The Note: Grassley says Bipartisan Bill Would Scrap End-of-Life Counseling
EmailABC's Z. Byron Wolf reports: A day after he got an earful from Iowans at four townhall meetings, Sen. Charles Grassley, the lead of three Republican negotiators still seeking a bipartisan health reform bill in the Senate, released a written statement unequivocally against the bill Democrats are considering in the House.
Grassley calls it "the Pelosi bill" – and specifically he addresses the end-of-life counseling the House bill would reimburse Medicare doctors for providing.
Grassley says the bipartisan Senate negotiators have dropped all mention of end-of-life care from their bill "because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly."
But its notable that Grassley says the "methodical approach" in the Finance Committee continues. And he's referring to "the Pelosi bill" in the House and not the Obama health care plan, implying he still wants to work with the President.
But by dismissing any end of life care counseling and any government-run plan, his statement also outlines the gulf that remains even between party centrists on health care.
Full Grassley statement:
“The bill passed by the House committees is so poorly cobbled together that it will have all kinds of unintended consequences, including making taxpayers fund health care subsidies for illegal immigrants. On the end-of-life issue, there’s a big difference between a simple educational campaign, as some advocates want, and the way the House committee-passed bill pays physicians to advise patients about end of life care and rates physician quality of care based on the creation of and adherence to orders for end-of-life care, while at the same time creating a government-run program that is likely to lead to the rationing of care for everyone. On the Finance Committee, we are working very hard to avoid unintended consequences by methodically working through the complexities of all of these issues and policy options. That methodical approach continues. We dropped end-of-life provisions from consideration entirely because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly. Maybe others can defend a bill like the Pelosi bill that leaves major issues open to interpretation, but I can’t.”
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
Better idea……….scrap Grassley.
Posted by: Sammy | August 13, 2009, 4:58 pm 4:58 pm
Maybe others can defend Grassley’s ignorance, but I can’t. To think that this person was elected to the senate–I wonder what other major misunderstandings he has. I welcome the idea that congressional members would debate the merits of watching spending, or what provisions in the health plan are beneficial or not—but I am horrified that someone in the senate is so confused about creating patient directives.
Posted by: Debbie | August 13, 2009, 5:12 pm 5:12 pm
The key to any successful bill will be:
No use of the words “Phased Out”.
Example – You can keep your own insurance, dual pay – However it only allows it until it is phased out. On the surface it says we can keep it, but no mention of how and why it will phase out. The way its written now, insurance can be invalidated for as little as a change in pricing. Putting a time limit and conditions on sensitive issues is an old ploy.
The way it’s headed now, the only way out for the admin. is to change the language, but keep the original intent.
It’s far from over. The final bill has to be tamper proof
Posted by: DK | August 13, 2009, 5:12 pm 5:12 pm
We dropped end-of-life provisions from consideration entirely because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly.
==========================================
Seems to me the only ones mis-interpreting end-of-language are right-wing nut jobs and weak politicians like Grassley who kowtow to them.
Posted by: indy_voter | August 13, 2009, 5:23 pm 5:23 pm
“Maybe others can defend a bill like the Pelosi bill that leaves major issues open to interpretation, but I can’t.”
If he and his little gang of six (who COMBINED represent 1/50th of this country’s population) put together a real bill, I’ll be happy. But this sounds like pandering to the ignorant base. The only interpretation required of the “Pelosi bill” on this issue is the ability to interpret English.
Posted by: jhw539 | August 13, 2009, 5:30 pm 5:30 pm
Sen. Grassley, seeking re-election next year, went home to Iowa, took off his statesman’s jacket, and donned the cloak of typical pandering, how low- can-you go politician. Unfortunately, he forgot that today everyone has a cell phone video camera. Chuck, nice Macaca moment! Who would have thought that Sen. Murkowski would be the lone stand up Republican with an intellectually honest backbone.
Posted by: Fed Up | August 13, 2009, 5:38 pm 5:38 pm
what an idiot?! There is nothing wrong with discussions about dying and ideally you have these before you are in a bad position. Just as you, hopefully, have a will and settle your estate. Same with your medical care and directives, organ donations, etc. If you don’t you can cause more stress on family, confusion at the hospital, and more money for lawyers!
What Grassley, and all of us, SHOULD be concerned about is 1) why government should be paying for these discussions and 2) what about eliminating doctor-patient privledge and this Orwellian database, controlled by a political “czar”, that will contain ALL of our personal health information (prescriptions, dna, sexual history, disease history, bloodtype, family history, mental health issues, etc.) That is scary. Talk about useful for political blackmail, fraud, or even crime frame-up jobs!
Posted by: Ed | August 13, 2009, 6:00 pm 6:00 pm
Grassley is a dope. There is nothing wrong with end-of-life discussions – just like there is nothing wrong with talking about sex. In fact, having complete information helps.
If you look at the Des Moines Register comparison of health reform plans, it is clear that the Republicans and Grassley have NO plan. Their plan is to try to scare you and the elderly, especially, with lies.
It is time to move forward with the discussion.
Posted by: Mom | August 13, 2009, 6:28 pm 6:28 pm
I really didn’t have a problem with it if the wording was just to give council and it was optional. Everyone should know about ‘Living Wills”. But it is a bit ‘nanny’ like.
Posted by: LongT | August 13, 2009, 7:27 pm 7:27 pm
They need to scrap the whole thing & start over.
This is what true healthcare reform should do:
1) Stop insurance being employer based & make it more like auto & homeowners insurance.
2) If that doesn’t occur, then allow small businesses to form healthcare consortiums (with 501(c)3 status) to purchase insurance at reduced rates.
3) Allow insurance companies to sell products across state lines (and across county lines within states)
4) Give incentives to pharmaceutical companies to charge other countries the same as what they charge us – why should we fund the research for the rest of the world?
5) Encourage the legal system to throw out frivolous lawsuits and juries to award appropriate amounts instead of the millions they do now (I would say ‘tort reform’, but that is still too much government intervention)
6)After the above has been completed, dismantle Medicare – the creation of this bureaucratic, bloated, ineffective program was the beginning of our healthcare problems. Give seniors cash to upgrade their supplemental insurance through the transition.
Posted by: ellsbells930 | August 13, 2009, 7:39 pm 7:39 pm
Grassley knows the position the White House is in and understands he can essentially do anything and still receive public support from Obama and Gibbs, etc.
Posted by: matt | August 13, 2009, 9:22 pm 9:22 pm
What is the “obama health care plan” referred to in the article and please tell me where I can find it. I have read the house bill and have read some points about the senate bill, but have not seen anything about the obama plan. Please Sammy, Debbie, Indy, etc., please tell me. I would love to look it up.
Posted by: ontoyou | August 13, 2009, 10:44 pm 10:44 pm
Unless you die young, everyone needs some form of end-of-life planning and one’s doctor should be an integral part of that process. Living wills and medical powers of attorney are a good start, but as aging Americans begin to confront the progressive disabilities that come with age and as Americans continue to develop progressively terminal illness, these plans become more urgent and more final. Right wingers think we just should leave it in the hands of doctors to decide at the end? Because end of life planning is expensive when it includes your medical team. Being reimbursed for some of this planning can make the difference between someone getting the help they need and not getting it and just taking their chances that someone like Randall Terry won’t show up at the end and insist that the hospital stick a tube in every orifice and keep us alive like slabs of meat on a gurney.
Dying well can be just as important as living well, but the mobs would deny us the financial help to do that, maybe because they think they will live forever and never have to deal with those decisions, or maybe they’ve got enough money stashed away to pay for the counseling.
Posted by: windrider | August 13, 2009, 11:55 pm 11:55 pm
Not to mention …end of political life
for Sen. Grassley.
Posted by: Trajan | August 14, 2009, 12:06 am 12:06 am
Windrider, I am far more concerned with someone coming along (like they did in Oregon recently) and decide to withhold medicines that prolong a person’s life when they want it or even counsel/cajole/bully people into making death causing decisions. “Right to die” is just a stone’s throw from “Duty to die” once the feds take over the decision-making process.
Furthermore, it is a fine thing for a doctor to respond to patient/family queries about quality of life issues. It is an entirely different matter to place doctors in the position of saying patients would be better off if allowed/helped to die. I can understand that being a patient/family choice but NEVER a doctor/provider directive.
Posted by: Don | August 14, 2009, 12:15 am 12:15 am
When the money becomes scarce ( as it will ) and the doctors and health providers get the long list of do’s and don’t you all going to see the real bill. Me ? working my b__t off paying for the illegals, abortions, lame and lazy medical care ? I don’t think soooo. The bill should not pass. Enough of the nanny state government ! Can’t wait for 2010 and get rid of the thieves, liars and abusers in the Congress !
Posted by: Frank | August 14, 2009, 12:41 am 12:41 am
Good on Grassely for standing up for Americans concerned about socialising the healthcare.
Pelosi is too dumb to read her own bill and thinks Americans love Govt run health care which they dont.
If Govt run healthcare is such a spectacular thinng, then can Dems say why people in Britain and Canada wait months to even get a simple medical test.
As usual Liberals are clueless and their plans are a wreck, thank goodness there are some sensible people left in the se
Posted by: Gregh | August 14, 2009, 3:42 am 3:42 am
Don:
The insurance companies already deny medicines and treatments. The best part is you don’t get to decide. You fear the slippery slope yet I don’t see it. Do you really think Americans would let the government do that… maybe because we let the insurance companies do it NOW! BTW the bill was to allow the health plan to pay for counseling. COUNSELING for God sake. That means paying for a doctor to discuss the options. What fools we have become.
Posted by: muffler | August 14, 2009, 9:36 am 9:36 am
As usual Liberals are clueless and their plans are a wreck, thank goodness there are some sensible people left
==========================================
You lost me here….When are people sensible when they are driven to act soley based on lies spread by loonies? And I say loonies because they are the only ones mis-interpreting the provision. A sensible person would stand their ground against such lies. But, alas Grassley is like most politicians. Gutless.
Posted by: indy_voter | August 14, 2009, 10:01 am 10:01 am
COUNSELING What is wrong with the Intelligence of the average American these days? AND SHAME ON THIS SENATOR FOR LYING AND SCARING SENIOR CITIZENS VOTE THIS BUM OUT!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: ANGIE IN PA | August 14, 2009, 10:29 am 10:29 am
Apparently counseling seems to be a bad thing. I might be cynical, but to these same people it would be alright if it was to show people “the right passages in the bible” or gave catholic priests the right to prey for someone even if the person was not of that faith, but holy cow batman..if they want to explain reality and real options in anything from end of life issues to personal women choices we have an outrage!
Posted by: Muffler | August 14, 2009, 11:03 am 11:03 am
This is a big win for Gov. Palin. She stood alone, She stood for those of us with no voice. She stands with the disfranchised. The media attacked her much like they did during the election, and in the end the will of the people wins out. Sarah owns the moral high ground.
Posted by: Ed | August 14, 2009, 11:09 am 11:09 am
Ed:
Palin doesn’t give two hoots about you and the “disenfranchised”. She will do and say anything to further herself. First you voted and I guess lost in the Presidential election. That doesn’t make you disenfranchised.. it makes you a sore loser to the will of the American people. Secondly Palin lied about section 1233 or HR 3200. Read it! It short and easy. The moral ground is BS as the truth is the only enduring reality. Actually read HR3200. I have and although it has problems I don’t see the opposition offering anything or trying to contribute to the debate. They just are using you as a pawn by creating fear and objecting based on no real evidence.
Posted by: MUffler | August 14, 2009, 11:55 am 11:55 am
Folks who talk about the Death with Dignity Act in Oregon would do well to research it before offering uninformed opinions. Meds that pro-long life are not withheld. The patient decides.
Washington State will be joining Oregon soon in similar legislation. If other Americans don’t like the way we do things here in Oregon, please don’t move to Oregon. We neither need nor want Bible Belters here.
Posted by: Sammy | August 14, 2009, 12:03 pm 12:03 pm
Posted by: Sammy | Aug 14, 2009 12:03:45 PM
I also live in Oregon. As of 2007, 341 people have ended their lives under our “Death with Dignity Act” and it has not turned into scary government “Death Panels” or a “Slippery Slope”.
The rules for participation are well-considered and very strict, however, a patient can rescind a request at any time and in any manner. It is up to specifically qualified patients and licensed physicians to implement the Act on a case-by-case basis. No doctor is ever forced to provide prescriptions to patients, and participation is COMPLETELY voluntary.
Beginning in 2001 the Bush Administration’s attorney general (John Ashcroft) challenged this law, however it has was upheld in 2006 by the US Supreme Court. Oregonians decided that terminally-ill people should have the freedom to end their lives with the voluntary self-administration of lethal meds. The medications are expressly prescribed by a Doctor for that purpose.
Our “Death with Dignity Act” has been controversial, but it has also been passed twice by Oregon voters. Oregon is a balanced mix of conservative and progressive voters who may not always agree, but we try to work together. People here are very lucky to live close to nature – we still carry an independent, pioneer attitude and strongly believe in State’s Rights.
For FAQ’s about how the “Death with Dignity Act” has worked for Oregon, go to http://www.oregon.gov.
Posted by: Idahogirl888 | August 14, 2009, 12:52 pm 12:52 pm
Scrap the “Public Option” and the
Majority of Americans will support it!
Reform yes, Big Brother no!
Posted by: reaganfan | August 14, 2009, 2:25 pm 2:25 pm
Palin is such a manipulative hypocritical liar. While governor of Alaska she proclaimed April 16, 2008 as Healthcare Decisions Day in Alaska….
WHEREAS, Healthcare Decisions Day is designed to raise public awareness of the need to plan ahead for healthcare decisions, related to end of life care and medical decision-making whenever patients are unable to speak for themselves and to encourage the specific use of advance directives to communicate these important healthcare decisions. WHEREAS, in Alaska, Alaska Statute 13.52 provides the specifics of the advance directives law and offers a model form for patient use.
Posted by: trueblue | August 15, 2009, 9:25 am 9:25 am
Wasn’t this clown saying that the end of life stuff was government mandated euthanasia panels like a week ago? And now he’s complaining it got taken out?
Posted by: T | August 16, 2009, 4:16 pm 4:16 pm