Posted on 01/22/2011 12:52:50 PM PST by wagglebee
When Sarah Palin warned that Obamacare could lead to medical rationing and “death panels,” supporters were outraged. Alarmism! they roared. A lie! Right-wing propaganda! Alas for supporters of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Palin’s provocative sound bite was at least partly grounded in reality—which is why the term entered the political lexicon.
Now, however, some are seeking to wield the term against conservatives. Case in point: The Arizona legislature recently cut its Medicaid budget because the state is in dire financial straits—a move approved by the Obama administration. When the cuts led to canceling Medicaid coverage for organ transplant surgeries, and a potential organ recipient died, death panel claims suddenly became all the fashion. For example, CBS’s HealthWatch opined:
There is a certain irony here. During last year’s federal battle over President Obama’s health care legislation, some Republicans claimed his program promoted “death panels” which they seemed to suggest would involve government bureaucrats deciding who lives and who dies. The health care bill did include language which paid doctors to offer end-of-life counseling. That was eventually removed. Facing a tough budget situation, however, Arizona has instituted what critics say is much closer to these so-called “death panels” than anything that ever appeared in the federal government’s health care legislation.
Similarly, New York Times liberal columnist Gail Collins raged:
Republicans kept ranting about how “Obamacare” would put the federal government between you and your doctor and try to save money by prohibiting said doctor from using the best treatments and procedures. All this came to mind when I was talking to Flor Felix, whose husband, Francisco, a 32-year-old truck driver with four kids, was denied a liver transplant because the Arizona Legislature had yanked funds for it out of a state Medicaid program.
But these and other similar columns and editorials miss the point: The Arizona Medicaid story was not grounded in conservative heartlessness or hypocrisy. It resulted from a single-payer health care system crashing into a budgetary brick wall. The real lesson here is that “single payer” and “death panels” go together like “See’s” and “candy.”
Oregon, a decidedly liberal state, provides an unequivocal example. In 1993, the Clinton administration gave permission to the Oregon Health Plan, the state’s Medicaid program, to introduce rationing. The system involves a treatment schedule that lists 649 potentially covered procedures. The state pegs the number of procedures the state will cover to the available funds. Patients requiring procedures above the cutoff line are out of luck.
As of October 2010, only the first 502 treatments were covered. But even that low number doesn’t tell the full story of rationing in Oregon. The Oregon Health Plan also rations covered procedures under certain circumstances. Chemotherapy, for instance, is not provided if it is deemed to have a 5 percent or less chance of extending the patient’s life for five years, meaning that a patient whose life might be extended a year or two with chemo may not receive it.
Worse, even though it is not a formally ranked procedure, assisted suicide is covered under state law. Thus, when two recurrent cancer patients were rationed out of receiving potentially life-extending chemotherapy in 2008, an administrator wrote a letter assuring them that the state would pay for the costs associated with their assisted suicides. Talk about a death panel!
As state Medicaid budgets become increasingly strained, some within the medical establishment are promoting formal rationing systems. Thus, the Wisconsin Medical Society recently argued that the state’s Medical Assistance program should be “allocated” and “prioritized” by creating a “ranked order” of coverage. “The goal is health,” the association stated, “rather than health services or health insurance,” a potentially alarming prospect for those with serious—and expensive to treat—illnesses and disabilities.
Looking abroad, one should note that rationing is routine in single-payer health systems. Canada’s Medicare allocates services primarily by time, forcing patients to wait weeks, or even months, to receive urgent diagnostic screenings and surgeries. A recent study by the free-market Fraser Institute found that the median wait for surgeries in Canada has grown to 18.2 weeks—141 percent longer than in 1993.
Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) best illustrates the connection between stringent health care rationing and single-payer funding. Until very recently, the National Institute for Clinical and Health Excellence (NICE) determined what procedures—and which patients—would be covered by the NHS. (The new government in Britain is replacing NICE rationing with decisions made by general practitioners, creating the potential for conflicts of interest between physicians and their patients.)
In its heyday, NICE followed a complicated quality-of-life/cost-benefit formula to ration care, using a unit of measurement called the “quality adjusted life year,” or QALY. Briefly, the process of determining whether a given treatment would be covered involved determining how much time a procedure might give a patient, then subtracting for low quality of life. The resulting QALY estimate was then analyzed to determine whether the predicted benefit was worth the projected cost. Some Obama-care supporters—including the New England Journal of Medicine—want the United States to adopt a QALY system, raising the prospect of bringing the worst aspects of single-payer rationing to federally controlled private health insurance markets.
Our current private system certainly has serious problems that need addressing. But no private insurance company would dare unilaterally deny a previously qualified patient life-saving surgery, as Arizona did. Only government can get away with something like that.
Indeed, if insurance companies fail to pay for covered care, they risk juries’ awarding tens of millions in punitive damages against them in “bad faith” lawsuits—and there are plenty of trial lawyers eager to bring such cases. At the same time, government regulators of private systems are much more likely to side with patients than insurance companies, a benefit of the doubt likely to be reversed in single-payer or federally bureaucratized plans. Potential loss of market share serves to keep private carriers on the up and up—particularly in markets with robust competition, which is why expanding health insurance markets is an urgent agenda item for those seeking to replace Obamacare.
As the nation continues to debate health care reform, we should keep in mind that many Obamacare supporters see the Affordable Care Act as merely a first step on the road to a national single-payer plan. Those who oppose such a centralized system should stress that avoiding death-panel medicine in a time of strained budgets requires that we eschew both single-payer financing and federalized bureaucratic control. They should also promote cost-containment innovations, such as price competition at the source of services, and reforms that enable hard-to-insure people and workers with low wages to gain broader access to coverage or inexpensive care.
Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism.
This is EXACTLY what Zero and the left want to impose on us!
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Interesting, or predictable, that wherever the left gains control of the state, mass murder follows. Just an observation.
Death BY Government is a statistical compilation of how the more represive a goverment becomes, the more of its subjects are killed by the government.
There will be civil disobedience and a cry for retribution against the government,when Death Care starts happening.
People will be mad enough to shoot about it when they start losing loved ones prematurely. When people see it is a matter of life and death, things will be nasty.Think about it.
The husband of a wife who is declined to receive care to extend life, and she dies, hubby goes for his rifle? Can’t anyone see this?
NOT GOOD. REPEAL IT.
Go ahead, liberals. Explain to me again about that silly Second Amendment being outdated.
Think any prominent Democrat or liberal will ever have to bite that bullet and "die for the State"?
Fat chance.
Now Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand ......
I thought that this from the article really spells it out:
“The Oregon Health Plan also rations covered procedures under certain circumstances. Chemotherapy, for instance, is not provided if it is deemed to have a 5 percent or less chance of extending the patient’s life for five years, meaning that a patient whose life might be extended a year or two with chemo may not receive it.
Worse, even though it is not a formally ranked procedure, assisted suicide is covered under state law. Thus, when two recurrent cancer patients were rationed out of receiving potentially life-extending chemotherapy in 2008, an administrator wrote a letter assuring them that the state would pay for the costs associated with their assisted suicides. Talk about a death panel!”
Money for treatment - No!
Money for assisted suicide - Yes!
With Obamacare the entire country could be like this, and worse.
Yes, 300 million killed by governments to date according to the author of “Death by Government”,
Wasn’t that just 20th century deaths? I am trying to remember.
Was Dr Zeke Emanuel spit-shining his penny loafers when the subject of "O/Care death" panels surfaced?
When he got in as Ohaha's COS, Rahm Emanuel put his brother Dr Zeke in charge of Medicare/Aid and O/care. Meaning Wall Street Rahm has his sticky fingers in Medicare/Aid billions and O/care billions. Wall Street scuzzball Rahm is an expert at looting and pillaging govt money piles. Rahm Emanuel knows how to make money disappear faster than a cream puff at a Weight Watcher weigh-in.
================================================
"Professor" Obama surrounded himself with Wall Street shrewdies---like Rahm. They are helping themselves to billions as we type.......Keeping a permanent Dem majority is at the top of the list. They will have billions at their disposal.
HOW GANGSTER GOVERNMENT SCAMS TRILLIONS----THE MADOFF MO Ponzi Madoff created a supersecret labyrinth of interrelated international funds, institutions and financial entities of almost unparalleled complexity and breadth......with assets and businesses in multiple places overseas that hid thievery, money launderering and tax evasion.
=====================================================
Novelist Dean Koontz stated in a public forum that at least $70 BILLION has been stolen by the Obama administration.
=====================================================
BUT HOW'D HE DO THAT? Emanuel was given the bum's rush out of Washington-----now he's running for Mayor. Rahm "says" he raised more than $10.5M in 3 months for his race..........
(This is so bogus. I feel like heaving.)
100 million killed by socialist governments in the Twentieth Century. The 300 million figure is for all governments in recorded history, that the author could find. Which is another good point. While governments have traditionally murdered their citizens throughout history, they stepped up the game in the Twentieth Century. They became bolder and more efficient (amazing to think of government getting more efficient at anything, eh?).
When it comes to consolidating and grabbing power and loot, goverments are extremely efficient.
And lethal.
When it comes to consolidating and grabbing power and loot, goverments are extremely efficient.
And lethal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.