Green Room

Actually, Bush VETOED the 2008 bill slipping in the end-of-life provision

posted at 4:29 pm on December 28, 2010 by

I’m going to take the death panel  end-of-life planning conundrum down one point at a time to make this very clear for Americans to understand what the Pelosi-led Democrats have done to your healthcare and attempt to take cover under a Bush-era law–the Medicare Improvement for Patients and Providers Act of 2008.  The Hill reported that the Obama White House attempted to calm Americans’ fears of the dreaded death panels:

The Medicare policy will pay doctors for holding end-of-life-care discussions with patients, according to the Times. A similar provision was dropped from the new healthcare reform law after Republicans accused the administration of withholding care from the sick, elderly and disabled. However, an administration spokesman said the regulation, which is less specific than the reform law’s draft language, is actually a continuation of a policy enacted under former President George W. Bush.

“The only thing new here is a regulation allowing the discussions … to happen in the context of the new annual wellness visit created by [healthcare reform],” Obama spokesman Reid Cherlin told The Wall Street Journal.

In 2003, Medicare added a consultation visit for seniors new to the program, according to the Journal. Another 2008 law, enacted under Bush, said the visit can include “end-of-life” planning discussions.

However, what The Hill’s Jason Millman forgot to mention in his article was that President Bush VETOED the 2008 bill and the Democrats, along with some “good-willed” Republicans OVERRODE Bush’s veto forcing him to sign the legislation into law.*  The bill dealt with doctors’ reimbursements and more, but the Democrats slipped in the end-of-life planning by opening up the Social Security Act, which I have stated many times is dangerous, because once changed, it is difficult to amend again and allows for tinkering with the Medicare fee schedule and covered services definitions and requirements.

For the record, here is the text that the Democrats changed:

(b) Revisions to Initial Preventive Physical Examination-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 1861(ww) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(ww)) is amended–

(A) in paragraph (1)–

(i) by inserting ‘body mass index,’ after ‘weight’;

(ii) by striking ‘, and an electrocardiogram’; and

(iii) by inserting ‘and end-of-life planning (as defined in paragraph (3)) upon the agreement with the individual’ after ‘paragraph (2)’;

Comedy gold indeed, when Democrats blame Bush for, um, everything wrong in America, and then use him for cover on healthcare.

Updated:  *President Bush did not sign this bill into law as the congressional record mistakenly notes.  After Congress overrode Bush’s veto, President Bush was not required to sign the bill to enact it.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comedy gold indeed, when Democrats blame Bush for, um, everything wrong in America, and then use him for cover on healthcare.

indeed :)

cmsinaz on December 28, 2010 at 5:53 PM

Bad, SusanAnne, very bad. Be honest, that ‘end-of-life provision‘ stuff you’re hawking is just a hairball that you’re hacking up and is not at all why Bush vetoed the bill or why both parties in Congress overwhelmingly supported it and even more overwhelmingly overrode him.

Just some irrelevant nonsense that you’re dishonestly pushing.

Bad SusanAnne, very bad.

audiculous on December 29, 2010 at 9:41 PM

Again, impressive comment, Audi. I never said why Bush vetoed the bill (which is irrelevant) just as the Obama White House never said that it was a congressional veto override that passed the bill into law. But, it seems in your world that my pointing this out far outweighs the Obama WH false narrative of taking cover under this law. Again, thanks for commenting!! :)

SusanAnne Hiller on December 29, 2010 at 10:33 PM

Now, SusanAnne, trying to say that you didn’t come out and say that you never actually said why Bush issued the veto is pretty damned weak and dishonest when you run that headline

Actually, Bush VETOED the 2008 bill slipping in the end-of-life provision

You want to defend your dishonesty by saying that you didn’t tell a full flat-out lie? You one of them folks say that it don’t count as anything if it gets pulled out at the last instant?

That about your level of virtue?

If so, maybe you shouldn;t have run the second post with the same dishonest headline implying it was all about the end-of-life provision when President Bush full-out said that the veto wasn’t about that at all.

Now SusanAnne, someday you’re gonna grow up and maybe have kids of your own. Let’s straighten out the act so that those kids don’t grow up having a dishonest woman for a mother.

audiculous on December 29, 2010 at 10:54 PM

Audiculous the phony Conservative strikes again. Then you stoop to personal attacks. Just admit you are a liberal pretending to be a Conservative and go back to KOS or DUNG.

Hard Right on December 30, 2010 at 12:57 PM

naw, I don’t think so. Asking someone posting here to stop bending the truth, even if it means taking a few minutes for basic research before posting, isn’t much of an attack, particularly when the author is posting attack pieces.

I refuse to believe that calling for honesty and fairness means that someone is a liberal.

audiculous on December 30, 2010 at 2:28 PM

Awww. Bush vetoed the bill. Pelosi’s House overrode the veto.

There is no lie in that statement, no matter how bad you wish their was.

uknowmorethanme on December 31, 2010 at 7:21 PM

There is no lie in that statement, no matter how bad you wish their was.

uknowmorethanme

this is the dishonest part,uknow….

and the Democrats, along with some “good-willed” Republicans OVERRODE Bush’s veto

the vote to override was 383-41 in the House

that isn’t one party voting, that’s near to EVERYBODY.

audiculous on December 31, 2010 at 10:07 PM

the vote to override was 383-41 in the House

that isn’t one party voting, that’s near to EVERYBODY.

audiculous on December 31, 2010 at 10:07 PM

Now you are changing the subject. This is what you originally claim is some kind of lie:

Actually, Bush VETOED the 2008 bill slipping in the end-of-life provision

Also, 88%, being a large majority, is not nearly “EVERYBODY” as you claim in all caps.

Now why are you accusing others of dishonestly again? Projection maybe?

uknowmorethanme on January 1, 2011 at 12:21 PM

uknow, what I originally said was dishonesty was that SusanAnne was suggesting that the veto related to the “end -of-life” provision in the bill, not that the Bush vetoed it.

that SusanAnne carried on with saying that it was most all just them bad Democrats is more dishonesty, not a change in subject.

audiculous on January 1, 2011 at 12:47 PM

No, Audi, I never said the end-of-life provision was the reason Bush vetoed the bill. YOU did. The headline stated the bill Bush vetoed had the end-of-life provision IN it (“slipping in the end of life provision”)–MEANING just that, the bill had it in there. No where in any of the posts did I reference that Bush vetoed that specific bill because of that provision. You are that person. It’s getting very old for readers here to hear you whine,call me a liar, and personally attack me in my posts when a second grader can figure it out. Additionally, I’d love to see some of your work. Where do you write? Blogs? Anything? Otherwise, the point has been made Bush did veto the bill that had the end of life provision IN it and Kirsten Powers was uninformed and spewed WH talking points without fact checking them. As always, thanks for commenting, and again, please let me know where you write. I’m sure so many of us would love to read your work.

SusanAnne Hiller on January 1, 2011 at 1:27 PM

Sorry SusanAnne I’ll try not to whine to much while I argue with what I regard as not flat-out lies, but crooked insinuations and distortions.

Looking forward to many stimulating discussions and replies from yourself and your admirers in what I hope to be a happy new year for all.

audiculous on January 1, 2011 at 3:01 PM

and SusanAnne, if you really would like to read some of my efforts, send me an e-mail and I’ll point you to a place where I used to post

audiculous on January 1, 2011 at 3:16 PM