Newt Gingrich Changes What’s Left of his Mind on End-of-life Care
More than 20 percent of all Medicare spending occurs in the last two months of life. Gundersen Lutheran Health System in La Crosse, Wisconsin has developed a successful end-of-life, best practice that combines: 1) community-wide advance care planning, where 90 percent of patients have advance directives; 2) hospice and palliative care; and 3) coordination of services through an electronic medical record. The Gundersen approach empowers patients and families to control and direct their care. The Dartmouth Health Atlas has documented that Gundersen delivers care at a 30 percent lower rate than the national average ($18,359 versus $25,860). If Gundersen’s approach was used to care for the approximately 4.5 million Medicare beneficiaries who die every year, Medicare could save more than $33 billion a year.
via Health Care Rx: Across the Country, Some Systems Are Getting It Right – Newt Gingrich.
That was Newt Gingrich just a few months ago praising the “Advance Directives” practiced by a hospital in Wisconsin. Advance Directives are another word for the end-of-life consultations that the teabggers have been flipping out over of late. Gingrich loved them a few months ago. This is Gingrich a few months before that, responding to a PBS query:
Let me give you an example that I find fascinating. In LaCrosse, Wisc., the Gundersen Lutheran Hospital system is, according to the Dartmouth [Atlas of Health Care], the least expensive place in America for the last two years of life. They have an advanced directive program, and over 90 percent of their patients have an advanced directive. They have electronic health records, so everybody on the staff knows what the advanced directive is. They have a very strong palliative care program for using drugs to manage pain. They have a hospice program.
The result is today, the last two years of your life in costs are about $13,600. The last two years of your life at UCLA are $58,000. Now, why should Medicare pay $58,000 for the same outcome if it could pay $13,600? You can say, well, Los Angeles is more expensive; they do a couple of more complicated things. So fine. So let’s say it ought to be $20,000 at UCLA. That’s still [$38,000] less than it currently is. …
We don’t think the politicians can ever fix this because the hospital lobby is so powerful, and the doctor lobby is so powerful, and the pharmaceutical lobby is so powerful, and the medical technology lobby is so powerful…
And we also know — this is the great irony — the best places in America are always less expensive than the worst places. Health is not like jewelry and automobiles. In jewelry and automobiles you pay a lot more to get a lot better. In health, because the best places do it right the first time, they do it very efficiently, they pay real attention to quality, they’re actually less expensive than the places that are bad.
Newt Gingrich speaks in Washington on June 8 (Chip Somodevilla/Getty)
He’s pretty unequivocal here. Well, what happens when suddenly the Republican party decides it wants to scare the shit out of a bunch of old people by telling them the new health care bill is going to include a provision in which “death panels” ask them “when they want to die”? Now all of the sudden Gingrich is violently against the same programs he was so windily praising earlier this year.
And make no mistake, this is exactly the same thing. The only thing that’s actually in the health care proposals is a provision that would allow Medicare to pay for exactly the kind of programs Gingrich praised, on a voluntary basis. The programs are not government-administered in any way, there’s just government money now to pay for the private programs. And now Gingrich is suddenly aghast at them:
On This Week he argued with George Stephanopolous and Howard Dean about the programs. Check it out:
STEPHANOPOLOUS: The only thing that’s in the bill is that Medicare would pay for what they say is voluntary counseling on end-of-life issues.
GINGRICH: I think people are very concerned when you start talking about cost-controls… you’re asking us to trust the government. Now I’m not talking about the Obama administration, I’m talking about the government. You’re asking us to believe that the government is to be trusted. We know people who’ve said routinely, well, you’re going to have to make decisions. You’re going to have to decide. Communal stadards, historically, is a very dangerous concept.
STEPHANOPOLOUS: It’s not in the bill.
GINGRICH: (stammering) B-but, the bill’s… a thousand pages of setting up mechanisms. It sets up 45 different agencies. It has all sorts of panels. You’re asking us to trust the government when there clearly are people in America who believe in establishing euthanasia, including selective standards.
In other words, there may not be a death panel in the bill, but there are other panels, and while no one has actually ever said such a thing and it is not relevant to this particular discussion, I nonetheless assert that in general it is true that “people in government” believe in euthanasia.
Amazing. I mean, talk about being full of shit. This is as clear a case as you will ever find of a politician just getting up on television and just flat-out dogging it, saying something without even the faintest shred of belief, just as a means to an end. What an asshole!
I know some politicians have kind of a wink-wink nudge-nudge attitude towards lying, and some of them in private will act almost like it’s funny, part of the job description. But there are limits to how much even a politician should be allowed to lie. That’s especially when he’s lying in order to scare a bunch of old people.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Thank you for this one! It seems that Republicans are taking flat out lying to a new level. Its not spin anymore. Its the new political strategy…lie big and by the time someone calls you on it you have hundreds of old people storming town hall meetings because they are afraid someone is going to kill them when they get sick. Herman Cain here in Atlanta on WSB radio is one of them too…disgusting
Are we headed toward a 21st century version of the French revolution, or will such cheap political rhetoric give way to some fact-based decision making? Our health care system serves too few people well, and costs too much. If we can’t agree in a reasonable timeframe — say within a year — on a synchronized universal care system, and a plan to pay for it, then let’s bite the big bullet and go for a single-payer plan. The trauma of such a change will be nowhere as worse as the individual traumas and agony continuing to be imposed on the population by the current system.
Brilliant juxtaposition! Thank you.
What? A right winger lying? Hard to believe, Matt.
Newt Gingrich = evil incarnate
I would call Newt a dumbass dipshit but that would be an insult to dumbass dipshits everywhere so I won’t.
Why is this man on my teevee? Is this proof there is no God?
So let’s get this straight. When we talk about cost-controls for non-profit government aided health programs, that’s an eerie omen that couldn’t possibly lead to anything good.
But when the discussion is about corporations making money when they either don’t have to pay your entire bill or try to get doctors to provide a different treatment plan because it’s less expensive for them, that’s perfectly all right and results in the best and most humanitarian healthcare in the world.
If the government is so bad, why are there so many people like Newt Gingrich working there, collecting over $130,000 a year, getting a free staff, a free office, reimbursements for almost every expense and free “socialized, single player medical care?” Oh right, that’s why. And I bet being Speaker of the House wasn’t exactly a horrible gig either…
Well, were his lips moving? Then he was lying.
We certainly can’t be upset or even surprised, Matt. It’s what they do. Like a dog licking it’s privates, they do it because they can and no one calls them on it. That it feels good because they get to have it both ways is just an additional bonus.
I’ve often wondered if politicians bet amongst themselves on who can get away with telling the biggest whopper and then how much money they can raise from telling it. Like betting on the point spread.
Looking forward to the article on the health insurance industry, Matt. Keep up the great work.
Lying seems to be the only strategy the GOP can rally around; if only the mainstream media would just start calling them out when they do it rather than acting like they just have a different opinion – IT’s Lying, Newt !!
Politicians like Gingrich are relying on the short memory and general lack of attention of the public so that they can set whatever agenda serves them and their party best. Do the tea-baggers and the like ever stop to remind the men and women in the neo-con camp that they “work for us”?
In general I think that the progressives need to stay on message, putting the facts out there, and keep the references to the opposition to a minimum – just to keep that rhetoric off the air waves. However, the 2-faced side of politics should be paraded until nobody can honestly say they haven’t seen it. This tactic will keep those for universal health care on board and bring on those who can be swayed by the nay-sayers.
It’s great that you’ve put this on True/Slant, so I’m hoping that the general media culture will follow suit (Newt’s about-face can’t be the only example). Keep us posted.
If right-wing of american politics is now referred to as teabaggers, does that make the left-wing the cocksuckers?
No. Why would it?
In response to another comment. See in context »A vampire squid wrapped around the face of politics, isn’t he?
Matt, I’m wondering if I could get you to speak at Emerson College? I’m pretty sure that there’s an email address in my profile. We’ve had a dearth of guests but it’d be really interesting to get someone in who isn’t the Boston PD’s PR person or city counselmen.
Adam,
I’d love to (you know I went to school in Concord there) but I’m almost never in the Boston area. When did you have in mind?
In response to another comment. See in context »Matt, I know it’s a lot of fun to put the court jester hat on and yell in the echo chamber, but does even say what you accuse him of? What I read is that he’s addressing people’s mistrust of government, and how this proposed legislation, combined with comparative effectiveness policy in the ARRA, opens up the potential slippery slope for people like Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel to make value judgments such as “should grandma be eligible for that hip replacement given that she’s 85 and has dementia?” But that’s right, I can just keep my own insurance, because President Obama says I can…
First and foremost, craven, career political harlots such as Newt Gingrich are the primary reason people mistrust government so much in the first place, and him blithely going on about it (like he does when ever there’s a camera present) as though the Obama and the Democrats are the problem after the raging clusterfuck almost 28 years of Republican political dominance left us with is a pristine example of why. Jesus H. Christ Newt, could you at least give us a reacharound?
Secondly Mr Menlopian, if you think a claims adjuster working for a profit minded Health Insurance company will approve a costly hip replacement for your 85 year old grandma with dementia without having a fight on your hands, I’ve got some Mortgage Backed Securities you might be interested in at a good price.
In response to another comment. See in context »“And make no mistake, this is exactly the same thing. The only thing that’s actually in the health care proposals is a provision that would allow Medicare to pay for exactly the kind of programs Gingrich praised, on a voluntary basis.”
Is this correct, Matt? If there is funding for hospital run, community wide, programs like Gundersen’s in whatever reform we end up with, I’m all for it. But the provision that the idiot masses are screaming their fool heads off about doesn’t seem like the same thing to me. The way I understand it, the provision in question merely allows doctors to be paid by Medicare to have a discussion with a patient about many end of life issues. This is quite a bit less than some organized program, no? Seems like apples and oranges to me.
My own problems with the current provision, as benign as it is, are twofold:
First – While the provision encourages doctors and patients to discuss such things as hospice, DNRs and the like, it also mandates that the discussion include things like living wills and powers of attorney. These things are certainly related to healthcare, but they are essentially legal documents. I don’t know that my doctor is qualified to discuss this subject at such a level that he should be paid for it. Hell, a will is related to after death issues, but I wouldn’t go to a mortician to get one.
Second – I don’t see why a doctor needs additional compensation to discuss these issues with patients. When I go see my doctor, we always spend a couple minutes catching up before we start discussing the reason I made the appointment. It’s not like he can’t, as part of my visit, just take a few minutes to discuss end of life issues with me if I wish. In fact, if my doctor wouldn’t discuss these things with me without additional compensation, I’d get a new doctor.
I’d be glad to see programs like Gundersen’s. I’d even be glad if there was a provision in the reform that made it mandatory for insurers to provide end of life counseling and documents to all who wanted them. Maybe all the insurance company employees who are currently trained to use their policies and the law to deny care to patients could be retrained to provide this valuable service instead. And maybe doctors shouldn’t be trying to milk health reform money for every minute spent talking to a patient. If reform is to succeed, everyone with a financial stake in the system is going to have to sacrifice a bit. You know – Do more with less – Isn’t that what the rest of us are always told?
Personally, I’m with chuckebeling – single payer is the way to go!
Oh yeah, I almost forgot – FUCK Newt Gingrich and the horse that rode in on him!
Mark–
It is true. The Gunderson program is exactly what’s being referred to in section 1233. The language being used in the bill is “advance care,” but “advance directives” is also used in the industry. And from what I understand it can be as simple as a single consultation with a single person or assistance by a structured program — and you would have the option of doing this once every five years.
The reason you need something other than a conversation with your doctor is that this is something that goes beyond medical issues, and includes psychiatric counseling, legal counseling, and advice in other areas. It may also include the participation of family members, which does not happen with your doctor.
In response to another comment. See in context »Matt,
One thing that Newt knows, most in the GOP are not well informed and will believe anything said on TV with conviction.
This is the same guy who was boinking his own aide while leading the impeachment of Clinton for sex with an intern.
Ya gotta love it.
This is pretty ridiculous, but I still feel that his reference to Spanish as a “ghetto language” is the worst yet.
[...] What an ass. [...]
Matt’s on the money, but the truly sad thing is none of the people in a position to actually shame Newt will do anything. Steph tried to do a little push back, but he still let Newt spread the lie.
I was no fan of Tim Russert, but some good old “gotcha” journalism wouldn’t be the worst thing at the moment.
Newt annoys me because he’s obviously very intelligent, he just chooses — as so many politicians do — to spout garbage that he really doesn’t believe. He’s a water carrier, pure and simple. He doesn’t believe in anything, except being against the liberals.
Matt: Right on with this piece. Keep it up! And also, props for being on the Adam Carolla podcast. Great interview.
For the sake of precision, he says “people in America who believe in establishing euthanasia”, not “people in the government who believe in establishing euthanasia”. Though it doesn’t significantly alter your argument, it does make his sentence rather more true.
[...] Matt Taibbi – Newt With Forked Tongue Matt Taibbi – Taibblog – Newt Gingrich Changes What’s Left of his Mind on End-of-life Care…. [...]
Matt, I first really got to know you seeing you on Bill Mahr. I appreciated your always interesting, common sense, intelligent journalism. Although I wish to comment on health care, I think part of the problem in this country with any issue is that there are not enough actual facts on the issues reported by other journalists as you do. I follow the news and politics closely so do not beleive anything that hypocrite Newt Gingrich says anyway but many people do hear soundbites from morons like him and beleive them. So what’s behind this idiot’s recent transformation from praising Gundersen Lutheran Health System’s end of life best practices, and rasing hell over the exact same thing proposed in the health care bill? Greed! The fact that he owns The Center for Health Transformation clearly explains the interests he wants to protect. It is truly amazing how little so many people in this country actually know and understand. It’s very simple why so many current and previous politicians are so adamantly opposed to health care reform. When you break down the salaries alone for some of the CEOs of the biggest health insurance companies, they are being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars not a year, but in a day!!. Yes if you divide their annual salaries into days, people like the CEO of United Healthcare make over $800,000 a day. If healthcare is reformed and these CEOs have their salaries reduced, how can they line the pockets of mutts like Newt, upChuck on the grass Grassley, and these other greedy mental midgets? Thanks for your great reporting.
Newt Gingrich has held the well-deserved position of has-been for a decade now, so why is he suddenly the Great Guru of all the corporate network pundits in ‘09?
I can’t help but remember, from about the time we saw Gingrich fall into oblivion, when a wave of unearned fawning attention for some reason was lavished on an obscure Texas governor – what was his name again?
[...] comes from one. But what does that same Republican have to say about this same thing, only a month later? “I think people are very concerned when you start talking about cost-controls… you’re asking [...]
I’m not surprised US wingnuts are inventing “death panels” to discredit Obama’s plan for a more public system but it’s certainly ironic considering private insurers already have what you could probably reliably call death panels in place, i.e. you pay them thousands every year and if you suddenly get a disease requiring expensive or extensive treatment to save your life, they may or may not cover you. Some people are already dying because private insurers decide not supporting you is the more “practical” option FOR THEM. I’m surprised no one has raised this at the Clown Halls. Panelists should include ordinary Americans who’ve been screwed by private insurers. They wouldn’t be hard to find. Doctors employed by insurers receive bonuses (like those Wall Street fucks) every time they say no to a patient and save the company money. That’s what I’d call a death panel.
Why are the only two places who seem to dig into archives to expose politicians and pundits shamelessly contradicting themselves, Matt here at TS and The Daily Show? Wouldn’t it be normal for a journalist, next time someone has Newt on their show, to show him his own words, confront him? I’ve only been a journalist myself for a short while now, but that seems to be a fairly simple assignment any novice ought to be able to perform…
I recall reading comments by, I think, David Gregory a while back that perfectly exemplify what’s wrong with the majority of America’s MSM journalists. I think it was about the Iraq war, and the run up to it. He actually said that he didn’t feel it was his job to contest the administration’s assertions about Iraq and Saddam’s links to 9/11. It wasn’t his job!?!?
There’s the fucking problem right there. The most elementary task of a journalist, informing it’s readers/viewers/listeners of the simple facts, was not in Gregory’s damn job description. When did this shift happen? That journalists somehow feel they need to let both sides to a discussion talk equally, as if both opinions are equally valid and truthful. Sometimes they aren’t!
“Next week on Meet the Press: a fascinating disccussion between two opponents. The Earth: round or flat?”…
*sigh*
A couple more flip flops:
http://tinyurl.com/mgyurt
http://tinyurl.com/pm22mk
The question is, why doesn’t anyone in the media call these guys on their bullshit? I mean, I know it might hurt his tiny little brain, but George COULD have done a little bit of research beforehand and discover the passages that you’ve cited and slap Newt upside the head when he tried to pull that crap. That’s supposed to be the job of the media.
Rocks are hard, water’s wet, and politicians lie. That’s why we need journalists who have some brain cells and some integrity.
By the way Matt, any indication on when we can expect your health care story for RS?
And on a sidenote, I wish RS would be distributed in a more timely manner outside the States. Or at least where I am, the Netherlands. I wanted to buy the issue with your Goldman story, but it takes so long for an issue to arrive in stores here (I think it was four or five weeks eventually) that it was up on the website in its entirety before the issue hit the stores.
[...] counseling regarding end of life options, and has nothing to do with forcing any options on anybody. Matt Taibbi noted that Newt Gingrich supported similar measures in this article from July. Posted in Health [...]
Shirley you jest Matt.
This can’t be the same Newt Gingrich that dumped his first wife while she was fighting cancer. According to the Wiki he even produced a hand-written agreement for her to sign during one of his compassionate visits. Too bad she was just returning to consciousness from her recent cancer-related surgery to fully enjoy the visit. Classy!
Is this kinda behavior business as usual for all the grownups?
It reminded me of the bedside visit Gonzo paid Ashcroft.
[...] Matt Taibi: Newt Gingrich Changes What’s Left of his Mind on End-of-life Care [...]
[...] Matt Taibbi – Taibblog – Newt Gingrich Changes What’s Left of his Mind on End-of-life Care… Shorter Gingrich: I was in favor of end of life care before I was calling it a “death panel.” (tags: healthcare gingrich) [...]
[...] will invite our millenium’s Not Thomas Jefferson to host the tv circus on SUnday. Because no one knows more on anything than the know-nothing Newt: [W]hat happens when suddenly the Republican party decides it wants to scare the shit out of a bunch [...]
My parents honestly believe that Obama wants to euthanize them someday. Seems to me that if anyone started euthanizing the elderly that a revolution would start in this country. I tried to explain to them that this is America, not the Netherlands. People like Newt and that bimbo Sarah Palin make me sick. Almost as sick as the Americans who depend on Fox news as their primary source of misinformation and believe every word they here, without researching elsewhere.
Don’t get me wrong though. While I find is alarming and sad that there are Americans with teeth rotting out of their heads because they can’t afford to go to the dentist, I do not want the federal government running health care in this country. There is not a group of people on this planet who lacks more financial responsibility and general awareness of how normal Americans live than our federal government.
[...] fists, stammering madly to make his point and display his brilliance. Somehow, however, he is also a fan of said death-panels, which he refers to as “advance-directives.” This is another word [...]
Newt has been ringing the douchebag-quotient bell so hard for so long it seems almost ridiculous to ridicule his hate-mongering and fear-brokering. But his high profile media campaign, and that of all his full of shit hate posse, is inflaming, albeit lowering, the national debate on healthcare reform to a dangerous level of mob mentality; no facts allowed.
While it is quite certain that the final legislation will be written largely by self-interested lobbyists, and the American people will become well acquainted with fist shaped rectal thermometers, this anti Obama (ostensibly anti HC reform) furor at town halls is unsettling.
[...] [...]
[...] Read more. [...]
[...] only conservative leader completely flip-flopping on this issue. Merely months ago, Gingrich too endorsed end of life counseling. At a conference in April of this year, Gingrich said advance directives can “save money” while [...]
[...] Matt Taibbi had a great post on Gingrich and his two polar opposite positions on the health care issue. His blog is here. [...]
[...] Death Panels, End of Empire, Matt Taibbi, Newt Gingrich, Obama | Leave a Comment …we are led by people who are not very nice or decent or like, even averagely honest. This particular example is actually right on the verge of evil. And this from one of our two major [...]
[...] issue even has Republicans contradicting themselves. For example, praising a hospital in Wisconsin, Newt Gingrich said: More than 20 percent of all Medicare spending occurs in the last two months of life. Gundersen [...]
[...] expounded about the horrors of such things, but Matt Taibbi found that Newt Gingrich was also in favor of the end of life, advanced directive planning [...]
Meanwhile…”Bubble #6″ goes undiscussed…Matt, don’t let Bubble #6 fade away.
[...] via Big Lie – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. He’s pretty unequivocal here. Well, what happens when suddenly the Republican party decides it wants to scare the shit out of a bunch of old people by telling them the new health care bill is going to include a provision in which “death panels” ask them “when they want to die”? Now all of the sudden Gingrich is violently against the same programs he was so windily praising earlier this year. via <a href=”http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/08/12/newt-gingrich-changes-whats-left-of-his-mind-on-end-of-li…“></a> [...]
[...] The funny thing is that Newt has been pretty adamant in his support of end-of-life planning, stating that it would save Medicare an incredible sum of money if all recipients simply took measures to prepare for end-of-life decisions. Blogger Matt Taiibi outlines Newt’s duplicity in a recent blog. Check it out here. [...]
[...] Matt Taibbi – Taibblog – Newt Gingrich Changes What’s Left of his Mind on End-of-life Care… [...]
I wonder how many of you astute liberals have actually heard Gingrich speak on this position. I doubt if any of you have. Liberals tend to get into a feeding frenzy over their favorite “boogey men”. No one is against end of life counseling. It is an essential part of caring for a dying person with the utmost respect and dignity. Newt’s position is that the consultation be between a health professional and the dying person’s doctor with no government intervention. Additionally, Gingrich’s position is that the end of life counseling be at the request of the dying person or members of his/her family. The model that Gingrich espouses was developed by a hospital in MN, not by government bureaucrats.
You can download the text of the health reform bill on the web. The end of life section begins on page 425. You can find Newt’s view on “newt.org”. Researching this issue is not as much fun as having a Newt temper tantrum, but perhaps it will keep you from embarrassing yourselves. Although, I’ve never met a liberal who let facts stand in the way of assailing their “boogey men”.
Gabob,
I’m sitting here right now reading section 1233 of the bill. There is no “government intervention” in the bill at all. The section is wholly and entirely about paying for private consultations on a voluntary basis. The only “government” element in the section is the fact that the patient can bill Medicaid for such a consultation once every five years.
So according to you, this is okay when private insurance pays for it, but “government intervention” when its paid for by the government?
In response to another comment. See in context »I must respectfully disagree. My point is, if the states have to come up with guidelines that then have to be approved by the secretary of HHS, and then these guidelines have to be adhered to by health professionals who must be certified as end-of-life counselors by the government,then there is government intervention. Additionally, madating a meeting every five years with persons over 65 is, again, government intervention.
I do not believe the government has the right to intervene in every phase of my personal life, from the time I am born to the day I die, which is what nationally accessible computerized health records allow.
This isn’t my only disagreement with this bill, it is one of many. For instance, even in the case of small businesses, there is no tax credit for health insurance paid on the behalf of workers who earn $80K per year or more (Title IV SubTitle B). That to me is the typical Democrat/Liberal class warfare and redistribution of wealth philosophy. I don’t know where you live, but in large metropolitan areas in the Northeast, $ 80K is chump change, particularly when you consider that sales tax is 6% – 8%, property taxes run $8K – $10K, etc.
The problem with government is that all issues degenerate into the realm of politics rather than good sense. I have serious reservations trusting my personal and my family’s health and well-being to politicians.
I’ll repeat the mantra: They can’t run the post office, they can’t run social security, they can’t run Medicare, they can’t run medicaid, they pay $70 toilet seats for the military….
But they do great running health care?
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m sorry, but I can’t let this go. There is no “certification” of these programs by the HHS or any other government entity. Private hospitals and privately-employed doctors and counselors will be free to do whatever they want with these programs. The only relation the government has to any of this is payment. They obviously will have to meet some kind of standard in order for Medicaid to agree to pay for them, but that’s true of every single medical procedure. You can’t put a band-aid on your little sister’s arm and bill Medicare for ulnar surgery. But that doesn’t mean you’re prohibited from putting a band-aid on your sister’s arm.
And the five-year period, there is no “mandate” that forces people to make a visit once every five years. They are ALLOWED to receive counseling once every five years, in other words, they are not allowed to do it more often than that and bill Medicare for it. Furthermore, there are provisions in the bill that provide exceptions even for this. If there is a “significant change” in your condition, you are allowed to go more often.
But nobody is forcing anyone to go to any counseling session. Again, the government is not involved in this in any way except that the new bill would make it possible for people to bill Medicare for these programs that already exist and are administered completely by privately-employed persons.
I’m not even going to address your other points because this is a way you talk-radio conservatives like to argue: you say something that is obviously untrue, and when you are corrected, you move on to some other issue. I think we should stay on your original point until you admit that you’re wrong. Unless you’re willing to say that you consider the government paying for an already-existing private program an unwelcome intrusion of government — in which case we would merely have a philosophical difference — then you’re simply mistaken. I advise you to go to the bill and actually read it. If you don’t understand it, do what journalists do and call the relevant committees in congress and ask for clarification. They will tell you exactly what I’m telling you; that this provision has nothing to do with anything except monetary compensation for existing services.
Moreover, this provision is the brainchild of Georgia Senator Johnny Iskason, a Republican conservative who tried two years ago to introduce a bill along exactly the same lines (I think it was called the End-of-Life Care Planning Act). It is very curious that people like yourself were not against it then.
In response to another comment. See in context »“It is very curious that people like yourself were not against it then.”
Nor did we hear much of a fuss from these people when Gov. G.W. Bush signed the Advance Directives Act into law.
As much as we get suckered into refuting the series of unfounded factual claims made by these talk-radio conservative types, I think we need to wake up to the reality that all this “birther”, “deather” and other nonsense is just the latest round of the culture war that began with the Southern Strategy. White men will stop at nothing to defend what they perceive as a threat to undermine their privileged position in this society. The Southern Strategy begat the Christian fundamentalist movement of the 1980s begat the “market populists” (so well examined by Thomas Frank). So it’s no surprise that man who lead market populism’s “rise to orthodoxy” in the ’90s, is once again rearing his ugly head. For Gingrich and his ilk, our institutions of exchange (markets = one dollar, one vote) are seen as more legitimate than our institutions of consent (government = one man, one vote). They focus myopically on the evils of corruption in government and in unions, never recognizing the ways in which much more harmful wrongdoing by corporations is encouraged by the logic of the market, wrongdoing which is obscured by lack of transparency and which typically goes unpunished. (For example, you never hear these patriotic conservatives pointing to the fact that our health care industry makes its profits by killing tens of thousands of Americans every year.) So now with a black president advocating a moderately liberal (but still very much corporatist) agenda, the right-wing reactionary machine has gone into overdrive. Facts are not their friends.
In response to another comment. See in context »gabob1,
In response to another comment. See in context »I won’t paint all “conservatives” with one brush because they are all humans, too. Look at what E.D. Kain has written on health care, and you will find that conservatives can have thoughtful disagreements with liberal plans without resorting to wild-eyed yelling and outright lies. Your accusations against “liberals” are probably part of the latter, but if not, please cite references.
Oh the irony of a conservative saying liberals have a negative relationship with the truth. Do you clowns have any actual level of comprehension?
This whole moronic topic is a lie dreamed up by idiot conservative politicians.
We wouldn’t even be having this foolish debate if not for conservatives lying their pathetic asses off.
There is nothing more sickening than the current conservative mindset. Truly people without conscience.
In response to another comment. See in context »What one may nebulously call ‘a liberal feeding frenzy over a favorite boogeyman’ (what does that mean anyway?) a rational human being would describe as “Calling out and demonstrating Lies as Lies with factual proof, and not rolling over to a Neo-Con bully that is using a canard of debating inane details of end of life care to blow smoke over the fact that insurance companies are making sure that a large part of the nation has No health insurance, another large part will get DENIED when they get sick and yet another is stuck in a job just because it’s the only way he can keep his health insurance”.
Conservatives should stop worrying so much about government intervention anyway. You guys love private enterprise so much; if you really opened your eyes to capitol hill you would see that it’s owned by Corporations these days. Can’t be that bad then right?
[...] reporterMatt Taibbi points out, Mr. Gingrich has long been a vociferous proponent of advance planning for end-of-life [...]
[...] only conservative leader completely flip-flopping on this issue. Merely months ago, Gingrich too endorsed end of life counseling. At a conference in April of this year, Gingrich said advance directives can “save money” while [...]
[...] and read our e-mails, but not to pay for our doctors to discuss end-of-life issues. Of course, Newt used to think advance directives were a great idea. By the way, Newt, while you had the first Mrs. Gingrich sign the divorce papers in her hospital [...]
I just remembered that you used to be The Death Pornographer back in the day. LOL.
[...] only conservative leader completely flip-flopping on this issue. Merely months ago, Gingrich too endorsed end of life counseling. At a conference in April of this year, Gingrich said advance directives can “save money” while [...]
Hi Matt; great article as usual.
I’ve been following the current healthcare debacle from up here in Canada, and one thing that always boggles me is that people don’t seem to be aware that the current system of healthcare by insurance companies is no less a form of government than state apparatuses. I think the debate might benefit if this point were made and insisted upon. It seems difficult in our society to maintain the distinction between “governmental” and “non-governmental” by restricting the former to “the State”. There was a time when the Church was the predominant form of government; there was also a time when parliamentary democracy or republicanism (in the broad sense) and so on could at least have been called the predominant form of government; but today, how can we say that corporations or “the market” haven’t achieved that status? Like, you see a lot of complaints about the state meddling in the free market, but it’s hard to see how the state hasn’t already been utterly permeated by business for a long time now.
Maybe that’s too much of an abstraction for such an urgent and present problem, but it seems like giving up too much to Gingrich and company to let them get away with framing the dispute along the lines of an increasingly obsolete distinction, especially for such destructive purposes.
Keep up the great writing!
[...] And Matt Taibbi, a first-class journo, unclosets Gingrich similarly – Taibbi – Uhhh, Newt? [...]
This is a total reversal from the conclusions of his book on healthcare “Saving Lives, Saving Money.” His conclusion? There had to be nationalized, government insurance, ala Medicare, for people of all ages with catastrophic illness and injury. That private, for profit insurance just couldn’t do it. The book was written right after he had resigned from Congress, and was embarking on his new life as a consultant. So he had to be logical.
Now, Ol’ Newt is obviously fixin’ to run for President in 2012, he has to be “relevant,” not logical. . . So yes, what’s left of his mind has to be judged in that context . . .
[...] a government program that determines if you’re going to pull the plug on grandma’”) and Newt Gingrich “‘[. . . T]here clearly are people in America who believe in establishing euthanasia’”), [...]
[...] Additionally, Gingrich aslo publicly supported endorsed end of life counseling. [...]
Matthew, Matthew: Good post. But… Gingrich would disagree with you and I think he’d have a point. I’ve been following the blogs on the right (one is retire doc), and with their tortured logic they put it “if the GOVERNMENT initiates it, specifies it, qualifies it, determines it then then it’s BAD”. Government is the problem, remember? It’s Zeke Emanuel bed. And politically, it might have the reform package might have been more sale-able if instead of seeming to micro-manage in advance by specifying everything, they would have put in mechanisms for incentivizing institutions such as the ones in Gingrich’s piece to come up with plans to provide advance directive policies.
[...] to think about living wills and end of life decisions, if they haven’t already. As Matt Taibi reports, Newt Gingrich was not only for living wills and end of life counseling — what he and other [...]
About 20 minutes ago, I heard Newt Gingrich on Greta Van Susteren talking about *his* health plan for America. He had 4 or 5 main proposals – including one where end of life care would be based on the Gundersen model! What’s up with this guy? What happened to all of his concerns about “death panels”? Obviously he has no worries about being called out on it. I’m not sure what I find more chilling – his manipulative shamelessness or his confidence that his audience will neither notice and/or care.
[...] website, it shows that Palin’s current fear-mongering is purely political. Palin is not the only conservative leader completely flip-flopping on this issue. URL before it was deleted from her website: [...]
[...] [...]