The only thing being debunked is the author's claim to intellectual honesty, fair dealing, and credibility. The only way to control the cost of health care is to ration it. That's what socialism does: rations the available goods and services. And when a service is rationed by government, decisions regarding who gets what become politicized. Again, that's what always happens. And in case after case, when health care is rationed based on political considerations, the primary basis of that rationing is a patient's age, health, past history, and current life expectancy. You won't be able to find a single counterexample. The author knows this full well. That's why we know he's deliberately trying to decieve.
Howard Kurtz obviously doesn’t read his own paper.
Washington Post article...
Undue Influence
The House Bill Skews End-of-Life Counsel
By Charles Lane
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Section 1233 of the health-care bill drafted in the Democratic-led House, which would pay doctors to give Medicare patients end-of-life counseling every five years — or sooner if the patient gets a terminal diagnosis.
Until now, federal law has encouraged end-of-life planning — gently. In 1990, Congress required health-care institutions (not individual doctors) to give new patients written notice of their rights to make living wills, advance directives and the like — but also required them to treat patients regardless of whether they have such documents.
The 1997 ban on assisted-suicide support specifically allowed doctors to honor advance directives. And last year, Congress told doctors to offer a brief chat on end-of-life documents to consenting patients during their initial “Welcome to Medicare” physical exam. That mandate took effect this year.
Section 1233, however, addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones.
Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive — money — to do so. Indeed, that’s an incentive to insist.
Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they’re in the meeting, the bill does permit “formulation” of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would “place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign,” I don’t think he’s being realistic.
What’s more, Section 1233 dictates, at some length, the content of the consultation. The doctor “shall” discuss “advanced care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to”; “an explanation of . . . living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses” (even though these are legal, not medical, instruments); and “a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families.” The doctor “shall” explain that Medicare pays for hospice care (hint, hint).
Admittedly, this script is vague and possibly unenforceable. What are “key questions”? Who belongs on “a list” of helpful “resources”? The Roman Catholic Church? Jack Kevorkian?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html