White House clarifies remarks about Johnny Isakson and end-of-life legislation
After raising the hackles of Johnny Isakson, the White House is seeking to clarify remarks by President Barack Obama about the Georgia senator’s support of end-of-life planning provisions included in health care reform legislation.
On Tuesday, in a speech in New Hampshire, Obama inferred that Isakson was one of the chief sponsors of health care legislation moving through Congress.
Obama made the reference while discussing a House bill that would allow Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about how to set up living wills, durable power of attorney documents and other end-of-life plans.
The reference led Isakson, a Republican up for re-election (though he still has no opposition), to issue a terse statement criticizing the president and other White House officials — and saying that he neither sponsored nor supports any of the health care bills pending in Congress.
“This is what happens when the President and members of Congress don’t read the bills. The White House and others are merely attempting to deflect attention from the intense negativity caused by their unpopular policies. I never consulted with the White House in this process and had no role whatsoever in the House Democrats’ bill,” Isakson said in a press release.
Late Tuesday night, the White House sent my AJC colleague Bob Keefe a statement clarifying the president’s remarks. Officials said Obama was referring to a 2007 bill that Isakson co-sponsored in the Senate — not any of the pending health care bills in Congress.
The bill that Isakson co-sponsored, called the “Medicare End-of-Life Care Planning Act,” would have similarly provided Medicare coverage for end-of-life planning consultation, but it was never passed into law.
Obama’s Tuesday remarks — and the senator’s sharp response — came after Isakson was featured in a Washington Post story in which the Georgia senator took issue with health care reform critics who have implied that legislation could create government-run “death panels” that could determine who might be
euthanized.
Isakson called the rhetoric “nuts.” The senator indicated in the Washington Post piece that he supports Medicare reimbursement for end-of-life counseling — but with less government involvement than the House bill would require. Georgia already has similar provisions on its books.
The Post interview with Isakson was immediately cited nationwide. Maureen Dowd’s column this morning in the New York Times, for example.
While Isakson, at home this week, clearly took offense at the way he was singled out by Obama, White House officials apparently don’t want to rile an unnecessary enemy. In their later statement, they toned down any inference of Isakson’s support — and lauded him for taking a stand against the “scare tactics” of critics:
“Senator Isakson made clear in his interview with the Washington Post that he believes that seniors should have the right to seek counseling about end-of-life decisions,” the White House statement said. ” He expressed alarm about the scare tactics being used by opponents of health insurance reform on this issue, and we applaud him for that.”
For instant updates, follow me on Twitter.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2010 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
14 comments Add your comment
Please Keith
August 12th, 2009
2:29 pm
Enter your comments here
Hoops McCann
August 12th, 2009
2:54 pm
Obama is a disgrace to the Oval Office. He needs to be removed immediately.
kindergarden math
August 12th, 2009
2:58 pm
In your second sentence, I believe that you mean that Obama implied it, rather than inferred it. Just sayin’.
Road Scholar
August 12th, 2009
3:50 pm
Hey Hoops, did Obama light you up on the court recently? Compared to Shrub, Obama is a breath of fresh air!
david
August 12th, 2009
4:16 pm
Your president is a fool and a socialist!
jrshipley
August 12th, 2009
6:36 pm
Isakson’s gotta say what he’s gotta say. Clearly he needs to distance himself form the president to keep his base happy. Still, I give the guy some credit for calling out the Republicans on their dishonorable fear-mongering propaganda. I think that its a good thing that most Americans aren’t as credulous and servile as the “dittoheads” that fall for such nonsense. End-of-life care is not a comfortable subject but it is something that people should be informed about and that Medicare should cover. Good for Isakson for supporting common-sense in spite of his parties efforts to exploit the issue and scare people.
jrshipley
August 12th, 2009
6:38 pm
Info on the bipartisan bill Isakson cosponsored in the Senate:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.00464:
Of course, that was in 2007. Now the Reps have chosen partisanship over cooperation on this difficult issue.
HSR0601
August 13th, 2009
12:20 pm
Misinformation & Correction :
1. Rationing & A long Line :
With the help of upcoming IT system, the concern of a long waiting list probably doesn’t matter. And now that docs are liable for patient’s outcome, no intervention in the final decision is allowed other than ‘recommendations’ for best practices.
In the government-run, single-payer Medicare program, enrollees choose their own doctors, receive care in a timely manner. Similarly, the publc option can be viewed as extention of medicare, exactly speaking, an upgraded version of it.
2. Saving & low Quality :
Most part of savings is made up of weeding out such wastes as so called “doughnut hole” , the unnecessary subsidies for insurers, the duplicate tests and unproven sham level of treatments, abuse, exorbitant costs by the tragic ER visits and so forth. As president Obama noted, the analogy of insulation, weatherization would be appropriate.
With that in mind nearly two-thirds of the cost of reform will come from reallocating money, overall, the financial architecture is looking good.
And let me stress : If you are a physician, and your pay is dependant upon your patient’s outcome, you will most likely strive to prescribe the best medicine available earlier in the process, let alone skimming the wasteful, unnecessary, and risk-carrying procedures.
3. Take-over ;
The runaway premium similar to the peak fuel price last year and left so many folks in despair insists on staying the course with the attitude ‘unchanged’, clearly this trend could bankrupt individual, business, and government. Now the government subsequently is tasked with these two main assignments, first, to address premium inflation, second, to expand coverage to all in urgent need.
In order to cover all and not to add to the deficit, the public option can not set the same rates of private market, rather, it needs to have BALANCING function to keep it in check in terms of INFLATION, too. Unfortunately, this ‘unavoidable’ direction is aggressively being accused by the runaway premium, citing government ‘take-over’ .
Under the circumstances the energy bill to determine human future and the other major issues are presently piled up, who wants to waste time making enemies ?, which also does not benefit the forthcoming election.
with the heartbreaking tears in mind (Nearly 11 Million Cancer Patients Without Health Insurance), private market also needs changes and should join together to complete this reform , as promised, otherwise, the runaway premium only has itself to blame while new firms are filling the void with competitive deals.
And It can be said that fair competition starts with a fair, sustainable market value.
However, Job-based coverage (indirect payment) and a limitation code over transfer, mandate code, and ample capital, reduced ER costs, IT base to streamline the administrative processes and trim costs might be favorable to the private market. Over time, supposedly, the public plan will concentrate more on basic, primary cares, and the private insurers will provide their clients with differentiated services.
4. Tax rise :
In the context the current health care wastes an estimated one-third – or about $700 billion – on unnecessary procedures, unnecessary visits to the doctor, overpriced pharmaceuticals, bloated insurance companies, and the most inefficient paper billing systems imaginable, health care reformers have often cited the system at Mayo Clinic as a model.
In modernized society, the business lacking IT system is unthinkable just like pre-electricity period, nevertheless, the last thing to expect is happening now in the sector requiring the most accuracy in respect to dealing with human lives. Apparently the errors by no e-medical records have spawned the crushing lawsuits, and these costs have led to the unnecessary tests, treatments, even further, more profits so far.
Thankfully, the pay for ‘outcome’ pack modeled after the system at Mayo Clinic is most likely to expedite the introduction of IT system, and the combined system is capable of shifting volume into quality in Medicare & Medicaid, thereby offsetting the 239 billions of estimated deficit, which is generated by $245 billions, the 10-year cost of adjusting Medicare reimbursement rates so physicians don’t face big annual pay cuts.
Supporters of the agreement say it could save the Medicare System more than $100 billion a year and ‘improve’ care, supposedly even a quater of it might be enough to meet the goal of revenue-neutral. Moreover, in case this innovative idea applies to the public option, presumably it can lower the overall expense sharply, too.
And in respect to preventative program, surprisingly enough, the system today is designed around treating patients once they become sick, following ’spillover’ and ‘levee breach’ , as too high level of preventable chronic disease accounts for it. By contrast, all of the excellent health systems seem to have one feature in common, an expansive, systematic preventative program demanding immense investments.
Some say the effect of preventative program is below zero compared with investments, or takes a long time even beyond next decade window, but if this program in the exemplary systems is disorganized, the odds are high that they will also face the same pressing need for reform in a few years. Like common sense, fire needs to prevent in advance or foil in early phase, and it would be the most cost-saving measure, in my mind.
Just like marriage, economy also undergoes up and down, however, economic downturn is not reflected in the employment-based system. The rising mental stress & ‘keep eating habit’ , which are the epicenter of a number of different diseases, might be traced to this insecure system and exorbitant premiums.
Once the health care reform provides the general public with peace of mind, the rising mental stress, obesity caused by the the deep-seated apprehension and exorbitant premiums may bend the curve surprisingly. And reducing the tragic ER visits can lessen costs for the already insured.
I guess If the cost of the reform is an issue Americans take seriously, then all of the ‘free’ nations in the world should withdraw the existing public policy. Instead, it might be the ‘will’ of reform. Here is the hope, while the runaway premium wound up in the collapse of middle class ranging ‘ from finance to mental health’ , alongside the peak fuel price and fast-growing mortgage rate, this time, clearly, the positive impacts involving massive job creation, promising stem cell research, several times more economic effects of ‘from bed to work’ , in return, will lead to economic recovery.
Thank You For Reading !
Hook Em Horns
August 13th, 2009
1:22 pm
The Mayo Clinic -the very clinic that Obama strives to make our system more like- is opposed to this reform. They say it makes things worse
Seems Republicans are Attacking a Republican part of the HC Legislation - Page 2
August 13th, 2009
4:32 pm
[...] After raising the hackles of Johnny Isakson, the White House is seeking to clarify remarks by President Barack Obama about the Georgia senator
Bankerrkt
August 13th, 2009
4:36 pm
The White House sure seems to be clariftying a lot of what Pres BO says these days. No wonder they make him speak from a teleprompter.
Barrayaran
August 14th, 2009
10:52 am
Hook Em Horns, you mischaracterize the Mayo Clinic’s statement. The clinic is NOT opposed to health care reform or a public option; their concern is that what’s proposed does not go far enough:
“Lawmakers have failed to use a fundamental lever – a change in Medicare payment policy – to help drive necessary improvements in American health care.
“UNLESS LEGISLATORS CREATE PAYMENT SYSTEMS THAT PAY FOR GOOD PATIENT RESULTS AT REASONABLE COSTS, THE PROMISE OF TRANSFORMATION IN AMERICAN HEALTH CARE WILL WITHER.” [caps added]
See http://healthpolicyblog.mayoclinic.org/2009/07/16/mayo-clinic%E2%80%99s-reaction-to-house-tri-committee-bill/ for the very short statement in its entirety.
In fact, the clinic was a signatory to an open letter to congress, the first line of which reads, “We wholeheartedly support Presiden Obama’s call for healthcare reform”. You can read the entire letter at http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthpolicycenter/pdfs/open-letter-to-congress-7-22-09.pdf.
There may be good reasons to oppose health care reform, but using bogus and/or ill-researched talking points undercuts any argument you make.
Aaron Burr V. Mexico
August 14th, 2009
1:23 pm
This White House really “clarifies” a lot. I mean all the time. I thought this was going to be a smart White House? Do they ever get things right. Obama’s poll number seem to indicated that they don’t.
Word: Of death panels and dingbats | Fresh Loaf
August 14th, 2009
4:36 pm
[...] — Isakson, from an Aug. 11 press release [...]