Posted on 08/19/2009 3:54:26 AM PDT by Kaslin
False charges about Obamacare don't help.
Like the end-of-life tempest. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin popularized the term "death panels." She said: "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care".
The charge that the House and Senate health care bills would mandate end-of-life counseling -- hence "death panels" -- caught on. Rush Limbaugh, defending Palin's charge, said, "(D)eath panels ... it's a great way to phrase this end-of-life counseling."
Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa piled on: "You have every right to fear. ... We should not have a government program that determines if you're going to pull the plug on grandma."
But no bill in Congress mandates end-of-life counseling, much less "death panels." And there's a deeper problem. When opponents of nationalization make such easily refuted charges, supporters of nationalization gain the upper hand. All criticism is undermined. Neutral observers can easily conclude, "If the death-panel claim is false, why believe anything else the critics say?"
That would be a disaster.
There's is reason to be concerned about end-of-life counseling, but the truth is more complicated. Here's the story.
The House bill does deal with the issue. (The Senate Finance Committee bill did until the provision was removed the other day.) Section 1233 amends the Medicare law to add "advance care planning consultation" (counseling about living wills and the like) to the list of reimbursable services. The provision defines "consultation," but nowhere does it require Medicare beneficiaries to participate or authorize death panels. (Grassley voted for a similar provision in 2003 when his Republican-controlled Congress added drug coverage to Medicare.)
But even if some conservative Republican critics are wrong about Section 1233, there is good reason to worry about Obama's nationalization scheme.
The reason can be found in Econ 101. Medical care doesn't grow on trees. It must be produced by human and physical capital, and those resources are limited. Therefore, if demand for health care services increases -- which is Obama's point in extending health insurance -- prices must go up. But somehow Obama also promises, "I won't sign a bill that doesn't reduce health care inflation."
This is magical thinking. Obama, talented as he is, can't repeal the laws of supply and demand. Costs are real. If they are incurred, someone has to pay them. But as economist Thomas Sowell points out, politicians can control costs -- by refusing to pay for the services.
It's called rationing.
Advocates of nationalization hate that word because it forces them to face an ugly truth. If government pays for more people's health care and wants to control costs, it must limit what we buy.
So much for Obama's promise not to interfere with our freedom of choice.
This brings us back to end-of-life consultation. As the government's health care budget becomes strained, as it must -- and, as Obama admits, already is under Medicare -- the government will have to cut back on what it lets people have.
So it is not a leap to foresee government limiting health care, especially to people nearing the end of life. Medical "ethicists" have long lamented that too much money is spent futilely in the last several months of life. Are we supposed to believe that the social engineers haven't read their writings?
And given the premise that it's government's job to pay for our heath care, concluding that 80-year-olds should get no hip replacements makes sense. The problem is the premise: that taxpayers should pay. Once you accept that, bad things follow.
In the end, perhaps the biggest objection to nationalized health care is the "principal-agent problem." For whom does the doctor work? Ordinarily, the doctor is the agent of the patient. But when government signs the checks and orders doctors to reduce spending, it is not crazy to think that this won't influence their "advance care planning consultation".
Freedom is about self-determination. Obama's health care scheme would undermine both.
Stossel is misquoting Palin: The “Death Panels” Palin was talking about did not refer to the “end-of-life” counseling, but rather to the bureaucrats who would decide who would get a treatment and who would not (hence, that “panel” would allow a life-saving treatment for a 25-year old but would deny it to Grand Ma).
Indeed, Stossel is right in the second thrust of his effort, and the Liar in Chief (LinC) does want the unwashed to think he is quite the magician.
The thing of it is is the Stossel's entire editorial is simply a really long way to say 'death panels.'
Stossel is a fool (and an ignorant one, at that). Anybody who studies the positions of MANY of Obama’s appointees will quickly find that they are ALL “population limiting” Malthusians, and supporters of the “culture of death”. Anybody who believes that “voluntary end of life counseling” will NOT morph into mandatory euthanasia is an idiot. All they need to do is look at what has happened/is happening in the Netherlands and “Great” Britain to see the progression from one to the other.
I am curious. Why would a 25 year old life be worth more than a senior citizen? Loopy logic says the left that the 25 year old has a lifetime ahead of them. True enough on the living part; however; what quality of life does this young person have? A lifetime of dumb down living the life of a slave or a wealth of rich experience of freedom that the older person has lived.
No wonder they want to get rid of the seniors.
Normally, I enjoy Stossel because he is so insightful. But on this one, he is mistaken.
In fact, if he grabbed a fresh pair of eyeballs and read his OWN column again, he’d realize that he has made the very same case that Gov. Palin made!
Maybe he didn’t have his Wheaties when he wrote it.
If the Obama Administration is going to appoint someone or some group of people to decide whether you receive treatment for a serious health issue based on the expense of the treatment and the age of the patient or receive “a pain pill†instead then Obama has created a de facto death panel.
How many weeks or months has it been since 0bama told the truth,,,,, about anything !
My problem with this issue isn’t that Palin was “wrong”. She wasn’t. She was basically right.
My problem is that this criticism is too limited and too easily defended against.
What I would REALLY like to hear Palin saying — loudly, from the rooftops — is this:
THEY’RE GOING TO GUT MEDICARE TO PAY FOR 51 NEW FEDERAL AGENCIES THAT WON’T CURE ANYBODY OF ANYTHING.
Many people will die as a result... and the old will die in greater numbers.
There is no defense against that charge because it is absolutely true.
But now, with the focus shifted to whether or not there are actual “death panels”, the RATS get to slide by with their 51 new federal agencies, funded at the expense of medicare.
Has he ever told the truth?
To the administration, the function of a person is to pay taxes.
The 25 year old has more tax paying years left.
It has nothing to do with quality, or wisdom.
Because the Old Person will die sooner on average (even with Medical Care) and thus you can't get more taxes out of them wherein the 25 year old has many years of tax slavery ahead of him/her.
I don’t get it either.
As I hear him talk, I am positively convinced he is the most fundamentally stupid human being we’ve ever had in the White House. And it has nothing to do with his race, but everything to do with the fact that he appears to have never lived one single minute in the real world. You know, that one we all have to live in: hard work, merit, no preferences, sink or swim...all that stuff.
Don't forget the legions of community organizers The bill provides federal grants to state and local governments and a “national network of community-based organizations” to “promote healthy living and reduce disparities” and to monitor people’s weight, eating, exercise habits and other individual behaviors that affect health at the community level.
The idiots of Acorn, or one of its many clones, will take good care of you with those taxpayer funds, yes indeed.
LLS
LOL What taxes? Everyone is on the dole.
LLS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.