The gist of these paragraphs is that by having to utilize time and resources beating back what they see as "myths and facts" that they had planned to use to extol the 'virtues' of their plan, the Administration has lost control of the debate and losing support for their program.
The hardest blow they've taken so far is Sarah Palin's devastating designation of the coming rationing in their plan as "death panels". AJStrata at The Strata-Sphere points out just why this little two word label is so devastating -- because it is extremely accurate. I cannot excerpt enough from AJStrata's post to do it justice without being accused of plagiarism, so go to the link above right now and read it.
Okay, so for those of you to lazy to jump to the link, I'll try to summarize.
The liberals are now all up in arms because someone (i.e., Governor Sarah Palin) was finally able to label the core problem with any and all government run health care options. That label is “death panels”, and it is very appropriate and accurate, and is only marginally attached to end-of-life consultations....
Interestingly, right now the opponents of the liberals’ government run dreams of conquest don’t need to theorize or extrapolate about the possible outcomes, because the UK clearly shows us all where a government run health care ‘option’ will lead us. What they are going through now, in terms of ‘cost savings’, is what ANY government controlled health spending program for individuals will end up. And realize, this is not about consultations – it is about cost savings (aka ‘cheap healthcare’, ‘affordable health care’, ‘universal access’, etc) and how the liberal inquisitors will chose the worthy.....
It is no secret the prime intent of the government run system is to ’save money’, which everyone with two brain cells to rub together knows actually means to NOT SPEND money. They take our money and determine how not to spend it for us. Voilà! Health care cost savings.
So, how do they not spend money? AJ quotes one of President Obama's "health care" advisers, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, who bluntly states that all the vaunted savings from eliminating fraud and waste, using electronic medical records, improving 'quality', and increasing preventive care is all for show, since it will actually save very little money. The real cost savings comes from using the idea of “communitarianism” (not specifically defined but clearly meaning spending resources on only those whose value to the community at large is worth the expenditure) "to achieve a just allocation of scarce medical interventions". And what is just? Look at this graph:
As AJStrata concludes, "This is not rationing, this is worse. Under rationing everyone gets an equal share, but to allocate is to distribute unequally."
Under advanced triage, which is the essence of the liberal government run plans as outlined above, a panel of bureaucrats and appointed ‘experts’ decide what is a ‘just allocation’....
Yes, there is even a formal definition of what these panels do when cutting costs. They decide who lives or dies by deciding who to spend money on (see graph above). This ‘advanced triage ‘ or ‘communitarianism’ process or ’complete lives system’ is rightfully summed up as a government ‘death panel’. The liberals will try and hide its true nature under pleasant sounding words strung together to lull the poor victims to sleep, but the label ‘death panel’ makes sense. And that is why it is sticking.
Most importantly, this has NOTHING to do with end of life consultations.
As stated above, the National Health Service in England is the prime example of what happens when government decides to begin justly allocating medical resources. Hospitals delay and deny orthopedic procedures to those just a bit obese or who smoke; those over 55 cannot get coronary angioplasty stents; back pain patients can no longer get epidural steroid injections because the government has decided that it can afford only 3000 per year (in a population of over 60 million!) instead of the 60,000 per year currently being performed. Americans are bright people; they intuitively understand this, and as I said before, they are worried about who's going to be making the decisions and how can they make sure they're not going to get shafted?
The Wall Street Journal has an editorial in their August 14th edition which is subtitled, "Why the elderly are right to worry when the government rations medical care". From the outset they state:
While claims about euthanasia and "death panels" are over the top, senior fears have exposed a fundamental truth about what Mr. Obama is proposing: Namely, once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, rationing care is inevitable, and those who have lived the longest will find their care the most restricted.
Far from being a scare tactic, this is a logical conclusion based on experience and common-sense.
I also like the way the WSJ addresses the idea that our current system rations by the ability to pay (an idea that Peter Singer found unacceptable, as you will recall).
Yes, the U.S. "rations" by ability to pay (though in the end no one is denied actual care). This is true of every good or service in a free economy and a world of finite resources but infinite wants. Yet no one would say we "ration" houses or gasoline because those goods are allocated by prices. The problem is that governments ration through brute force—either explicitly restricting the use of medicine or lowering payments below market rates. Both methods lead to waiting lines, lower quality, or less innovation—and usually all three.
Of course, one might argue that to use the position of Dr. Emanuel as a criticism of the Obama reform plan is misleading, as Dr. Emanuel is merely a presidential adviser and not a decision maker. What if someone else higher up actually said something like this:
"Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now." (emphasis added)
An independent group like the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence? Oh, wait, that's what they call the agency in England that makes all the coverage decisions like the ones I listed above. Here we're going to call it the Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research.
By the way, the quote above came from one of the decision makers. It's from an interview in the New York Times with President Barack Obama on May 3, 2009.
I agree with Tom Maguire at the blog JustOneMinute when he says in regarding the idea that these panels will just be offering 'guidance':
And how voluntary will these imagined guidelines be? Doctors that are currently free to prescribe painkillers volunteer not to, to avoid hassles from the DEA. Mightn't doctors prefer to follow the "voluntary" end-of-life guidelines rather than risk Federal examination of their taxes, expenses, hiring decisions, and payroll? That would depend in large part on how aggressively the government chose to push the "voluntary" guidelines.
Government guidelines don't stay that way very long. They have a way of quickly becoming requirements and then mandates. Sometimes, like with seatbelts, that's a good thing. But usually it's not that good, either because the idea was bad to begin with, or just due to the law of unintended consequences.
Now you can see why the Administration is battling the 'death panel' rumor so vigorously. Because it is fundamentally true. In this case, the truth will set us, the American people, free. And that's not acceptable to our dear leaders.
No comments:
Post a Comment