Reid needs to tell the Senate Finance Committee that they can report out any damn foolish bill they want and it's going straight into the wastebasket. The full Senate is under NO obligation to include it into any legislation.

You know, in light of this provision being promoted by a republican originally I really think it was a political set up to launch this firestorm. Dropping it makes sense and is a good idea. Doctors will always give this advice anyway and can bill it as a normal consultation. Dropping it makes complete sense and will shut up the wingnuts. Let them try to find something else to whine about.

You know what? Fine. No end of life counseling. its a tenth of a tenth of one percent of what we're trying to accomplish. People can pay for their living wills out of their own pockets. Doctors can check another box on the claim form when they discuss end of life options with their patients.

There. You saved Grandma from the government mandate to smother her to death with a pillow if the catches a cold. You win, Republicans. Yay for you.

Can we pass the fucking bill now?

What a bunch of weiners

Btw, while were getting our rant on over this, Sen. Crankytwit said something a hell of a lot worse than just endorsing the Deather view, at least in terms of the continuing myth that he is in any way acting in good faith:

But that's not the only thing the conservative Iowan said yesterday.

As he did at two previous town-hall meetings on Wednesday, Senate Finance ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) made a point at his third event to tell his constituents that he won't compromise his principles for the sake of getting a health care deal. [...]

"I don't even think it's right for me to call [the Finance discussions] negotiations," Grassley said, inside a steamy community center packed with a standing-room-only crowd of about 350 people. "We're talking."

Got that? The leading Republican negotiator on health care reform doesn't even want to admit that "negotiations" exist. Grassley is willing to concede that he's "talking" to other senators, but according to the Roll Call report, the Iowa Republican "downplayed the ongoing bipartisan Finance Committee talks, saying his decision to stay at the table allows him to keep his constituents and fellow GOP Senators informed."

Grassley added that no matter what the final bill looks like, unless the reform legislation enjoys the broad support of the Republican Party, he'll vote against it.

My emphasis.

Hear that Max? Do you grasp the import of what your "partner" in "bipartisanship" is saying here? He won't vote for it. He's not really negotiating with you and, no matter how much you give away to him, he won't vote for a bill that a majority of the majority--you know, your party, the Democrats--can stomach.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_08/019470.php

Disgusting. All you have to do is crank up the right-wing lie machine and blare that water isn't wet, and a bunch of Congressmorons will obediently introduce a bill declaring that water is dry. This country is so fucked.

I find it both shameful and cowardly that Senate Democrats on the Finance Committee would drop an otherwise perfectly reasonable legislative provision because the unhinged fringe that constitutes the GOP's far white-wing throws a public tantrum over its own purposeful misrepresentation of said provision.

Max Baucus is THE CAVE-IN ARTIST!

So General Grassley says he won't vote for any bill that doesn't have 'broad support of the Republican Party'. Talk about not having a negotiating partner.

It's like Sarah Palin says 'jump!' and the Senate says 'how high?'. All the RW needs to to do is make some insane assertion, get it repeated ad nauseum in the M$M, then the idiot squads, naturally, buy it hook line and sinker -- the more absurd the better -- they go yell at a small number of congress critters and . . .voila! End of reform effort. This is the power of the "bully pulpit.'

As I said elsewhere...

So if Medicare pays for hysterectomies, that means everyone has to get one? That means some 'government bureaucrat' is going to be empowered to tell you and your wife, your sons and your daughters, 'go out and get a hysterectomy or else'?

Good; remove it. It can be a stand-alone bill one all this fake furor has passed. Any fear-based idiots can focus on something else in the bill they don't like. Oh, right, which bill?

Are they crazy? Take away a perfectly good proposal because of the right-wing bashers? Does Reid think they won't just move on to something else in the Bill? This is a perfect example of the problem with Democratic Leadership these days. Even in the days of Felix, Vavoom wouldn't cave so quickly!

how in the hell do 6 knucklehead senators representing less than 3% of the population get to decide how our health care is going to be provided.
The senate is a greater reminder than the 2000 election that we are a republic, not a democracy.
We don't need to bring democracy to Iraq, we need to bring it here.

Of course they'll take it out. They are cowards. Instead of leading the pack and explaining the section about advance directive counseling, they are cowering behind closed senate doors fearful of the rabble rousers' mobs.

What they should do is make it an option for all ages. It's not just old people who need to provide directives on end of life care. Remember Terry Schiavo?

First we let them turn the inheritance tax into the 'death tax', now, out of fear of the same thing, we have let them turn end of life counseling into 'death panels'. Get a grip and use some common sense. It's a necessary and vital service. It doesn't mean euthanasia. It's counseling. It just means when is enough, enough, and when is the time to just let go. Having spent time at hospitals with a elderly family members, I've seen how difficult it is to get a simple discussion such as a DNR, and a proxy clearly understood. I've seen people fail to understand the difference between 'on life support, with tubes sticking out of my body', and a simple IV with post operative medication. Counseling is exactly what's needed

Max Baucus should be ashamed of himself. This is terrible that such complete fruitcakes can drive federal legislation.

And, again, why is the SFC committee working on this split 50-50?!?! It should be 4-2 reflecting the makeup of the Senate.

But, nooooooooo, Democrats insist on being dupes for Republicants. Republicants would NEVER allow such a thing to happen.

The Stupid. It burns.

If you think health care reform is fun, just wait until the Senate starts to destroy the watered down cap & trade legislation passed by the House. Then you will really see what a bunch of lily livered weenies the Senate Dims are.

End of life counseling is nothing compared to the end of the world, but stopping the death of billions (yes with a "b") from climate change will also be beyond the abilities of Reid, Baucus et al.

As someone who's family has had to dealt with end of life issues twice, both parents, I can say this with complete sincerity to the GOP demagogues:

I used to think that no one should ever have to got through what my family went through, I think I may make an exception for anyone that thinks they can exploit this issue for political gain.

Either that or they can rot in hell.

The entire "death panels" controversy is only one symptom of a much larger problem: The complete lack of moral leadership at the top.

While Obama makes all his seedy inside deals with drug companies and other corrupt corporate insiders, and while he goes around trying to sell reform as a cost saving measure to people who already have medical insurance (and they're not really buying it anyway), he's forgotten the main point. That providing every American citizen with basic health care is a fundamental right - not a privilege - that has too long been denied millions of Americans. He has ceded the moral high ground to the far right, who then will naturally rush in with a moral argument of their own, even if they are based in a lie, as in the "death panel" argument.

Look. The Last time we had a democratic president who passed significant progressive legislation was LBJ - who also passed Medicare. A lot is made about Johnson's ability top wheel and deal and push things through Congress. But very little is said about his populist instincts and how he sold Medicare to Congress and the country. This is LBJ in his own words:

Johnson: My reason though is not because of the economy. . . . my reason would be ... That they are entitled to it. That's an obligation of ours. It's just like your mother writing you and saying she wants $20, and I'd always sent mine a $100 when she did. I never did it because I thought it was going to be good for the economy of Austin. I always did it because I thought she was entitled to it. And I think that's a much better reason and a much better cause and I think it can be defended on a hell of a better basis. . . . We do know that it affects the economy. . . . it helps us in that respect. But that's not the basis to go to the Hill, or the justification. We've just got to say that by God you can't treat grandma this way. She's entitled to it and we promised it to her."

It seems to me that Obama is not making that kind of argument now. He's certainly giving us a lot of practical arguments as to why it needs to be done and why it would help the economy. But he is not making and selling the most crucial argument of all: THAT IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. He has effectively ceded the moral high ground, and that's why all the liars on the right have rushed in pretending that they want to save grandma from Obama.