continuing cost-up cycle, what do YOU suggest ? Do NOTHING Now ? Where do you want us to send resulting dead bodies ? Where those wasting away via no Flomax, no prescriptions, no hope, no life-left will finally end up, sooner rather than later... BTW, what's YOUR healthcare status ?

Jason August 23, 2009 12:39 pm (Pacific time)

Sarah Palin has been criticized for suggesting that the President's healthcare proposals may result in "death panels" affecting chronically sick people, the elderly, or the disabled. However, Palin's remarks accurately show how some federal healthcare provisions may work if passed into law (read the House Bill), because if the government controls healthcare, faceless government officials far from your doctor's office will make your treatment decisions. A government "panel?" Probably. A government "death panel?" Yes, if that panel decides that your doctor should withhold a treatment that could improve your health, save your life, or keep you comfortable. I'm sorry to tell you that in some states, we already have anonymous bureaucrats who decide who lives and who dies. Legally. In Oregon, things are equally concerning. Oregon already has a state healthcare system that rations treatments and decides who will receive it. Oregon has also legalized assisted suicide as a healthcare option. That's where Barbara Wagner found herself - sick in Oregon. Wagner had terminal cancer, and her doctors wanted to give her a very expensive medication that, while not able to make her better, would keep her comfortable for the rest of her life. The state of Oregon sprang into action: They sent Wagner a letter saying that state healthcare would not cover the medication, because it was too expensive and that it would make no difference to her terminal diagnosis. However, the state wrote, they would be happy to pay for the (very inexpensive) drugs that would help her commit suicide. Panels making life and death decisions? I will add that the whitehouse revised their budget (deficit) which was to be released in early July, before the national health bill vote by the way, and has said that $2 trillion more dollars will be added to the deficit. That is $two thousand billion dollars. Our economy, if destroyed, will not be able to much at all. We have to build our economy back up before we can do anything. Do you write checks with no money in the account? Well we are in some very bad shape, and the over-spending has to stop.

Henry Ruark August 22, 2009 1:54 pm (Pacific time)

For those who listen to Palin, I suggest that, if you need a moose slaughtered in your kitchen, she might be a good choice.

Anonymous August 22, 2009 1:51 pm (Pacific time)

I would imagine that the DC elected people are coming to realize that it is a grassroots movement that will not go away. These are smart people who see through the propaganda. When they attempt to alter the meaning of the 2nd Amendment on a national level, which they will, then you will really see some activity. You have an older and experienced population wanting this health bill stopped, they will not go away and the 2010 election will cause some significant change in leadership. Only around 20% of the population is liberal as evidenced by most pollsters, so if you don't like that reality, you are going to have to deal with it, because that's just the way things are. The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 29% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-nine percent (39%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -10 This is the first time since July 31 that the President’s Approval Index has fallen to negative double digits (see trends). Sixty percent (60%) of liberal voters Strongly Approve while 68% of conservatives Strongly Disapprove. This creates a challenge for the President since there are roughly twice as many conservative voters as liberals. www.ramussen.com click on presidential daily poll.

Martin August 22, 2009 1:32 pm (Pacific time)

It really is quite clear that when you have diminishing resources you have to ration. Whether you're on a drifting lifeboat with limited water or a huge modern hospital with more patients than the staff and medical equipment can handle, you have to triage, then ration. You will have a group of bean counters that enter and they decide how those limited resources are rationed. It is happening every day in Oregon when patients are denied lifesaving treatments because of limited resources and you have decision-making panels that decide how to ration those resources. Earlier this week in Vancouver BC they announced canceling over 6,000 surgeries because they didn't have the resources. Just what does the government run that is not having problems? The Post Office is nearly bankrupt, as is medicare, medicaid and social security. The Stimulus bill has not worked and the few jobs it created our either short term or government. The Clunkers program is not doing well in reimbursing the dealers (that's why doctors "opt out" when they are not reimbursed for medicare in a timely manner), the Bailout program is just delaying the inevitable. So it's time to go back to the drawing board and actually look at some private plans that work. The free enterprise system with government oversight is the only way to approach this. You have to be honest and look at other national health plans in other countries and see that they are failing and are now developing private market carriers, but many will die or suffer because of the long delays switching over. This is really not about healthcare in my opinion, but about power. Why won't your elected officals state that they will go on a national plan, afterall it is our taxes that pay for their "private insurance carriers?"

[Return to Top]

New Ads Sheds Light on Real 'Death Panels'

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News