I am finally scared of a White House administration. President Obama's desired health care reform intends that a federal board (similar to the British model) — as in the Center for Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation in a current Democratic bill — decides whether your quality of life, regardless of your political party, merits government-controlled funds to keep you alive. Watch for that life-decider in the final bill. It's already in the stimulus bill signed into law.
Must have been Rush Limbaugh, or maybe Glenn Beck or Ann Coulter. Someone irresponsible like that. Or maybe Sarah Palin has been turned loose on the Facebook again, making more of her reckless wild-ass charges. That's what you'd think, right?
If that's what you think, you're wrong. The author is Nat Hentoff. Here's the full quote from his latest column:
I was not intimidated during J. Edgar Hoover's FBI hunt for reporters like me who criticized him. I railed against the Bush-Cheney war on the Bill of Rights without blinking. But now I am finally scared of a White House
administration. President Obama's desired health care reform intends that a federal board (similar to the British model) — as in the Center for Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation in a current Democratic bill — decides whether your quality of life, regardless of your political party, merits government-controlled funds to keep you alive. Watch for that life-decider in the final bill. It's already in the stimulus bill signed into law.
Emphasis mine. If you don't know who Hentoff is, he's a man with impeccable liberal credentials. He spent the majority of his 50+ year career at the Village Voice, which no one confuses with National Review. He wrote a book, The War on the Bill of Rights and the Gathering Resistance, that was highly critical of the Bush Adminstration's actions in the aftermath of 9/11. He's one of the most important living experts on the meaning and importance of the First Amendment. He's not a nut. He also offers this cautionary note, quoting journalist Wesley Smith:
As more Americans became increasingly troubled by this and other fearful elements of Dr. Obama's cost-efficient health care regimen, Smith adds this vital advice, no matter what legislation Obama finally signs into law:
"Remember that legislation itself is only half the problem with Obamacare. Whatever bill passes, hundreds of bureaucrats in the federal agencies will have years to promulgate scores of regulations to govern the details of the law.
"This is where the real mischief could be done because most regulatory actions are effectuated beneath the public radar. It is thus essential, as just one example, that any end-of-life counseling provision in the final bill be specified to be purely voluntary … and that the counseling be required by law to be neutral as to outcome. Otherwise, even if the legislation doesn't push in a specific direction — for instance, THE GOVERNMENT REFUSING TREATMENT — the regulations could." (Emphasis added.)
Emphasis noted. Read the whole thing.
1 comment:
Mark,
By linking to this column and citing Hentoff's liberal bonafides, you are understandably trying to create the impression that there Hentoff is a liberal mouthpiece and that there is reasonable uncertainty about the alleged Death Panels from the left. Neither is true. Hentoff is hardly the torch bearer for liberal politics that you imply, and does not speak for the Liberal establishment. He is known as a civil libertarian, free speech activist, anti-death penalty advocate and pro-life advocate who has many enemies on the left. He is a frequent and vociferous critic of the ideological left, and supported the incredibly misguided 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Hentoff, once a major supporter and board member of the ACLU, has become one of its most vocal critics. He now serves on the board of advisors for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which is another civil liberties group that has a decidedly right lean. Citing Hentoff as a prototypical member of the Liberal establishment is akin to citing Bob Barr or Ron Paul as standard bearers for mainstream Conservatism. It may work for the poorly informed, but it won't stand up to scrutiny.
Also, I read the column you linked to, and couldn't help but note that Hentoff makes a very large factual error that renders his rather shrill argument moot. Regarding the "purely voluntary" nature of end of life consultations in the House bill, Hentoff writes: "But Obamas' doctors will initiate these chats". This is the central point of his argument, and it is patently false. The House version stipulates that Medicare will cover one consultation every five years. "Purely voluntary" means just that, and to pretend otherwise is baseless. Furthermore, nothing in the House Bill stipulates that anyone in Government will "initiate" consultaions, nor does it say ANYWHERE that they will be required. So that is just outright lies. The Bill says that it will FUND up to one consultation every five years. And consider Hentoff's language here: "Obams' doctors"...what is that supposed to mean? Has Obama founded a medical school? It is silly, and normally, Hentoff is a much more skilled demagogue.
Regards,
Rich
Post a Comment