Why are the elderly opposed to Obamacare?

First, they love Medicare and see no reason to change it. Secondly, they have heard that Obamacare will be funded, in part, by cutting Medicare spending by $500 billion over a decade, which is called for by bills passed by House committees.

"If there is a half trillion dollars of waste in Medicare, why wasn't it cut out before?" asks Dr. David Prentice of the Family Research Council. "It is hard to take out $500 billion from Medicare unless you are decreasing benefits or cutting back on the actual practice of the program. Seniors are right to be concerned. They are the ones who stand to lose the most."

But the bigger problem is the bill's Section 1233, mandating that doctors give the elderly, "Advanced Care Planning Consultation." Seniors see that as "death counseling."

Part of this is reasonable. Everyone should have a living will and advanced care directives so a loved one can make health care decisions on your behalf, if you are unable to do so. Currently, only a third of people have made such plans.

However, this provision's big proponent is Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, an enthusiastic supporter of his state's assisted suicide law. There are cases in Oregon where cancer patients were told payments would not be made for cancer treatment, only for assisted suicide. Dr. Prentice argues that is "geared to saving money."

Sarah Palin said there would be "Death Boards," deciding who would live and who would be left to die. A young girl in New Hampshire held up a sign outside a meeting where President Obama spoke Tuesday: "Obama Lies, Grandma Dies."

Obama told the Town Meeting, "The rumor that's been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for 'death panel' that will basically pull the plug on grandma."

"I'm not in favor of that," the president asserted, denouncing those making such claims as using "scare tactics."

Scare tactics? Not according to Dr. Wesley Smith, who leads bioethics and human rights for the Discovery Institute. The House-passed bill does set up "proper care protocols" for cost savings. "The fear is that they would be rationing boards, rather than entities which stick to saying, 'Use generic drugs, rather than brand name drugs.'

"We have to wait for the regulations to implement the law to know what powers would be given. Therefore, I've looked at writings of advocates who have the President's ear on this, such as Ezekiel Emmanuel, NIH's head bioethicist and brother of the President's chief-of-staff, Rahm Emmanuel. In a "Lancet" article earlier this year, Exekiel suggested that age be a proper method of allocating scarce resources, and indeed, stated that age-based allocation is not invidious discrimination."

He wrote: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years old."

More important, consider the writing of Cass Sunstein, who was appointed by Obama to be the "Regulatory Czar." This is the Executive Summary of a paper he wrote in 2003 for the Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, entitled "Lives, Life-Years, and Willingness to Pay." To protect health, he notes that government has relied on cost-benefit analysis, which "monetized risks of death through the idea of 'value of a statistical life" assessed at $6.1 million.

Instead he proposes the measure be "value of a statistical life year" which "would likely result in significantly lower benefit calculations for elderly people, and significantly higher benefits calculations for children. I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people."

Obamacare has become Obamascare.

Wesley Smith suggests a simple solution. "Put in a provision that Advanced Care Planning is purely voluntary to the patient and the provider, and shall not be directed to any particular result," such as cutting Medicare costs.

Without such language, millions may be pushed to die prematurely.

----Michael J. McManus is a syndicated columnist writing on "Ethics & Religion". He is President & Co-Chair of Marriage Savers. He lives with his wife in Potomac, MD.

*****

Health care bills that fund abortion are 'seriously deficient,' Cardinal Rigali says

From Sotto Voce
August 12, 2009

While expressing support for some kind of health care reform, Cardinal Justin Rigali, the chair of the U.S. Bishops' Secretariat on Pro-Life Activities, says the present reform proposal is "seriously deficient" because it bypasses restrictions on the federal funding of abortion and allows federal officials to make unlimited abortion a mandated benefit.

Writing in an August 11 letter to each member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Cardinal Rigali noted that the U.S. Catholic bishops view health care as a basic human right.

They have long supported health care reform that "respects human life and dignity from conception to natural death" and provides access to quality health care for all, especially immigrants and the poor.

Cardinal Rigali said his present letter concerned the America's Affordable Health Choices Act (H.R. 3200) and related legislation, emphasizing that respect for human life and the rights of conscience is a "fundamental requirement."

"Much-needed reform must not become a vehicle for promoting an 'abortion rights' agenda or reversing longstanding policies against federal funding and mandated coverage of abortion," the cardinal wrote, echoing his July 29 letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

"In this sense we urge you to make this legislation 'abortion neutral,' by preserving longstanding federal policies that prevent government promotion of abortion and respect conscience rights."

He described the proposed health care act as "seriously deficient" in that it delegates to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) the power to make unlimited abortion a mandated benefit in the health insurance plan the government will manage.

"This would be a radical change: Federal law has long excluded most abortions from federal employees' health benefits packages, and no federal health program mandates coverage of elective abortions," he pointed out.

Further, federal funds authorized by the proposed legislation do not pass through the Department of Labor or the HHS appropriations bill, and so are not covered by the Hyde Amendment restricting federal funding for abortions and health benefits package that include abortion.

According to Cardinal Rigali, the Capps Amendment, which was approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, created a "legal fiction" and a "paper separation" between federal funding and abortion.

The proposal uses federal funds to subsidize the public health plan and private plans that include abortion on demand. It requires a premium to cover "all abortions beyond those eligible for federal funds under the current Hyde Amendment."

The claim that federal taxpayer funds do not support abortion in the health care proposal is an "illusion," Cardinal Rigali said.

"Funds paid into these plans are fungible, and federal taxpayer funds will subsidize the operating budget and provider networks that expand access to abortions," he continued, warning that those who must purchase the public health plan will be "forced by the federal government to pay directly and specifically for abortion coverage."

"Government will force low-income Americans to subsidize abortions for others (and abortion coverage for themselves) even if they find abortion morally abhorrent," the cardinal alerted the representatives, saying this is the opposite of current policy.

"Most Americans do not want abortion in their health coverage, and most consider themselves 'pro-life,' with a stronger majority among low-income Americans," he said.

In addition to his criticisms, the cardinal described the "helpful improvements" of amendments that ensure the Act will not pre-empt state laws regulating abortion and existing federal conscience rights on abortion.

He also praised the Stupak/Pitts Amendment which prohibited federally-funded governmental bodies from discriminating against providers and insurers who decline involvement in abortion.

Cardinal Rigali said the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is working to ensure that "needed health reform" is not undermined by abandoning policies against abortion funding and conscience protections.

He urged Congressmen to help ensure that "unacceptable features" are absent from any legislation that receives a full House vote.

"By your actions on these issues, you can advance urgently needed health care reform that will truly serve the poor and needy and uphold the dignity of all," his letter concluded.

END