Posted on 10/03/2012 7:48:11 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A top Democrat strategist and donor who served as President Obama’s lead auto-industry adviser recently conceded that the rationing of heath services under Obamacare is “inevitable.”
Steven Rattner advocated that such rationing should target elderly patients, while stating, “We need death panels.”
Rattner serves on the board the New America Foundation, or NAF, a George Soros-funded think tank that was instrumental in supporting Obamacare in 2010. Soros’ son, financier Jonathan Soros, is also a member of the foundation’s board.
Rattner was the so-called “car czar,” the lead auto adviser to the Treasury Department under Obama.
Last month, Rattner penned an opinion piece in the New York Times titled “Beyond Obamacare” in which he proclaimed “We need death panels” and argued rationing must be instructed to sustain Obama’s health-care plan. His comments have been virtually ignored by traditional media as the president campaign’s for a second term.
Read more from this story HERE.
Isn’t Soros qualified for Death panel consideration?
Sarah Palin was the ONLY one who nailed this.
Not a peep from Bonehead, Cantor or McConnell.
It’s way past time for new GOP leadership.
If Romney loses, a total house cleaning of the GOP leadership
MUST OCCUR!
Rationing, in the economic sense, of any scarce and therefore valuable resource is inevitable under any economic system.
We presently have health care rationing. Some is done by government agencies, which limit payments to providers and thereby restrict availability of services. Other rationing is done by insurance companies, who exclude certain treatments from reimbursement and impose other restrictions.
Some rationing is provided by the market, most notably by those without insurance being unable to pay.
The issue is not one of whether rationing will be performed. It is one of "who decides?"
Under almost any possible American system, those with money will be able to get whatever care they're able and willing to pay for. The question of "who gets what" is pretty much limited to the lower and middle classes.
The most likely outcome of increasing government control of healthcare is:
15% at the top continue to get whatever they want, as they always have.
Health care will improve for the 25% at the bottom.
Quality and availability will decline to some extent for the 60% in the middle.
(Percentages are approximate.)
***
Odd thing is, these are college educated (or is it, college indoctrinated) people. I only did two years and I never was good at math. It just makes sense that with so many people sucking on the government test, and fewer and fewer people contributing to the pot, there won't be enough resources to take care of everyone. So there will have to be rationing. Those perceived to be a drain on those resources — the elderly, the chronically ill — will not receive health care in favor of others.
These friends are so bowled over by Obama’s pretty speech they don't apply the logic they should have learned in school. Everything they should have lea
We should also consider that the cost of the “best available” medical care continues to escalate, as new tech becomes available.
We could probably provide 1970-era medical care to everybody without breaking the bank. What we can’t do is provide 2012-level, much less 2030-level medical care to everybody. Not without bankrupting the country.
So what we will do is pretend that everybody gets the same health care, while those with money or connections continue to get the best, and others take their chances.
I should also have pointed out that Canada, UK and lots of other European countries “ration” health care via time, or by waiting list. Some percentage of those needing the procedure die before their number comes up.
I think the disconnect is that the left has successful pedalled the lie that government has unlimited resources.
And they can make this illusion stand up by doing what they’re doing today - printing money out of thin air.
I agree.
I can also envision the following exchange:
Governmentto children and Grandchildren: We will pay you x amount of money to do away with Grandma, since it will be cheaper than continuing to pay Social Security and Medicare.
Kids: Ok, but we need at least x amount of money.
Our name is Equality 7-2521
Temporarily.
“15% at the top continue to get whatever they want, as they always have.”
Wrong. If a free market does not exist, then what is the motivation for private companies in the health care industry to develop innovation? The wealthiest only have access to the products that are being offered. If a company can only freely service 15% of a market, their motivation dissappears.
“Health care will improve for the 25% at the bottom.”
Wrong again. The government must cap prices to claim cost reduction. When prices are capped, in any commodity, that commodity faces shortages. If health service providers are faced with caps on reimbursements, they are not motivated to work more (add resources) in order to meet the need of the expanded market. The result will be shortages which will be evident with long lines (wait time increases) for what should be basic services.
“Quality and availability will decline to some extent for the 60% in the middle.”
Wrong again, but really only by the degree of your reduction forecast and the size of the population affected. It will decline by huge margins for all. This has been proven every time any government moves to centralized planning. In the centralized planning governments, the only commodity that sees sharp increases in effectiveness and a broader market reach is brute force by those carrying government guns.
Don’t be fooled by those telling you differently.
This reminds me of buying groceries in the Soviet Union or consumer goods in the movie Nineteen Eighty-Four.
If you are inner party, nothing but the best; if you’re just a prole, wait in long lines for poor rations or nothing.
Orwell’s definition of `power’ is the ability to make others suffer. Magic 8-ball says: `This Will Not End Well.’
That’s the whole point of QE3/QE4-ever - keep the balls in the air with free money, let the central banks acquire as much gold as they can before the crash,
then come out on the other side with a gold-backed currency which, coincidentally, they hold all the backing for.
State mandated Euthenasia and Infanticide(which is clearly murder) will never happen just like some claim the Holocaust never happened.
And Obama as a Jr Sen didn’t vote four different occasions against interveining if the baby is alive after a botched abortion.
“The new system of penalizing hospitals that readmit patients will cause deaths too. Obama’s not a ‘nice guy’....”
***
But...but...but...Romney said he is!
Nonsense. Every other provider of luxury goods and services in the world appears to be able to do quite well servicing <15% of the market. I haven't noticed Ferrari or Louis Vuitton losing all incentive to continue in business.
What will happen, of course, is that with a smaller pool of money available, fewer new technologies will be developed and implemented that would otherwise be the case.
A long line for service is an improvement over no service. I didn't say "the poor" would receive the best available health care, only that for many of them it will be better than what they presently have available to them.
The idea that any government-run health system will result in worse outcomes for every group is just the flip side of the idiocy put out by proponents that outcomes will improve for every group while costs still go down.
I think my projection is pretty good, though I have no idea how the percentage will fall out. I agree that for "most" people the results will be somewhat worse than they are now.
And the Democrat voting sheeple go quietly; happily ambling straight to the slaughter.
The problem is, they’ll take the rest of us with them if we do not get this administration and the democrat majority in the Senate out of office.
ya know, i realize that i will have to work til the day i die.
the rat’s give me that choice. i will be 59 in a few days. my dad was always saying that he would never see a social security check. he has and does, he’s 90. God bless him.
he was just a generation off. when i become a non-producer that cannot support the liberals no longer, i will be exterminated.
as hitler said “useless eaters”. i see little difference between fascism, communism, socialism and the demorat party. all Godless, immoral, no honor, no compassion and no love for righteousness.
Blessings, bobo
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.