|
|
|
August 15, 2009
Here I go again, misinterpreting "end of life" consultations to death....
More on death panels. The provisions in the healthcare bill which gave rise to the term are being scrapped. At the same time (as the LA Times condescendingly reports), the provisions are being said to have not ever existed: A Senate panel has decided to scrap the part of its healthcare bill that in recent days has given rise to fears of government "death panels," with one lawmaker suggesting the proposal was just too confusing.I have read the provision six times, and it's not at all clear to me what it means, much less what it was "designed" for by its authors (whoever they may be). In a post Glenn Reynolds linked yesterday, Fabius Maximus opined that it was designed with cost cutting in mind, and thus he takes issue with Sarah Palin, who thought (and apparently continues to think) it was designed with death panels in mind. Of course, if "end of life" consultations have in mind the cutting of costs, that would certainly seem to raise a reasonable inference about whether shortened lives are cheaper. As I said, I have no problem with an individual deciding to forgo life-extending procedures, but I am adamant in my opinion that the state should stay the hell out of it. If the state would save money by a patient's early death, then the state is in a clear conflict of interest. I say this as someone who supports the right of the individual even to take his own life, and to have physician assistance with dying. The state should be nowhere near that decision, though, and not involved even in a purely advisory or consultative capacity. End of life planning is not the government's business, and it horrifies me to suggest that it should be. I don't care if they call it "voluntary." Aren't we forgetting that the words "voluntary" and "volunteer" are two of the most abused words in the English language, and that much of this abuse has been at the behest of bureaucrats, and accomplished by means of sneaky gobblygook known popularly as "bureaucratese"? Thus we have paid "volunteers," and "voluntary compliance" with the IRS code under penalty of imprisonment. So if a group of doctors approaches an elderly patient (many of whom have not a friend in the world and don't want to be a burden) and they announce that they would like to set up an end of life consultation, with a caveat that "this program is purely voluntary," how many compliant seniors will tell these authority figures to butt out? Another reason I'm skeptical of reassurances made about the intent behind complex laws is that laws -- even relatively simple laws (which Section 1233 of HR 3200 is not) -- are often designed for one thing end up being used for something entirely different. Everyone thought that RICO laws were intended to be used against racketeering (which meant groups like the Mafia), yet today they're deployed against ordinary prostitutes. A law which was intended to stop the commerce in sexually tittillating so-called "crush videos" ended up being used to prosecute depictions of animals fighting. And thanks to what Reason called "legislative mission creep" the Patriot Act (supposedly designed to be used against Islamic terrorists) is now a tool in the prosecutorial arsenal against such "terrorism" as drug dealing, sudafed, pirated DVDs, and illegal lobsters! So, no, I don't trust them, and I like the fact that Sarah Palin pared through the "end of life" advance planning consultations bullshit and used the term "death panels." The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. 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. Such a system is downright evil. Ann Althouse thought she had a point. So did law professor William A. Jacobson. And so did Tom Maguire, who issued a sarcastic warning that we should not be calling them death panels. Sorry, but I'll call them death panels, and I'm glad they're apparently dead and that it's all a moot issue. Which means that as usual, the president was just speaking for himself and no one else (well, except maybe his science advisor) when he said this in a New York Times interview back in April: THE PRESIDENT: So that's [what you do around things like end-of-life care] where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that's also a huge driver of cost, right?Not death panels, just end-of-life cost-cutting consultations. If the scrapped proposal was just the government's way of trying to save money, well, maybe the government shouldn't be in such a position. Maybe health care shouldn't be in the hands of the government. What seems to be driving this whole push for socialized health care (yes, I will call it that!) is that Medicare is running out of money. Well, that's bad enough, but isn't that evidence that socialized medicine does not work, and that Medicare should simply be scrapped? Instead, the impending bankruptcy of Medicare is seen as a justification to expand the unworkable construct. So, while Medicare as we once knew it will repealed (even the CBO admits that it would eventually be made to wither away), the underlying bad idea -- government health care -- must be expanded until it engulfs and devours the entire health care system. Sarah Palin was essentially right in her criticism. So was Thomas Sowell. Socialism equals death. MORE: While he tried to wiggle out of it later, to his great credit Ronald Reagan opposed Medicare, and he explains why here: Reagan was right. And here's the text of the mess that's under discussion (but which has apparently been removed because it was being misinterpreted): ''Advance Care Planning Consultation'' posted by Eric on 08.15.09 at 01:02 PM
Comments
It isn't just the "end of life" language in the Senate and House bills (only the Senate one has been removed), but Obama's Health Czar Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (brother of Rahm) has written some very problematic articles. Oh, he is now claiming that he is being misquoted, but a close reading of the two articles in question belie that claim. Darleen · August 15, 2009 09:24 PM I've linked to your post from Health Information Technology - Doctors Grade for approved care ... I assume this in the main rationing methodology - not the only one. Death waiting in the wrong DMV line. Wayne from Jeremiah Films · August 16, 2009 12:28 AM Anonymous was me, not sure why that happened. Veesir · August 16, 2009 09:44 AM This is not accurate. My post did not even mention the pending legislation -- nor any specific solutions to the problem. It's subject was the need for major changes in our health care system, and the irrationality of the debate about health care. Since Palin has not explained (so far as I know) the basis for her comment about death panels, we can only guess at what she meant. Since there is nothing in the pending bill remotely like "death panels", I used the alternative explanation -- that she was extrapolating in a reasonable fashion from writings of an Obama advisor. Unfortunately, the problem about allocating finite resources to health care is a real and difficult one. The current debate has, IMO, danced around the key challenges. For the good reason that most Americans are not yet ready for more. So all we get are both parties playing games for political advantage. Pretty rhetoric, nothing more. Fabius Maximus · August 16, 2009 08:55 PM More on Holdren: http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2009/07/advance_care_pl.html M. Simon · August 17, 2009 02:58 PM Palin on the Death Panels: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=116471698434&ref=nf M. Simon · August 17, 2009 03:00 PM M. Simon · August 17, 2009 03:01 PM Fabius, I was referring to what you said here: http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/solvency/ **** This dynamic already dominates the political debate. One of Obama’s key advisers wrote about the looming problem of heath care costs (Dr. Ezekial Emanuel, brother of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel), and discussed possible solutions. Which Republicans, like ex-Gov Palin, demonize as “death panels.” Our politicos cannot be wiser than us, the voters. *** That is a link to Palin's discussion of the health care bill and her characterization of the care rationing scheme as 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. Sorry if I misinterpreted your interpretation! My objection remains to the involvement of government with health care in general and with end of life decision-making in particular. I also think Medicare has paved the way for the push to "reform." Eric Scheie · August 17, 2009 08:01 PM Yes, it was clear which of my posts you referred to. Your comment avoids my objection to this statement of yours: "Fabius Maximus opined that it was designed with cost cutting in mind" This is a small point -- but incorrect, as my post said nothing about any specific health care proposals. It discussed the *need* for reform, which was more than enough to fill 1100 words. I mentioned Palin's August 7 facebook entry about "death panels". As she explained in her August 12 entry: "My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President’s chief of staff." So I gave an except from Dr. Emanuel's writing. To repeat, there was no mention -- explicit or implied -- of any legislation. My post discussed the danger posed by the rising cost of our social retirement systems, and the irrational nature of the current debate about our health care spending. Both parties prefer to score political points rather than grapple with this painful and complex schedule, IMO because the American public refuses to do so. Fabius Maximus · August 20, 2009 11:29 PM Sorry again, Fabius. I consider the statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel to be within the rubric of the discussion of the provision in question, as I did in the previous post on the subject: http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2009/08/ignorance_is_bl.html Because of his position, I think Emanuel's statements raise questions about the intent of the legislation. And when you said, "this dynamic already dominates the political debate," I assumed you meant that you meant the debate over health care legislation. Obviously I misread what you said, and I wrote my thoughts sloppily (which I am unfortunately sometimes prone to do). I did not mean to put words in your mouth, and clearly you did NOT opine that the provision in question had cost cutting in mind. (Whether it's a small point or not, one one likes to be misquoted.) However, I think the cost cutting argument underlies the entire debate on health care, and the fact that it is (IMO) is an excellent argument against government health care in general. Government should not be in the position of cutting health care costs. Eric Scheie · August 21, 2009 03:03 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
August 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
August 2009
July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Loopholes in the law (and double standards for enforcement) are as old as Henry VIII.
• Oliver Stone is a skinky, skanky, skunk who rides sidesaddle! • Black is white • animated emanations from the waves of the passive aggressive penumbra of change • Marijuana Is Safer Than Alcohol • Going Wobbly On Global Warming • Socialism Is Going Broke • Elizabethan distractions and pointless historical ironies • This is even worse than taxation without representation! • Since when is a bad debt more sacrosanct than the Bill of Rights?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
What happens when hospices aren't staffed by people who want to be there but by gov't workers who can't be fired?
They'll be depressing, that's what.
My mother dealt with them a year ago and they were incredible. I don't know how they could be so upbeat dealing with people who are dying day in and day out.
I dread what happens when it becomes a gov't operation.