Rebecca Reisner, writing in Business Week, says an obscure end-of-life provision in the administration’s health care proposal is stoking passions in the “conservative blogosphere,” with claims that it is a step toward government-mandated euthanasia.

During an AARP-sponsored town hall meeting earlier this week, a woman told the President: “I have been told there is a clause in there that everyone that’s Medicare age will be visited and told to decide how they wish to die. This bothers me greatly, and I’d like for you to promise me that this is not in this bill.” Obama replied that the intent of the provision was to promote advance planning and living wills.

Advocates of the measure say critics have misinterpreted the provision, while opponents are contending that their criticism of it has been misunderstood. An AARP spokesman criticized “baseless scare tactics put out by those who seek to derail health-care reform.”

See also:

False euthanasia claims: The claim that the House health bill pushes suicide is nonsense — Factcheck.org

Earlier posts here, here and here.

By Carrie Budoff Brown in Politico:

Legislators and political commentators are sparring over a provision tucked deep inside the House health care reform bill that would provide Medicare coverage for an end-of-life consultation once every five years, and more frequently for a life-threatening illness.

House Minority Leader John Boehner and Republican Policy Committee Chairman Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) have issued a statement saying the measure “may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia.”

Betsy McCaughey, a former New York lieutenant governor and conservative health expert, said the measure amounts to pressure on vulnerable elderly and chronically ill people. “… it is not offering a service. It is pressuring them,” McCaughey said. “I would not want that to occur when I am not at my parents’ bedside.”

Proponents of the measure say it would not make the consultation mandatory. They say critics are using irresponsible rhetoric to drive a wedge between senior citizens and Democrats.

Earlier post here.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Betsy McCaughey says Congress is rushing to approve legislation that will “reduce access to care, pressure the elderly to end their lives prematurely, and doom baby boomers to painful later years.”

At the core of McCaughey’s concern is comparative effectiveness research, which can be used to limit care based on a patient’s age or expected lifespan. Using such a technique to limit access to care, she says, would deny lifesaving care to elderly people and those with disabilities.

She says the legislation being pushed by the White House aims to cut costs by “reducing access to treatments and counseling seniors about cutting life short” rather than finding more reasonable solutions.

McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York.

From the Redding [CA] Record Searchlight:

Thousands of elderly and disabled Californians stand to lose the state-funded help they need to stay in their homes, thanks to proposed cuts in California’s budget.

Claire “Betty” Berg, of Redding, CA, says the cuts mean she may be forced into a nursing facility — which would cost the state much more than it pays now for the aide worker who supports her at home. She urges people to speak up and advocate for themselves.

See also:

• Javier’s story: Disabled man feels pain of CA budget cuts — BakersfieldNOW.com
• Details of agreement to close California budget deficit — San Jose Mercury News

From the New York Times editorial board:

Home care aides, who typically assist elderly and disabled clients, are among the most underpaid and overworked people in the work force, say the editors. Most make less than $10 an hour and are routinely denied overtime pay. As a result, those who rely on caregivers are plagued by low quality care and high turnover, while the public gets the bill for food stamps and other forms of public assistance.

The editors call on the Labor Department to issue a rule that would require home care employers to pay such workers the federal minimum wage or time and a half for overtime. The process of issuing a new rule includes a comment period, generally three months. An excerpt:

Home care aides should not have to wait any longer than that for the fair pay they have been denied for so long.

Writing in the [White Plains, NY] Journal News, Esther Gueft says people with disabilities constitute one of the nation’s largest minority groups, yet their needs are consistently overlooked.

This is the year of the “minority.” An African-American is president, and there could be a Hispanic justice on the Supreme Court. The list goes on. Color barriers are falling. But what about the minority that cuts across all racial, religious and cultural barriers? Where are they?

…They live in your house, next door, down the street and across town. Because of their differences, they are only now emerging thanks to laws that were enacted just under 20 years ago.

… What can we do to integrate this special minority, which we will join as we age through illness, accident or injury? Access to appropriate housing and support services is key to permitting disabled adults [to] gain the independence they need.

Writing in the Contra Costa Times, columnist Kate Scannell says Gov. Schwarzenegger’s plan to cut services to people with disabilities will only create bigger and more costly problems.

Clearly, any state budget cut is going to hurt some cause or group of people. But it must be recognized that some of the most vulnerable and defenseless Californians – those with mental and physical impairments – are being pushed to the front line, closest to the state’s swinging machete.

Still the proverbial “bottom line” remains – cuts to these cost-saving programs make no fiscal sense.