There seems little question that Sarah Palin has defined the terms of the Obamacare debate. I still disapprove of her “death panel” and “evil” comments. And her first try at justifying the provocative term was factually erroneous. But now, she has it nailed. Obamacare would be the “bureaucratization of health care.” Yes, that’s it. And she has finally focused on the real source from which the rationing danger would flow. From her column in the Wall Street Journal:
Let’s talk about specifics. In his [NY] Times op-ed, the president argues that the Democrats’ proposals “will finally bring skyrocketing health-care costs under control” by “cutting . . . waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies . . . .”…
Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He’s asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of “normal political channels,” should guide decisions regarding that “huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . .”
Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats’ proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans. Working through “normal political channels,” they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats’ proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters.
Yes, it did ring true to many Americans, but it also gave comfort to the “they’re lying about the bill” crowd, allowing the points she made here about rationing to be deflected.
Be that as it may, Palin is right that Obamacare threatens to put unelected bureaucrats in charge of our health care. And it isn’t just the bill, but the tens of thousands of pages of regulations that would be generated therefrom, resulting in the creation of assorted panels made up of bioethicists and others “experts,” who would be virtually unaccountable and likely to make decisions based on the predominate bioethical “quality of life” view.” That would almost surely result ultimately in rationing of the kind imposed by NICE in the UK–the very model Sen. Tom Daschle, perhaps the most influential non government player in this whole drama, wants for America.
Love her, hate or, or have mixed feelings, Palin is a force with which to be reckoned in the health care debate. This column gives me hope that she is finally shoring up her game.
September 9th, 2009 | 9:41 am
“There seems little question that Sarah Palin has defined the terms of the Obamacare debate.”
If that’s true, it’s scarier than any death panel.
September 9th, 2009 | 11:58 am
It sounds like Sarah is still full of hot gas rather than cooking with it! What else is new?
September 9th, 2009 | 12:29 pm
“And her first try at justifying the provocative term was factually erroneous.”
Can you tell us what was factually wrong about it?
September 9th, 2009 | 1:38 pm
“And her first try at justifying the provocative term was factually erroneous. ”
She meticulously footnoted her writings. What did she say that was in error?
September 9th, 2009 | 1:44 pm
I second RAM’s comment. If you want to make a statement like that, you had better be prepared to back it up–especially since she footnoted that Facebook post.
September 9th, 2009 | 9:17 pm
Yeah Wes, I want to know what was factually erroneous too. Perhaps you meant to say Palin was politically erroneous? ;-)
September 9th, 2009 | 10:53 pm
She was wrong earlier that the end of life counseling provision were “death panels.” That was factually unsupportable. She is right now, that the cost/benefit boards could (would) lead to rationing.
She is improving her game because, I hope, she has listened to those who wish her will (like me) who offered constructive criticism. People who reflexively defended her mistakes were doing her no favors.
September 10th, 2009 | 2:14 am
“Factually unsupportable”?
Um … have you talked to David Brooks about that? He says she was right and he supports rationing as a cost measure.
It is a semantical quibble you are making. She hit the nail on the head. What you mean is you don’t like the way she expressed it. You are using “factually unsupportable” in some non-standard way. A number of Obamacare supporters have admitted this while still supporting Obamacare. You seem unaware of this.
September 10th, 2009 | 2:21 am
Brooks recognized the semantical quibbling over words you are engaging in. Listen in:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec09/shieldsbrooks_08-14.html
———–
DAVID BROOKS: Without this kind of stuff, and it detracts. So I will say, first, there is no death panel in the bill, full stop. That is for sure.
But if we’re going to get serious about cost control, we are going to have to have serious discussions about the amount of care and the expense of care we give at the end of life. That’s just a fact.
JIM LEHRER: Forty percent of the cost of health care…
DAVID BROOKS: And so if you want to call it a “death panel,” call it that. But it’s about having serious discussions about care at the end of life. And we’re going have to have those discussions.
So, in some weird way, I’m pro-death panel. I want to have those discussions, whether it’s one on one or just as a society.
And this is a fundamental problem, I think, with this whole process. We have to have serious discussions about who’s going to lose in all this, because we’ve got a runaway system. And every time you make a minor suggestion, a hint of a minor suggestion, or in this case not even a hint, just a fallacious exaggeration, people go crazy. So how are we going to get the system under control?
————–
Nope, no death panels here …. No Siree.
September 10th, 2009 | 2:25 am
See, the real issue Wes was nailed by Brooks. It is a “pick the loser” game. Pick the loser in the game of life. To ordinary folks that means death. So panels that pick the “losers” chosen to not have there life prolonged are hastened to death, and that is why we can call them “death panels”.
What is “factually unsupportable” about that?
September 10th, 2009 | 4:05 am
With respect, she never said that her “death panel” verbiage related only to 1233…the end of life counseling provision, although that clearly is a disturbing provision to a horrific piece of legislation.
This is made clear in her first entry on this matter, when she says the following, “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.”
Notice the theme and the examples she uses.
She discussed Thomas Sowell’s remark and puts it into real context.
She obliquely referenced Zeke Emmanuel’s writings…and his “Complete Lives” system.
She also referenced her son, with Down Syndrome. How does discussing her concern about how Trig would be treated under Obamacare relate to end of life counseling?
She’s been pretty clear all along that she’s been referring to the notion of rationing care, which would be the necessary outcome from a system that takes on more users while proposing to lowers costs and doesn’t add any more doctors.
In a later post, she goes into more detail and adds a video of Congresswoman Bachmann discussing Emmanuel.
There’s nothing wrong with constructive criticism but it’s not helpful for fellow conservatives to jump on her without reading through her statements and putting them into proper context…especially since Governor Palin actually tells us what she’s saying and why.
September 10th, 2009 | 4:43 am
In the context of government controlled health care system, a denial of care under certain circumstances would be the equivalent of a death sentence to the patient. For example, a scenario in which a patient would be expected to survive for a year or more if given life-sustaining treatment, but who would likely die much sooner without the care. If you were such a patient, and were informed that you will not receive care and consequently will likely die within weeks, by what term would you call this body of bureacrats who so ordered this conclusion? As far as I’m concerned…’death panel’ is apt.
September 10th, 2009 | 2:14 pm
Well said Uber.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact