Death Panel
August 17th, 2009 | Editorial Cartoons | 15 Comments
Tweet
The reports that the health care reform plans moving through Congress contained a so-called “death panel,” which would have encouraged or allowed euthanasia, are complete falsehoods. Unfortunately, although the rumors deserve a swift death, there doesn’t seem to be any mechanism in the current health care debate to kill them. What was contained in the bills, until the hysteria over it forced its removal, was payment for end of life discussions with doctors, a perfectly reasonable and rational approach to dealing with the issues of terminal illness
I experienced how valuable such conversations were three years ago when my 94-year-old father was dying. He grew increasingly tired of being rushed to the hospital emergency room for flare-ups of various problems his failing body was experiencing, and finally said he was done. We consulted with his primary doctor and ultimately called Denver Hospice. They took over his care at home, and he never went to the hospital again, dying peacefully in his own bed six months later. These were the gentlest, most caring people you can imagine, in stark contrast with the emergency rooms docs whose instinct was to try and cure him by poking, prodding, injecting and generally making him miserable. The whole process was a huge relief to all concerned, and saved an enormous number of unnecessary medical interventions, and the costs that go with them. That purely voluntary consultation is what the screamers are calling a death panel.
There is another aspect of the bills that some of the death panel conspiracy theorists are pointing to, and that is the independent panel whose job it will be to determine what the public option should pay for. People, this is no different than what already exists. Nobody pays for everything. Medicare decides what it will pay for and what it won’t. So do insurance companies. State insurance commissions set minimum standards for policies. How else are you going to construct a rational system? But, in the hysterical debate over reform, this sensible practice somehow becomes the government killing grandma.
Here’s the irony in all of this. If we don’t reform the way we pay for health care, the only way Medicare will survive is by drastically cutting benefits to the elderly. Then we will have rationing, and we really will end up pulling the plug on grandma. And we won’t even need a death panel to do it.
Topics: death panel, health care reform, insurance, insurance companies, pre-existing conditions
E-mail
Facebook
RSS
Twitter
Death and taxes. *sigh*
-Rusty
Ed~ thanks for once again saying what I have been thinking. I wish everyone would calm down and think logically about the situation.
My family and I had a similar experience with hospice this past month when my 90 year old dad just stopped eating and drinking. The end-of-life counseling and assistance that my dad and my family received was invaluable and made my dad’s final days much more peaceful for him, and for us.
What are people so afraid of????
Life Ain’t Fair logo… nice work. Maybe you should pursue logo design.
Didn’t this whole thing start with Sarah Palin? Wasn’t there already a referendum on her competency to weigh in on such matters? I’m having a sinking feeling that she’s the 21st century attack dog. Her tactics are effective – she’s somehow controlling the dialog despite people feeling she’s unqualified. Why else isn’t The Right distancing themselves from her craziness?
There was supposed to be a little grin thingy after “logo design…”
Ed,
I’ve had to use hospice services for both of my parents in the last year. It’s one of the hardest decisions I’ve ever had to make (luckily my father’s living will clearly stated his wishes when he was unable to), but the care and support I’ve recieved from Visiting Nurse Association hospice has been great. The hospice staff talked to my father, not about him. I was fortunate that the hospital doctors were open to the hospice option and didn’t continue to torture my father. When my mother became tired of the frequent ER trips, her doctors and our previous experience with hospice made her decison not to be “cured” (sounds like we’re talking about ham) easier for both of us.
What I don’t get is why these companies aren’t coming together with the government to merge their infrastructure with the one business in this country that literally CANNOT fail. Whether I agree or disagree with the reform is irrelevant-I already disagree fundamentally with core concepts of insurance and I already consider the vast majority of governments to essentially be protection rackets with armies.
Speaking as someone who’s in their 20′s and not one of you baby boomers, I don’t particularly believe in benevolence and love and peace for all. It’s not that I believe in it for some, but it is that I don’t believe it is the purview of our governance to provide these things for us. I’d love nothing more than to see those bankers and insurance companies bust apart at the seems under a public that will no longer pay for their ‘protection,’ such as it is. But it’s not going to happen because we live in a country of people who are afraid of their own mortality.
But the other side of this, about their so-called ‘Death Panel’, that can go to hell. The debate of ethics and the right and wrong things to do with medicine is a debate for scientists to have. Everyone else involved has neither an informed opinion nor a genuine understanding of failures in science, and consequently, a general lack of understanding of the process overall. Then I again, I suppose most of these people, had they survived in the Renaissance, would’ve called artists and doctors heretics when they were caught digging up the graves of the dead to study human anatomy.
So here is my critical question that I have not seen anyone ask or anyone mention:
I want to know if I will get better health care for a cheaper price than I am paying now if the current health care package passes?
If the answer is yes, then consider me on board, if not, then why would I support any changes?
John,
Do you ever do anything, I mean anything, that isn’t strictly for the betterment of yourself?
Let’s say you don’t. Then, logically, you are against unemployment, workers comp, or any other program that doen’t help you today but could tomorrow.
How about this? You get the same health care at the same price and 30 million of your fellow americans also can get health care without having to go bankrupt.
I’ll ignore the first part of your post since its pretty judgemental and since I am a veteren I will try not to take to muh offense from it.
The health care I pay for is extremly expensive for a family of four and since i have a special needs child, I cannot be with out it.
What I would prefer is there to be some sort of tort reform so we can do away with the needless and expensive lawsuits that drive up the costs of doing business for all Doctors and thus helping bankrupt all these people you keep talking about.
What I would prefer is to think of ways to reduce to costs of health care, reduce administrative costs and bring some real choice and ceompetition into health care so again the costs cant be brought down to something that is more managable for people.
I dont think we can have any kind of sane health care reform that makes sense without major tort reform, but Obama dosent want to take away that cash cow from all his laywer friends.
If I was asked, What would I prefer health care for all and a bankrupt country or health for the vast majority and bankrupcy for a less than 10% of the population, but a healthy economy, I think you know what I would choose. Because I dont believe for one second the costs that Congress is telling us, we all know that its going to cost way more that what they say.
John,
I was just reacting to your statement:
“I want to know if I will get better health care for a cheaper price than I am paying now if the current health care package passes?
If the answer is yes, then consider me on board, if not, then why would I support any changes?”
That sounds pretty self serving to me but I’m a veteran and I’ll take you at your word that it wasn’t what you intended. Last time I checked, there was no Obama plan. There were plans in both the House and Senate, though. I do agree with you regarding Tort Reform but have you seen any reliable statistics on how much that adds to the $2.5 trillion we spend annually. I’d be interested in reading more on the subject.
I don’t know when we become a “bankrupt country” but it’s probably one of those things that we don’t know until it’s too late. We did, somehow, decide to go off to Iraq without worring about bankruptcy. That could have paid for things awhile.
If we are spending twice as much as the other western nations with worse outcomes, it sure seems like there ought to be a way to solve this problem. Just curious, if Medicare continues to grow unchecked, it will likely bankrupt us too, right? If that happens, do we just throw grandma over the side too?
The health care economist Uwe Reinhardt, one of the foremost experts in the field, estimates that tort reform would have little effect on the overall cost. I know that some on the right have now made this a rallying cry (crazy conincidence, isn’t it, how the agendas match so neatly), but it’s not going to be a difference maker. Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer in a recent article advocating tort reform claimed that as much as 25% of the health care budget goes to malpractice, but the Congressional Budget Office concurs with Reinhardt, estimating that malpractice costs account for just 2% of the national health care budget. This one’s just another red herring, folks.
This seems to be the most active thread on this topic, so pardon me for posting here. I have a few questions and/or statements.
1st: In this country we take care of anyone no matter what; that is a fact; no one is denied. The doctor will get paid.
2nd: Malpractice lawsuits ARE a part of the problem, a small percentage of a huge problem is indeed a problem (LEARN MATH, Ed!!!!).
3rd: Almost every year my government asks for more and more money to pay for things that either I do not agree with, or I already pay for through another tax. Sometimes it comes through an increase in fees. I already pay quite handsomely and it makes my mortgage quite hard to pay; thanks.
Here is a classic example: my 1986 Toyota used to cost less than $25 a year to register! It cost me less than $1600 to but, and, it gets 28 MPG! So it does not quality for clunkers. Now I pay almost $63 a year! Thanks to those libs helping me out, I cannot afford to play in my mens hockey league for another 6 months! I guess I can charge the health consequences to the government.
Special thanks to Bill Ritter, keep the better times rolling!
4th: The amount I have to pay for taxes and fees is larger and larger every year – they keep spending despite inflation!!! My grocery budget has been cut from $120 to $80 every 4 weeks, or $20 per week (try feeding a family on that). That really hurts.
5th: I will hang on the 3rd point here to drive a point home. Have none of us ever been lied to about what the government will spend your money on? It will help you? Didn’t want them to spend it that way? Eh, Ed? Maybe some change? Need more proof? You can’t trust your government!
Lets get some more gov’t here, hey?
History does not lie.
Well, Mr. disagree, we disagree. I see that your mind is made up, so there’s not much point in arguing. So I’d ask you this instead (and I extend this offer to everyone who dislikes the current health care reform proposals and distrusts government so thoroughly they can’t conceive of it being part of the reform): what’s your solution? Before you answer, it has to include these features: near universal coverage, insurance portability, no insurance denial for pre-existing conditions or cancellation for illness, and enough savings to pay for it. And since you can’t trust your government, it has to be a completely free market solution with no government intervention, no new legislation, and no mandates. Good luck. The clock is ticking. Oh, and I’m pretty good at math. If administrative costs in the U.S. are 24%, unnecessary procedures add 30%, and tort reform might save, at best, 1%, where do you go first to attack costs?
Why this big foo-farrah from the right? Hmmm, let’s follow the money…
- 10% of your payments go to buying the CEO a mansion and yacht in the Bahamas. Hurry up, because CEOs only stick around for an average of 18 months.
- 10% goes to advertising that their plan is better then next plan, which is needed to support the first 10%.
- 10% goes to K-Street lobbyists to convince politicians that a system supporting the first 10% is OK.
- 10% goes to political contributions to support the 3rd 10%.
If they do not want a Public Option then we should be demanding 40% off!
Mr. Disagree
“1st: In this country we take care of anyone no matter what; that is a fact; no one is denied. The doctor will get paid.” As Barney Frank would say “what planet do you spend most of your time?”.
The same goes for “3rd: Almost every year my government asks for more and more money to pay for things that either I do not agree with,…”. It is a tax not a request for a donation. Our elected representatives voted to levy it. That’s how it works. The other option is to just have the King levy whatever tribute he wants. I’m not too happy about paying taxes to send our troops to invade other countries.
Yea, it’s true that government lies to us. GW and company honed that practice to a fine art but so do private companies. Do you trust your banker?
It used to cost me $2.00 bowl a game. Now it’s $3.50. It used to cost me $1.25 for a gallon of gas now it’s $2.75. Can you help figure out if there is there any way I can blame that on government?