Upstream | February 06, 2012 | 87 comments

Santorum: Romney and Obama both created ‘death panels’

source: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/06/santorum-romney-and-obama-both-created-death-panels/

KB723
By David Edwards
Monday, February 6, 2012 14:24 EST

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Monday asserted that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was “uniquely unqualified” for the GOP nomination because of the similarities between health care laws in Massachusetts and President Barack Obama’s health care reforms, including the repeatedly debunked claim that “death panels” would ration care to seniors.

Speaking at a ballroom across the street from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, Santorum pointed to a report (PDF) from the the non-partisan organization Families USA that found at least 15 major similarities between Obama’s Affordable Care Act and the reforms Romney enacted in Massachusetts.

“Both create government panels to dictate quality and cost containment,” Santorum explained. “Some of you may be familiar with the Independent Payment Advisory Board — which is a board separate from Congress, independent of Congress — that President Obama created to control health care costs. How? By cutting reimbursements to doctors and hospitals under the Medicare program. Well, Gov. Romney has a similar program called the Council on Health Quality and Costs.”

“Some people refer to these types of boards as death panels,” he added. “Why? Because they ultimately decide to ration care to those procedures and people because they don’t believe these procedures are effective in providing care, that the utilization isn’t worth the costs.”

“So, again, you have government making decisions and rationing and apportioning care based on research that shows what outcomes are dictated by the research that’s out there.”

In 2009, Politifact named “death panels,” a term thought to have been first used by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R), as their “Lie of the Year.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/06/santorum-romney-and-obama-both-created-dea...

Watch this video from CNN, broadcast Feb. 6, 2012.

"Funny how he says "Some people refer to these types of boards as Death Panels" to the best of my recollection only His Party does!!!"
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Politics,   Culture,   37 more
  2. tags:
    Health,  Barack Obama,  Republican,  Sarah Palin,  18 more
  3. recommended by:
    Vierotchka
  4.     
    |

87 comments // Santorum: Romney and Obama both created ‘death panels’

  • Naumadd
    • -1
      Naumadd  

    • Just a story about nothin'.

      Oversight regarding care quality and cost effectiveness are nothing new. The industry has always had a need for such a thing. If government is going to take over yet another unwarranted responsibility like healthcare, it will need the same oversight.

      Money still doesn't grow on trees.

      Look, if you want a physician to provide care even though there's no money to pay for it, you need to offer some incentive to do so other than "do as you're told."

    • 4 months ago
  • HarukoHaruhara
  • KB723
  • Plue
    • +1
      Plue  

    • First he brings up the nonexistant relationship between abortion an breast cancer and then he is back to death panels. Rick needs to end his sad campaign for president now and go back home and do someting important like spend time with his ailing daughter. Another good post KB. +^d

    • 4 months ago
  • KB723
  • faye59
  • yodasworld
    • +2
      yodasworld  

    • The only place "Death Panels" actually exists are with insurance companies who use to be allowed to drop you if you got sick, or if it cost too much...Most of these RWNJ's like Santorum, Palin and Bachmann all receive government subsidizes health care...But no one else can have it...Screw these Dbags...

    • 4 months ago
  • KB723
  • Plue
  • warman1138
  • KB723
  • unimatrix0
    • +4
      unimatrix0  

    • The Insurance companies created death panels long ago, and they are still in force. Insurance companies routinely decide who qualifies for life saving treatment and who does not. The fact that the mainstream media continues to fail to make this point clear is unexplainable, inexcusable and deeply disappointing.

    • 4 months ago
  • KB723
    • +2
      KB723  
    • unimatrix0:

      The media seems to be paid by the 1% as to what to talk about and what not to talk about, sadly it seems more often than Not they talk about Fear... There was a time in History that people did as they were told, thinking it would be for the Best Interest, only to find the opposite... I myself Fear we are living a lesson unlearned... =(

    • 4 months ago
  • cmc101
  • cmc101
    • +1
      cmc101  
    • KB723:

      You may be right
      my opinion
      as long as we are fearful of what we can do , We are too dangerous to grasp the freedom we so desperately desire
      those that are in charge will keep us full of fear and doubt

    • 4 months ago
  • KB723
  • cmc101
  • KB723
  • cmc101
    • +1
      cmc101  
    • KB723:

      the word uneducated make the one reading that word take offense that they may be the dumb under employed lazy welfare food stamp share cropper second class citizen living at the undesirable zip code
      so we must inform the uninformed that they are the uninformed misled minority.

    • 4 months ago
  • KB723
  • cmc101
  • KB723
  • budsnews
  • KB723
  • Progresshiv
    • +4
      Progresshiv  

    • It's the 2012 Race to the Psycho Ward, brought to you by Monsanto, Citigroup, Halliburton, the Koch Brothers, NewsCorp, and your local booby hatch. Get your tickets now!

    • 4 months ago
  • KB723
  • Progresshiv
  • KB723
  • Progresshiv
  • KB723
  • Ambill94
    • +2
      Ambill94  

    • Thanks KB723...We are witnessing the implosion of a once and always marginal player with a screw-loose, wingnut ideology that appeals to the lowest common denominator in the electorate...at this point he should go away, but he is not intelligent enough to know that...:)

      Others such as jimstoner have made great cases against this fool...I am not inclined to try to duplicate their effort...

    • 4 months ago
  • KB723
  • Ambill94
  • KB723
  • Ambill94
  • KB723
  • Ambill94
  • jimstoner
    • +7
      jimstoner  
    • Image

    • You already have death panels. They are called H.M.Os. The only country in the industrialized world that has an organization that can legally come between a doctor and patient is the United States. I can remember the Republicans causing fear about universal health care by asking people if they really wanted a government official making their health care decisions for them. In Canada, their is no bureaucratic body that reviews a doctors care plan and then decides if it should go forward. They do not know what the medical professionals and the patients and their families have decided to do until they get the bill. The government does not get a say in the delivery of health care in any way. Hell, they don't even get to voice an opinion. This goes for every country that has universal health care. And that would be every country in the industrialized world except the United States. What is even more monstrous is the Republicans new full well that there are no government interventions in universal health care, they just didn't care. They wanted to protect insurance company profits. You have the only country in which someone can come between a patient and their doctor, and the Republicans somehow got a large number of the public to be afraid of universal health care by asking them "do you really want someone to come between you and your doctor"? Something that universal health care guaranties can not happen. And for the privilege of having H.M.O. death panels, you pay far more for the health care, that a lot of you don't get. Only the citizens of the Marshal Islands pay more.

    • 4 months ago
  • Ambill94
  • KB723
  • jimstoner
    • +4
      jimstoner  
    • KB723:

      Health care is my profession. I can not tell you how sickened (no pun intended) I was by the continual lies the Republicans told about universal health care. And it wasn't that they were misinformed, they were knowingly telling lies that they themselves new at the time, would eventually have to cause the untimely deaths of American citizens. The definition of a crime against humanity.

    • 4 months ago
  • KB723
    • +3
      KB723  
    • jimstoner:

      A Crime against Humanity indeed Thanks for your input jim, it's nice to hear from someone that knows first hand, I myself would have never known, Voted Up!!! =)

    • 4 months ago
  • jimstoner
  • jimstoner
  • KB723
  • Ambill94
  • Naumadd
  • jimstoner
    • +1
      jimstoner  
    • Naumadd:

      Th fact that there isn't one. Now I suppose American Conservatives could demand a review board if single payer is ever implemented in the United States. Denying health care does seem to suit them. But that would not be universal health care as all countries have it, would it? But I think more to the point is the fact that Republicans new there are no "middle men" in the universal health care systems of other countries and outright lied to the American people about it.

    • 4 months ago
  • Naumadd
    • -1
      Naumadd  
    • jimstoner:

      But the idea of "universal healthcare" means there's more to it than simply patient and doctor, doesn't it? If there's no middle man, it would be - patient comes to doctor, doctor treats patient, patient pays doctor, correct?

      At any rate, all countries do NOT have universal healthcare and, yes, all universal healthcare has a middle man. Now, just what exactly the middleman does probably varies from situation to situation, but it's a middleman all the same.

    • 4 months ago
  • jimstoner
    • +1
      jimstoner  
    • Naumadd:

      No middle man. Where do you get the idea that there is one. When a patient and there doctor decide on a course of treatment they do not have to consult with anybody else period. They do not say "well that sounds good but we have to wait and see what the government says". Patient comes to doctor, doctor treats patient, doctor sends bill to government, government pays doctor. A middle man would imply that the government gets to review the case before treatment goes forward. They have no say or input into the treatment of a patient whatsoever. They get to pay the bill and that's it. Have you just come to the realization of how willingly the Republicans lied to you about universal health care and you are having a hard time with it? In the U.S. system, there is a middle man. Patient sees doctor, doctor decides treatment, doctor asks insurance agent if he or she can go forward, insurance agent decides on health care procedure, patient often refused. 15% of Americans have no insurance at all, and those that do could just as well be without it because H.M.Os. will do anything they can to refuse treatment. Universal health care is used in every wealthy country in the world except the United States. Some are by insurance mandate but the cost to individuals is the same as those paying through taxation, and insurance providers can not refuse treatment, they just get the bill. A few have small top up fees at the point of use, but this is rare. And every country pays far less for health care than the United States and gets coverage for all of their citizens because they do not have a middleman to pay. A lot of American health care dollars goes directly to the profits of H.M.Os.

    • 4 months ago
  • Naumadd
    • -2
      Naumadd  
    • jimstoner:

      It's not a direct economic exchange between patient and doctor - i.e., middleman. I'm not saying the middleman involves themselves in the actual diagnosis, treatment, follow up etc., only the economic exchange. It's still a middleman.

      Is there any guarantee the middleman won't insert themselves into the treatment process? Certainly, the middleman has an economic interest in what goes on between doctor and patient. How long will they keep their nose out of it before their economic interest compels them to become involved? I think we all know how ineffective so-called "guarantees can be in other areas.

      "Guarantee" is more a euphemism for "keep your fingers crossed" or worse - "don't hold your breath."

    • 4 months ago
  • jimstoner
    • +1
      jimstoner  
    • Image
    • Naumadd:

      Well they have kept their nose out of it for 60 years in Canada. And 100 years in others. Are you just trying to find a problem with a health care system that every industrialized country but the United states is smart enough to use. Their is no middleman. You keep calling them middlemen for the purpose of your argument . There is no middleman. They get to pay, no questions asked. They don't get to have an opinion, they don't get to refuse, they don't get to become involved if they are compelled to or not. They can throw a tantrum if they want to and it would do them no good. It's universal health care. All they will ever be able to do is make the payments with the money that is put into the insurance fund by the citizens of Canada. They do not have a financial interest. It is not a for profit system. We don't have to keep our fingers crossed . We do not have the American health care system. The countries in orange have universal health care. The countries in yellow are attempting to get universal health care. The two countries in the Middle East in brown have universal health care that American citizens pay for. The countries in grey have no Universal health care. You are right there with third world Africa, China and parts of South America. The only reason you do not have universal health care is because Republicans want to protect H.M.O. profits.

    • 4 months ago
  • Naumadd
    • -3
      Naumadd  
    • jimstoner:

      I call it a middleman because that's precisely what it is. That's not looking for a problem to keep the argument, it's seeing it for exactly what it is.

      I glad that you are happy with your Canadian system. That's precisely what's needed for it to be legitimate at least in your case. But one has to ask and it's not a question you can answer but in generalities - is every single Canadian happy with it? I think the reasonably likely answer is no. If it's a compulsory system, how could they?

      Now, let me clear up something - I'm not saying a system that for all intents and purposes works like insurance in that one pays a monthly bill and, through pooled resources, those who need to use it do and those who don't have a need for it go on paying until they do. I get how that works. It's voluntary and everyone who pays benefits from how it works.

      My problem is this - I'm fairly certain not everyone pays into the system who receives benefit. Also, I'm fairly certain your system is compulsory - not voluntary. If I'm wrong on that, I'm sure you'll correct me.

      Such an involuntary and unbalanced system may "work", but it could hardly be called fair, can it? I just wonder if it works only because Canadians are more willing than Americans to relinquish some liberty and fairness to get a system that at least works for most and those for whom it doesn't work simply remain silent. Not really a statement as much as a question.

      The system proposed here in America would pay for those who contribute and for those who do not AND it would be compulsory. That's not exactly something I can just sit still and allow to happen. I have rights and I respect the fact others do to. Those rights mean you can't simply take what's mine or what's theirs and give it to someone else simply because they have a more urgent need for it than I/we do. That's a complete negation of the basis for any rights at all.

    • 4 months ago
  • Naumadd
    • -2
      Naumadd  
    • jimstoner:

      You call it smart, I call it ignoring individual rights. Maybe that's not something other nations care about and, having been to more than few of them, I know hat to be a fact.

      Are Americans different? Well, we used to be. I am. Others are, but more and more these days are willing to forfeit liberty and willing to take it from those who aren't.

    • 4 months ago
  • jimstoner
    • +1
      jimstoner  
    • Naumadd:

      I can not get over how some Americans think. You are the only industrialized country that does not have universal health care, so everybody else is wrong. No you are wrong. That's why you are alone in it. You can not call it a middleman system just because you want to. You talked about a financial interest, but there is none because it's not for profit. Wrong again. It is compulsory, and I never hear a single Canadian complain about it. We have your system to compare it to and the thought sends shivers down our spines. Canadians were asked to pick the greatest Canadian that ever lived. They overwhelmingly chose Tommy Douglas, the man who gave us our universal health care. We think the man that gave us our health care system is a saint. So yes, we are pretty pleased with it. Of course you are not going to like a system that helps the less fortunate. Your probably a Conservative.

    • 4 months ago
  • jimstoner
  • budsnews
    • 0
      budsnews  
    • Naumadd:

      go and visit a canadian hospital,the billing office is in the sub-sub cellar.It's only there to bill Americans ,who have needed healthcare while in Canada...no middle man ,just doctor and patient...

    • 4 months ago
  • budsnews
  • budsnews
  • jimstoner
  • cmc101
  • KB723
  • cmc101
  • KB723
  • DEM46
    • +1
      DEM46  

    • Nothing like scaring grandma that someone will be killing her as soon as gets real sick, then her Medicare will be privatized and she won't be able to afford it, (of course Romney will be dong this just like Obama so you better vote for Santorum).

      and maybe just for good measure, Obama's actually a Muslim and in his second term he will be taking all her rights away. You better vote for the right Republican granny.

      Umm, well, I guess I'd be a bit frightened too. ;)

    • 4 months ago
  • KB723
  • cmc101
  • bike10
  • KB723
  • Leen61
    • +4
      Leen61  

    • Ricky really needs to go away. Death panels? He's still beating that dead horse? All I know is that here in WI we would love to be able to use the Affordable Health Care Act but we can't because Scott Walker is holding that hostage. He believes like the rest of the tea party that Obama wanting people to have health insurance is unconstitutional. So, he is going to wait until that runs through the courts. Asshole!!!!

    • 4 months ago
  • KB723
    • +3
      KB723  
    • Leen61:

      The Tea Party and the GOP really like holding things Hostage these days Leen, I wonder when folks on that side of the aisle will realize, that they too are being held Hostage???

    • 4 months ago
  • Leen61
  • KB723
  • cmc101
  • KB723
  • cmc101
    • +1
      cmc101  
    • KB723:

      that is one reason that we had to fight a civil war
      the looser didn't want to face the judgement and the humility in serving the president
      it is as bad as then because their using the color code to create the feeling of being threaten
      so you point trigger finger at the one that is threatening to you
      so when you see a looser point your trigger finger as you do a mic check
      it beats throwing a shoe and it is so childish like shame shame.

    • 4 months ago
  • KB723
  • remanns
  • KB723
  • jackhole
  • Vierotchka
    • +3
      Vierotchka  
    • jackhole:

      Nobody created "death panels" - that notion is simply mendacious right-wing propaganda. And when Ron Paul said that when an uninsured individual needs urgent life-saving care, he won't get it because that was his choice, and his supporters cheered... Ron Paul is an asshole.

    • 4 months ago
  • jackhole
  • Vierotchka
  • jackhole
  • KB723
  • cmc101
  • KB723
    • +4
      KB723  

    • Santorum: Romney and Obama both created ‘death panels’

      "Funny how he says "Some people refer to these types of boards as Death Panels" to the best of my recollection only His Party does!!!"

    • 4 months ago
more from Upstream:
from the community

top videos