|
medpundit |
||
 |
 |
|
Thursday, October 23, 2003MedicaidAdvocates.com,The Broward County based patient and Medicaid Client advocacy group that was formed to fight to save the Medicaid Medically Needy Share of Cost Program that Florida Governor Jeb Bush and the G.O.P. dominated Florida House and Senate had earmarked for elimination in the last Florida budget year, today is questioning the ethics and integrity of both Governor Bush and the leadership of the Florida House and Senate over their actions yesterday in Tallahassee. "Although we sincerely empathize with the plight of Terri Schaivo, her husband, and her family, we find it highly suspect that Governor Bush, Speaker of the House Johnnie Byrd, and State Senator Daniel Webster could mobilize their forces so quickly to assist just this one patient whose case and plight has been working its way through the Florida Courts for over ten years. It is encouraging to see Speaker Byrd and Senator Webster publicly exhibit such moral concern and compassion for this one patient and her family, but the question must be raised; where was this same concern and compassion during our efforts to save the Medicaid Medically Needy Share of Cost Program and the 27,000 Medically Needy recipients whose medications, healthcare, and lives were in immediate jeopardy during the last budget year? When this program came within literally hours of ending and Speaker Byrd was asked about action that was yet to be taken to save it and 27,000 Floridians lives, his response was that 'it wasn't an emergency'. Well, what exactly is the emergency now? Could it be perhaps that both Speaker Byrd and Senator Webster are running for the U.S. Senate seat now occupied by Senator Graham? It is such a travesty that this woman, who is now the subject of national news stories, is being used by these men as nothing more than 'political fodder' in a campaign for a National Senate seat" states MedicaidAdvocates.com Co-Founder Bill Rettinger. "Perhaps this same concern and compassion will be exhibited this week for the 1.9 Million Floridians on various Medicaid Programs whose lives were impacted earlier this year by the Florida Legislature's imposition of co-pay requirements for prescriptions and emergency room visits and these requirements can be eliminated during this special session utilizing the federal funds that were sent to Florida that were earmarked to enhance Medicaid and other health care programs as the U.S. Congress intended when this funding was created." Setting aside the ungraciousness of whining about your own needs in the face of someone else's tragedy, it would appear that it's the Medicaid advocacy group that has fallen for the hype. As this NRO reader and right-to-die supporter put it (permalink didn't work, so I'll quote it all): "I've been listening to the BBC and NPR today -- I confess, I'm basically a liberal but mostly I'm a political junkie and enjoy reading opinion from all over the spectrum. In any case, what has struck me with the BBC and NPR is that there has been no mention, zilch, about the actual disputes in this case: the fact that there are some clear conflicts of interest surrounding Shaivo's husband, that the only evidence of her wishes regarding life support come from him, and that there is medical disagreement about Terri's condition and prospects, with her husband having virtually prevented examination by any but his own doctors and from attempting any rehabilitation. I've heard a bit of discussion about the debate about her status, but quite literally zero mention of the conflict of interest situation -- the 'fiancee', the money at stake, multiple affidavits attesting to Shciavo talking about what he'll buy with the money, etc. Overall, I'm in the 'right to die' camp; I've voted for Oregon's assisted suicide law twice. But in this case it seems that debate isn't over rights, but facts: what were Terri's wishes and what is her condition? It seems to me extremely dangerous to establish a precedent that the next of kin alone can not only make all decisions, supposedly based on a patient's wishes and their medical status, but, then also giving the next of kin sole right to announce what those wishes were and to determine how the patient's condition will be determined. Given the obvious conflicts of interest that can arise over inheritance, etc., such a system invites abuse. While I usually think you conservatives are whining about 'liberal bias', given how important the context is to understanding this case and given how easy that information is to find, I can't help suspecting that the fact that this case came to national attention due to lobbying by the religious right means that the 'elite media' have automatically come down against it (even though the 'money grubbing husband wants to kill wife' theme would normally have appeal). " As further proof of the slant, the Schiavo story got mention today in an AP story about the partial birth abortion ban: The latest victories came almost simultaneously -- congressional approval of a bill banning a disputed late-term abortion procedure and Florida lawmakers' vote empowering Gov. Jeb Bush to order resumed feeding of a woman who has been in a vegetative state since 1990. ``A monumental day for the sanctity of human life,'' declared the conservative Family Research Council after Tuesday's votes in Washington and Tallahassee, Fla. However, Dr. David Grimes, a North Carolina physician who formerly headed the abortion surveillance division of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, called it ``a very sad day.'' ``Here we have a governor of Florida interfering with a family's choice, and Congress interfering with a woman's right to choose,'' Grimes said Wednesday. ``I thought this administration's role was to get government off people's backs.'' The role of government is also to protect, something that this administration knows all too well. posted by Sydney on 10/23/2003 08:54:00 AM 0 comments 0 Comments: |
|
