The headline in the Columbus, Georgia Ledger-Enquirer, a McClatchy Newpaper reads:
Sen. Isakson: Health care bill's end-of-life provision not my idea
Georgia senator says Obama wrongly credited him with being part of controversial legislation
In the Georgia Times-Union, a subsidiary of the Florida Times-Union out of Jacksonville, Florida, the same story has a headline that puts the onus on Obama:
Obama's remarks bother Isakson
He cast the senator a poster child for "death panels" in a speech.
although Obama did no such thing.
The truth over the flip.
What the President actually said and what I think I heard was:
"The irony is that actually one of the chief sponsors of this bill originally was a Republican — then House member, now senator, named Johnny Isakson from Georgia — who very sensibly thought this is something that would expand people’s options,"...
and he wasn't casting blame, as the McClatchy story actually suggests by putting "unwitting and unwilling" in front of "poster child" and the Times-Union lead leaves out.
Then the report provides some history.
In 2007, Isakson helped spearhead a failed attempt to provide Medicare coverage for an end-of-life planning consultation as part of initial preventive physical examinations. In July, during the Senate committee hearings on the Senate version of the health care bill, Isakson added an amendment that says anyone who participates in the long-term care benefit provided in the bill — if they so choose — may use that benefit to obtain assistance in formulating their own living will and durable power of attorney.
It does not make reference to Senator Isakson's speech on the floor of the Senate in April of 2008 in which he suggested that Medicare eligibility should be conditioned on an individual executing "a durable power of attorney":
I will talk about what we need to do in terms of Medicare eligibility. When somebody signs up for Medicare when they are 65 years old....I think you ought to be required to execute a durable power of attorney when you become eligible. Eighty percent of the cost of health care to me, to you, and to anybody else happens in the last 60 days of life. More often than not, people are not in a condition to make a decision for themselves. Because of laws, and because we are a compassionate nation, the physician will keep you alive as long as he can. If you had a chance, you might rather say if I am being hydrated and given nutrition but will never become conscious again, I give the doctors the authority to make the appropriate medical decision. The money that would save is in the "gazillions" of dollars–if there is such a number. It would help us to manage that cost.
And he didn't even specify that the power of attorney should be for "medical care only." Now Isakson says:
"My Senate amendment simply puts health care choices back in the hands of the individual and allows them to consider if they so choose a living will or durable power of attorney," Isakson said. "The House provision is merely another ill-advised attempt at more government mandates, more government intrusion and more government involvement in what should be an individual choice."
It may all just be a matter of perspective. One man's allowing
"Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, etc.,"
is another man's
financial incentive to doctors to provide end-of-life counseling with Medicare patients
.
One addresses the obligations of a program to reimburse medical professionals for their service; the other sees medical professionals as needing to be bribed to do the right thing. One is focused on his area of responsibility--the quality and quantity of government functions--and the other is focused on making the private providers of health care conform to his expectations. Which, actually is a pretty good example of the difference between Democratic and Republican ways of governing. Where Democrats are focused on government's obligations to provide for the public welfare, Republicans are keen to enforce public compliance with their leaders' directives.
Of course, now that their leaders have been deposed, Republicans find themselves reduced to merely being opposed to whatever Democrats propose.