GOP Voted for Death Panels in 2003

Talk about hypocrisy.

Read this over at Time Magazine how in 2003 the GOP voted in favor of an "end of life" counseling provision in an earlier health care bill (Article source: Oh, Those Death Panels

You would think that if Republicans wanted to totally mischaracterize a health care provision and demagogue it like nobody's business, they would at least pick something that the vast majority of them hadn't already voted for just a few years earlier. Because that's not just shameless, it's stupid.

Remember the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, the one that passed with the votes of 204 GOP House members and 42 GOP Senators? Anyone want to guess what it provided funding for? Did you say counseling for end-of-life issues and care? Ding ding ding!!

Let's go to the bill text, shall we? "The covered services are: evaluating the beneficiary's need for pain and symptom management, including the individual's need for hospice care; counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning."

Time Magazine also points out that one of the more prolific "death panel" accusers, Sen . Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) who railed against "death panels" recently, voted in favor of precisely this provision in 2003 (H.R.1 Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act of 2003)

This blogger calls Sen. Grassley out on his flip-flop stance when it comes to the government's role in health care:

Grassley told a Panora, Iowa crowd on Wednesday that end-of-life planning “ought to be done within the family and considered a religious and ethical issue and not something that politicians deal with.”

Except that in 2005, Grassley supported government intervention in the case of Terri Shiavo. I'm sure you remember that case. Shiavo was a Florida woman who had suffered brain injuries and had been in a vegetative state for 15 years. Why was it OK for politicians to "deal with" that case?

The question "Why was it OK for politicians to "deal with" that case?" is easy enough to answer - when said politicians want to pander to the religious right.

Excellent find and I certainly don't want to demoralize of minimize the importance of pointing these thigns out, but it just proves that what the talking heads say means absolutely nothing. Nothing very new here.

Don't you know?

It's only evil, immoral, Nazi fascism when the Democrats do it.

That should have been obvious by now.

It's dirty politics as usual.

Look at the voting record and you'll see more GOP senators/congressmen voted for "end of life" counseling in the 2003 bill than DEMs.

Now the GOP refers to these as "death panels". Despicable.

When are you people going to wake up and realize that both parties are just part of the plan.........

Both are puppets...............geeeezzzzzz

Those that believe in a "such" party are the ones that will let our country slip away to the elites.......

[edit on 20-8-2009 by Cloudsinthesky]

The Washington elite are controlled by the lobbyists and major campaign supporters... They will always influence the controlling parties in order to advance their agendas, regardless of the party, be it democrat, or republican... Votes in congress are manipulated and controlled.. Eventually everyone gets what they want, or in most cases pay for.

Current and older reform plans are much the same, so what does that really tell you?

When will people wake up and GET IT?

Keep playing the partisan games, it really doesnt matter, they aren't interested in buying your votes.

Eventually they will get the congress to pass the bills that they want.

I don't know why americans do this all the time. The amount your politicians flipflop is lord of the rings epic, and yet you're all so quick to blame the other side. BOTH parties do this religiously. I mean honestly, there must be thousands of these types of examples.

does this somehow change the issue of it being right or wrong, the death panels? Is this an example of a bunch of politicians lying? Are people supposed to be floored? Or does this give a select few a warm fuzzy feeling inside knowing the other side got the blame this time?

Imo, anyone who votes with either party and calls the other side out on being hypocritical is themself a hypocrite for not seeing what their own party does, amazingly oblivious while tooting their horn.

oh, and i think death panels are bad.

I'll be honest.

If this was a good economy, this bill wouldn't be a problem for Dems or Reps even if it included a death panel.

In a bad economy, the minority party is out to get the majority party.

In a bad economy, the minority party is out to get the majority party.

It's Amerika, both parties are out to undermine the other, economy notwithstanding.

Imo, anyone who votes with either party and calls the other side out on being hypocritical is themself a hypocrite for not seeing what their own party does, amazingly oblivious while tooting their horn

I'm not a democrat, so I hope your comment is not aimed at me, although you have a valid point. As far as degrees of hypocrisy goes, though, this one surely takes the cake. To label something as sinister as a "death panel" when you, as a Senator (or Congressman), voted in favor of just such a proposal a mere few years earlier goes beyond the usual partisan politics of destruction.

Reading this immediately turned me into a hysterical spasming mass on the floor, unable to get up.

If you want to see some ticked off people, show this to the already angry town-hall crew...

I thought I was numb to politics, but this is just so rich I can't take it...

Originally posted by milesp
I thought I was numb to politics, but this is just so rich I can't take it...

What would be even more hilarious is if it was a "conservative" who added to HR 3200 in the first place.

the 2003 bill was sponsored by Rep Hastert, J. Dennis (IL-14), a republican.

The co-sponsors were:

Rep Bilirakis, Michael (R-Palm Harbor)
Rep Blunt, Roy (R - MO)
Rep Bradley, Jeb (R - NH)
Rep Brown-Waite, Ginny (R - FL)
Rep Burns, Max (R - GA)
Rep Capito, Shelley Moore (R - W Va)
Rep DeLay, Tom (R - TX)
Rep Dunn, Jennifer (R - Wa)
Rep Fletcher, Ernie (R - KY)
Rep Goss, Porter J. (R - FL)
Rep Graves, Sam (R - MO)
Rep Johnson, Nancy L. (R - CT)
Rep McCrery, Jim (R - LA)
Rep Nunes, Devin (R - CA)
Rep Peterson, Collin C. (R - MN)
Rep Pryce, Deborah (R - OH)
Rep Simmons, Rob (R - CT)
Rep Sullivan, John (R - OK)
Rep Tauzin, W. J. (Billy) (R - LA)
Rep Thomas, William M. (R - CA)

So there you have it. the DEATH PANELS were proposed by the GOP (somebody alert Sarah Palin!) The very thing they proposed back in 2003 is the very thing they're fighting against now (maybe fighting isn't the right word - fearmongering is more like it). No if's, and's or but's about it - this is hypocrisy.

I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised. Just like the Democrats this time around, I'm sure that the GOP didn't bother actually reading what they voted for back in 2003, either.

The stupidity of Congress permeates both sides of the political isle.

I'm sure that the GOP didn't bother actually reading what they voted for back in 2003, either.

They didn't just vote for it - they wrote it. which makes their "death panel" accusations all the more self-serving.

What amazes me is that you dont even know what the "issue" was with the death panels.

The "death panels" was a stand-in for the entire rationing process.

Then you had the end of life consultants. Which is the direct comparasion being made here.

What was/is the problem that people have with them now? The fact the Govt was going to pay?

No!

The problem was the Federal Govt WAS MANDATING THAT THE MEETING HAPPEN.

That is what was objectionable. That the Fed Govt would force this conversation to occur. And the reason for it was for cost savings.

If I read this bill on this thread correctly, it was merely paying for a service that apparently was patient initiated.

So what are all these shouts of hypocracy for?

Americans are getting dumber and dumber. Can't read. Can't remember. Get all emotional.

[edit on 20-8-2009 by VinceP1974]

Originally posted by VinceP1974

The problem was the Federal Govt WAS MANDATING THAT THE MEETING HAPPEN.

That is what was objectionable. That the Fed Govt would force this conversation to occur. And the reason for it was for cost savings.

Wrong.

The provision (which by the way was removed from the bill due to all of the misguided hysteria) simply mandated that medicare pay for the counseling once every five years. The actual end of life counseling would have been completely optional, the only thing mandated was that medicare cover at least one session of counseling every five years.

"The only thing mandatory is that Medicare will have to pay for the counseling," said Dau.

For our ruling on this one, there's really no gray area here. McCaughey incorrectly states that the bill would require Medicare patients to have these counseling sessions and she is suggesting that the government is somehow trying to interfere with a very personal decision. And her claim that the sessions would "tell [seniors] how to end their life sooner" is an outright distortion. Rather, the sessions are an option for elderly patients who want to learn more about living wills, health care proxies and other forms of end-of-life planning. McCaughey isn't just wrong, she's spreading a ridiculous falsehood. That's a Pants on Fire.

[url=http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/23/betsy-mccaughey/mccaughey-claims-end-life-counseling-will-be-requi/]PolitiFact[/ur l]

Originally posted by VinceP1974
Americans are getting dumber and dumber. Can't read. Can't remember. Get all emotional.

You were saying?





EDIT to fix link

EDIT to say the boards are broken

[edit on 20-8-2009 by drwizardphd]

[edit on 20-8-2009 by drwizardphd]

End of life consultation has always been part of a patients care, hospitals and doctors have always done this - it's nothing new. You have a patient dieing of cancer you have to provide some measure or pain relief, or when things get grim, hospice care until they pass. In the 2003 bill Hastert and a number of GOP members were looking to "strengthen and improve" the medicare program (it was passed by both house and senate). They sought to provide government coverage of a number of "end of life" issues, including hospice consultation, and when and where the government pays for this. The 2009 proposal is no more a "death panel" than the 2003 proposal. What plan would be complete without provisions for end of life care? I guarantee your private insurance plan has clauses for end of life care.

You claim its a mandatory meeting strictly about "cost savings". Yet if you have a patient who is clearly terminal, you have to have an end of life consultation. It happens in private insurance too, and it is to the patient's benefit. Are you buying into the FUD that the government is proposing pulling plugs and sending in Dr. Kervorkian for terminal patients?

Even more of a reason why people are at these town hall meetings.
People are sick and tired of being sick and tired with everything the government keeps doing everytime the pendulum swings.

Sarah Palin is back in the news once again extorting "death Panels".

Wonder why she didn't call out the earlier GOP effort to pass end of life counseling as a death panel? Just shows that this current "death panel" drama is just an organized smear campaign from the GOP. Pathetic!

reply to post by frankensence


Because she is sucking to the ones that will be promoting her future in politics the big insurance companies.