Grassley 'Clarifies' Pull Plug On Grandma Statement, While Spokesman Retracts
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)--one of the most influential health care legislators on Capitol Hill--has an explanation for everybody who groaned when he told a crowd of reform skeptics they were right to be concerned that Democratic health care reform would "pull the plug on grandma."
You see, he says, "[t]he issue is whether end-of-life provisions should be part of legislation that's about controlling health care spending, and which also creates a government-run health care program, as the Pelosi bill does."
Ah yes. End-of-life counseling is a good thing--but when it's written in to a bill that creates a public option (which won't cover seniors, who already enjoy Medicare) and is devoted to cost containment...well, people might begin to think that's a recipe for coerced euthanasia. So paying Medicare doctors for providing end of life counseling should be codified in a stand alone bill. Or something.
I'm going way out on a limb here, but maybe deathers think what they think because people like Grassley go out and tell them they're right to be afraid, despite knowing full well that House health care legislation won't "give the government such authority in deciding when and how people die."
You can read his full statement below the fold.
"I've said for a long time and repeated last week that we all ought to consider how we want to be treated if we are struck by an incapacitating illness, and that advanced care planning is a good thing to do. As far as legislation goes, it's not the case that provisions in the Pelosi health care reform bill this year are just like provisions Congress passed in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. I've never called the Pelosi provisions a 'death panel.' The issue is whether end-of-life provisions should be part of legislation that's about controlling health care spending, and which also creates a government-run health care program, as the Pelosi bill does. Doing so escalates concerns about the rationing of health care, since government-run plans in other countries ration to control spending. Putting end-of-life consultations alongside cost containment and government-run health care causes legitimate concern. This context and the details of this year's proposal are different than the 2003 legislation, which covers advice from specialized physicians outside of any larger effort to control spending on health care. It's not fair to Americans who are asking questions to gloss over those facts and, in fact, end-of-life provisions haven't been part of ongoing Senate Finance Committee discussions as a result of those realities and the possibility of unintended consequences. On this subject and others, it's important that the debate is fair-minded and based on an accurate representation of the issues involved."
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
The blood in the water had its desired effect. It's like the lawyer who makes an outrageous statement to the jury that he then withdraws. Withdrawn or not, it was heard and is hard for the jury to disregard even if ordered to by the judge.
Grassley got the buzz he wanted out of it, he got to pander to the Glenn Beck deather crowd and it helped make Palin into an influence to be reckoned with on health care reform. Her Sunday Facebook post read like it was written by her new Svengali, Newt Gingrich. Compared to her other utterances and her preference for 140 character limits, there were way too many big words for the Wasilla pageanteer to have written herself.
August 17, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It's like the lawyer who makes an outrageous statement to the jury that he then withdraws. Withdrawn or not, it was heard and is hard for the jury to disregard even if ordered to by the judge."
Excellent analogy, that's why the Republicans lie so much.
August 17, 2009 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Grassley originally misspoke, and that it is to somebody's credit that he feels it is at all necessary to walk the comment back. His comment'"you are right to fear..." is not so different from reassuring statements that Obama has made about the issue. I am concerned about the President's proposal to save on medicare by not reimbursing hospitals if old people have to be readmitted for the same condition. My mother died of Cancer on June 1st. Her hospital stays were nightmarish. I don't like the idea of hospitals keeping old people in the hospital or avoiding readmittance.
August 17, 2009 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Grassley has always been a two faced weenie. It is sad when one political party is relegated to the control of complete weenies who will say or do anything for the sake of having, gaining, consolidating, recovering or stealing political power. I was never sure if the GOP was a party of principle, but now I am certain that it isn't. It has no principle that it is willing to defend on a consistent basis, unless promoting the interests of the financial status quo is a principle. The GOP has evolved into a political collective organized for the sole purpose of making sure that the interests of the status quo continue to enjoy disproportionate representation and power in our government. They accomplish this by appealking to the worst elements of an angry, radical fringe, and with a big assist from the corporate media.
When they were a bare majority, they governed like a dominant party. When they are in the minority, they successfully frustrate everything the majority tries to accomplish, with help from a media bought and sold by corporate interests that favor the GOP. And even worse, the Democrats are too insecure or inept (or both) to do anything about it. Sigh.
August 17, 2009 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Grassley did not misspeak. If so, he has been misspeaking constantly since the health care reform debate has started. He is trying to have it both ways - to appear open to health care reform, while keeping his backers in the insurance industry happy and by appealing to the lunatic "fringe" of the Rethuglian party. (Fringe is in quotations, since although it is a minority of the country, it may well be in the majority of the Rethuglian party.)
August 17, 2009 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
This was Grassley's proverbial 'moment of truth', and he had feet of clay. He had a chance to lead, and he opted for deception, the way of a cheat and a fraud. The cowardice Republicans have revealed on this issue is somewhat shocking even to someone as ancient and cynical as myself.
August 17, 2009 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not Grassley's fault that Bacchus has given him so much power. The reconciliation process is the way to go.
August 17, 2009 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
If public option and nationalized healthcare aims to get rid of seniors it is very ineffective. Life expectancy is higher in countries with "socialized medicine". Nothing to worry about Senator.
August 17, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
And Chuck Grassley is a scavenger.
Actually, Chuck Grassley is a member of The Family, the extremist Christian cult that despises Democracy and believes that God favors the wealthy and powerful. They also believe that the ethical rules of society do not apply to the chosen few like Grassley.
Maybe that's why Grassley did all he could to support dictators in Somalia and elsewhere. Murder and torture in the pursuit of wealth are part of God's plan, according to ol' Chuck.
August 17, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Grassley is nothing but a reich wing douche bag that takes and takes and gives nothing in return. I am a 71 yr old grandfather and retired military. I believe very much in counseling for death related issues. I want my family to know and understand my wishes on Medical Care. When I was living in the USA, I felt that it was absolutely necessary to have something to keep the idiots at bay.. Your system is so messed up that I am afraid to even be in your country for any kind of medical care. Now that I am home, I get total service, medical care and medicines for life... Isn't Socialism wonderful?
Just this old Chief's 2 cents
French and Damn Proud of it!
August 17, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's interesting how much Republicans claim to care for grandma. How many of them voted against SCHIP, thereby pulling the plug on children? Why did they vote against SCHIP? Ostensibly to contain costs (ie. gov't spending). They have no problem rationing (denying) health care based on income.
It's about money and privilege, folks.
If you want to shill for the wealthy and powerful, go for it. Cut their taxes to zero, but they will cut your throat (or your child's throat) for still one more buck.
August 17, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like toothpaste, you can't retract stupid!
August 17, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It won't be much longer - it becomes more obvious every day that dementia is settling into his brain. He's losing it in public.
August 17, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get rid of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security as the conservatives want. Let them explain that to their constituents.
THEN we can embark upon a real healthcare plan for all Americans that can address these other entitlement programs as well. And my guess is we'll have a bit more support from the septuagenarians.
August 17, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink