I don’t cover politics the way I used to, though sometimes I wish I did. I have other projects that tend to be of higher priority. Never doubt, though, that I remain passionate with the issues that plague our society today. One such plague is the health-care bill that has been the center of attention during the summer Congressional recess: HR3200. There’s a number of other suggestions from the Senate that mirror this, but to the American psyche, there is only one program, and it’s called “Obamacare.”

Members Of Congress, especially those peddling HR3200, have been flabbergasted by their constitutents. Their voters know more about the bill than they do. “Read the bill” has moved from slogan to a demand. People are telling MCs to “listen; your boss is talking to you.” When Sarah Palin issued a facebook statement on August 7 about the bill, the media jumped on this so-called yokel and ridiculed her. August 12 she responded to BHO slamming her comment, and spelled it out even clearly. Media folks kept laughing, then Republican senator Grassley pulled a provision that funds end-of-life counseling for the elderly on a regular basis (every five years).

“Death Panel.” While it seems hysterical to take the phrase literally, the image evoked a strong emotional response that has led to greater examination of those provisions. Liberals continue to ridicule the phrase; news outlets slip in editorial verbiage by calling the concept “mythical,” but what is a “death panel” anyway?

It doesn’t take a group of five gaunt men and women in funereal wear to form a death panel. All it takes is one doctor, the one the patient is seeing, to fulfill this role. As if the issue of long-term care and assistance for the elderly weren’t difficult enough for the individual, the patient has to deal with advice on whether to fight or fade away from their doctor, who in theory (and from a bygone day), is one of the people they trust most beyond family members. In fact, family members can be a source of pressure for elderly suicide, and has been the subject of psychology and sociology textbooks. Elders feel this pressure, and should a doctor perform the role of EOL counselor, with the financial incentive to save the system some money, then indubitably the patient runs out of people to trust.

This is one of my objections to HR3200. Liberals have alerted me to EOL counseling provisions in the 2003 medicare bill:

Coverage of certain physician’s services for certain terminally ill individuals would be authorized. Persons entitled to these services would be individuals who have not elected the hospice benefit and have not previously received these physician’s services. Covered services would be those furnished by a physician who is the medical director or employee of a hospice program. Services would include evaluating the individual’s need for pain and symptom management, counseling the individual with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the individual regarding advanced care planning. Payment for such services would equal the amount established for similar services under the physician fee schedule, excluding the practice expense component. The provision would apply to consultation services provided by a hospice program on or after January 1, 2004.

The death panel (read: physician) that a Medicare patient (read: elderly person) will have to face every five years is way different from the EOL counseling recommended by the GOP, but both are equally distasteful for the reasons I have stated above.

It is easiest to understand my objection by applying the same principles on which Obamacare is based to other professions. For example: would you like the federal government to violate the trust between lawyers and their clients by incentivizing guilty pleas versus vigorous defenses? Wait, that already happens.

I question the urgency by which Liberals insist on modifying the Health Care System in this country. The complicit media is sounding the alarms of an emergency, to which I call “Bullshit!” All they want is to manufacture crisis after crisis in order to make money, at the expense of our freedoms.