Barack Obama Fully Embraces Death Panels

shagdrum

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
6,568
Reaction score
44
Location
KS
Barack Obama Fully Embraces Death Panels
by Erick Erickson

While everyone else was focused on Barack Obama bashing Paul Ryan, I noticed that he took full ownership of death panels yesterday. Naturally, Obama did not call them death panels. He called them “an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts and consumers.” But his description hits dead on with what his death panels will do.

According to Barack Obama yesterday, the death panels “will look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services seniors need.”

We already know what they’ll recommend as “the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending”. Barack Obama’s own advisers have told us. They will prioritize giving health care to healthier people and let sicker people die. At end of life, they will deny people life sustaining treatment because, after all, they’re going to die anyway. Note his phrasing: “protecting access to the services seniors need.” Dying people, according to Obama’s advisers, need hospice not hope. They certainly do not need expensive treatments that may buy them time to see the birth of a new grandchild or other reasons.

“We will change the way we pay for health care – not by procedure or the number of days spent in a hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and hospitals to prevent injuries and improve results. . . . If we’re wrong, and Medicare costs rise faster than we expect, this approach will give the independent commission the authority to make additional savings by further improving Medicare,” Obama said. At a time Democrats are saying Republicans want to starve old people to death, Democrats are intent on embracing a cost savings model for Medicare that incentivizes doctors to encourage people to die and, when all else fails, gives a death panel “the authority to make additional savings by” ensuring the dying elderly die quickly.

“Our approach lowers the government’s health care bills by reducing the cost of health care itself,” Obama said. Really? The only way that will happen is by rationing. You may not like the use of the phrase “death panel,” but make no mistake about it — at the end of your life, in Barack Obama’s America, his death panel will throw you under the bus in a way much closer to reality than metaphor.
 
While the left mocked anyone for even uttering the phrase "death panel", objective political observes had a legitimate fear of "advisory boards" in Obamacare being used to eventually control costs (which is the definition of the metaphorical "death panels").

That is exactly what Obama is proposing in his speech as a means to "control cost".
 
While the left mocked anyone for even uttering the phrase "death panel", objective political observes had a legitimate fear of "advisory boards" in Obamacare being used to eventually control costs (which is the definition of the metaphorical "death panels").

That is exactly what Obama is proposing in his speech as a means to "control cost".

So how would you propose making medicare and medicaid solvent when the typical worker puts in 130k but uses 450k in his/her life in many cases with half of that eaten up in the last 18 months.
There comes a time when people are finished.
The insurance companies have their death panels because money is not free and unlimited to prevent natural causes from taking their toll.
I'd rather have Democrats running the death panels than Republicans.
 
Insurance companies cannot ration care. Governments can (and do) ration care.

Refusing to pay is not necessarily the same as refusing to allow.

Medical care is a scarce resource but medicare/medicaid have imposed unnecessary, artificial scarcity on the health care market.

Is there something wrong with Ryan's proposal when it comes to making these programs solvent?
 
Insurance companies cannot ration care. Governments can (and do) ration care.

Refusing to pay is not necessarily the same as refusing to allow.

Medical care is a scarce resource but medicare/medicaid have imposed unnecessary, artificial scarcity on the health care market.

Is there something wrong with Ryan's proposal when it comes to making these programs solvent?

Refusing to pay is essentially refusing to allow unless one is wealthy and can foot their own bills.

Ryan is IMO overoptimistic in how much economic activity and subsequent tax revenue his plan will generate but it is a step in the right direction and a starting point.

If the death panels in socialized medicine in Canada and Europe were overzealously offing people up before their time to save money we would be reading about more horror stories than we anecdotally do.

Death panels are a Red Herring that distracts from the debate.
 
Refusing to pay is essentially refusing to allow unless one is wealthy and can foot their own bills.

Refusing to pay for care can be the equivalent of not allowing care, but only if the organization is so monolithic as to essentially control the market and drive up costs to the point where it is impossible to pay without insurance.

NO private insurance company is doing that.

NO private insurance company has the means to do that.

Only the government has the means to do that and only government is doing that.

Section 1801 of the 1965 Medicare Act that reads:
"Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize any federal officer or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine, or the manner in which medical services are provided, or over the selection, tenure, or compensation of any officer, or employee, or any institution, agency or person providing health care services."
Today, medicare does control the practice of medicine and the manner services are provided, including setting prices (which shoves the cost off on the rest of society, leading to massive price increases).

Is it absurd to think that a panel originally established to "advise" on medical procedures and strengthened toward the end of controlling prices would NOT ration care? How are we to avoid the same economic and political realities that have resulted in rationing of care when care is determined through centralized governmental decision making?
 
Your argument conveniently avoids concern for the 40 million uninsured who currently don't have the luxury of even being considered by insurance companies for service.
Also with 8000 boomers retiring every day now for the next 20+years who have been essentially promised 3 times the value of their Medicare investment I don't see how medicare can avoid economic reality
and not have centralized decision making and vertically integrated efficiency of operation.
Sacrifices will have to be made as my Avatar would say for the survival of the human race(America the beautiful)
 
"40 million" is a made up and misleading number. How many are illegals? How many can self-insure?

Is it "avoiding concern" to fix the factors that lead to the abnormally high medical costs in the first place or is it "avoiding concern" to try and treat the symptom (medical costs) while ignoring the problems that caused (government imposed barriers to entry into the market, arbitrary reimbursement rates set by government, excessive litigation, etc., etc.)?

Do you have a complaint about Rep. Ryan's proposal to reform Medicare and make it solvent?
 
"40 million" is a made up and misleading number. How many are illegals? How many can self-insure?

Do you a complaint about Rep. Ryan's proposal to reform Medicare and make it solvent?

Millions of americans are uninsured no matter how many illegals and non purchasers you dismiss.
It doesn't change the argument.

I thought we were talking about death panels.
I'm not complaining about Ryan's plan.
I would enjoy a 25% personal and corporate top tax rate.

What about the huge increase in retirees who are living longer.
Should we cut them off after they have gotten their money's worth.
 
Millions of americans are uninsured no matter how many illegals and non purchasers you dismiss.

You have numbers to back that up?

It doesn't change the argument.

I really don't see what you are arguing. You seem to be supporting government dictating health care.

What about the huge increase in retirees who are living longer.
Should we cut them off after they have gotten their money's worth.

???

Who suggested any such thing?

You responded before I updated my last post so let me restate the update:
Is it "avoiding concern" to fix the factors that lead to the abnormally high medical costs in the first place or is it "avoiding concern" to try and treat the symptom (medical costs) while ignoring the problems that caused (government imposed barriers to entry into the market, arbitrary reimbursement rates set by government, excessive litigation, etc., etc.)?​
There is a real issue of goals and means that are vastly different as well as a huge difference in ability to see the bigger picture.

Should medical care be determined by faceless bureaucrats far removed from the personal factors, economics, and information specific to the circumstance, or should those decisions be made by those the individual and their doctor?

History has unquestionably proven that humans are simply unable to account for all the factors in a market, interpret that information, develop a plan of action and mobilize that plan in a way more efficient then a free market.

This means that it is kinder to leave as much decision making as possible to the free market because more people will get better healthcare.

Unless you take it on blind faith that the human mind is capable of omniscience as well as the ability to mobilize that knowledge efficiently around the country, it is not only illogical, but cruel and immoral to impose central planning of medical care.
 
Medicare and Medicaid are government programs that are being stretched beyond their design limitations.
You get a compact car when gas prices are high not an SUV.
Retirees are free to buy further coverage through private insurers though few have the funds or plans if they don't have a job.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top