Posted on 11/24/2010 8:54:44 AM PST by rhema
Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winner in economics and an influential New York Times columnist, also has a blog, "The Conscience of a Liberal." On ABC's "This Week" (Nov. 14), during a discussion on balancing the federal budget against alarming deficits, he proclaimed the way to solve this problem is through deeply cost-effective health-care rationing.
"Some years down the pike," he said, "we're going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes." That would mean the U.S. Debt Reduction Commission "should have endorsed the panel that was part of the (Obama) health-care reform."
Sarah Palin was one of the first, and the most resounding, to warn us of the coming of government panels to decide which of us -- especially, but not exclusively, toward the end of life -- would cost too much to survive. She was mocked, scorned from sea to shining sea, including by the eminent Paul Krugman for being, he said, among those spreading "the death penalty lie" as part of "the lunatic fringe." (Summarized in "Krugman Wants 'Death Panels'" Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights (Nov. 15).
Soon after he had left the ABC Studio, someone must have alerted Krugman that -- gee whiz -- he had publicly rooted for death panels! Swiftly, on his blog, Krugman admitted he had indeed said those dreaded words, but: "What I meant is that health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what they're willing to pay for -- not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we're willing to spend for extreme care."
"Extreme care," Professor Krugman? To be defined by government commissions, right? Noel Sheppard of media watchdog Newsbusters
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
As you said on ABC, this is "reality therapy."
Nat Hentoff, who years ago used to be a left wing loony tunes
is now showing signs of aging and thus coming to grips with
reality.
"... Nearly ten years ago [1986] I declared myself a pro-lifer [ The Indivisible Fight for Life ]. A Jewish, atheist, civil libertarian, left-wing pro-lifer. Immediately, three women editors at The Village Voice, my New York base, stopped speaking to me. Not long after, I was invited to speak on this startling heresy at Nazareth College in Rochester (long since a secular institution). Two weeks before the lecture, it was canceled. The women on the lecture committee, I was told by the embarrassed professor who had asked me to come, had decided that there was a limit to the kind of speech the students could safely hear, and I was outside that limit. I was told, however, that I could come the next year to give a different talk.
[...]
"Yet being without theology isn't the slightest hindrance to being pro-life. As any obstetrics manual--Williams Obstetrics, for example--points out, there are two patients involved, and the one not yet born "should be given the same meticulous care by the physician that we long have given the pregnant woman." Nor, biologically, does it make any sense to draw life-or-death lines at viability. Once implantation takes place, this being has all the genetic information within that makes each human being unique. And he or she embodies continually developing human life from that point on. It missses a crucial point to say that the extermination can take place because the brain has not yet functioned or because that thing is not yet a "person." Whether the life is cut off in the fourth week or the fourteenth, the victim is one of our species, and has been from the start."
If it works as well as the Left is hoping, I guess they'll call it the Final Solution.
And on other subjects, even if I disagree with him, I will give his views on those subjects consideration. He has earned that.
If we do not protect life all else is a sham ! One can not have liberty without life.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
One can not have the pursuit of happiness without life.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
After all -- what do you think is happening, when an insurance company denies coverage for various operations and cancer treatments?
"Death panels" makes a fine bumper-sticker. But it's less than truthful.
I’ve commented several times that I’ve met Hentoff and he’s a Constitutional absolutist - in some ways a stronger strict constructionist than “moderate” RINOs.
I first listened to Hentoff on the subject of Jazz on WBAI in the late fifties.I started to read his articles in the Village Voice at the same time.
When he was not on the topic of Jazz, he was a bomb throwing progressive.
I'm old enough to remember that too and was really shocked when I first started noticing conservative words coming out of his mouth.
Oh well, some people actually die in their liberalism.
bump!
My very favorite people to read: Nat Hentoff, Sowell, and Mark Steyn. Thanks for posting this, you’ve made my day.
-—nonetheless, society is going to face up to the fact that if we are going to spend 35-40% of a person’s lifetime medical expense in the last 6 months or so of their life, that it has to be paid for in current money and that “society” can’t do it for everybody-—
But if you don’t die, it’s not the last six months of life...
bump
That's a good point.
Note, btw, that if you substitute "premium-payers" for "society" into that quote, you're describing the situation as it stands today.
I think a big part of the problem is that most of us don't even pay for most of our own insurance premiums -- our employers pick up a large part of the tab as part of our benefits package. The majority of our medical care is "free" to those of us who are fortunate enough to have good medical coverage.
And as a result, most of us are almost completely ignorant of the true costs of medical care -- all we see is the co-pays, deductibles, and a not uncomfortable deduction from our paycheck every month.
Out on the other end of the situation, the folks at the insurance company who are sending checks to doctors and hospitals, have a fixed pool of money to work with, and they have the corporate bottom line to worry about as well.
The simply cannot pay for everything. And because of that, insurance companies deny coverage all the time, even for treatments that might prolong life for a few months.
Those who are fixated on the word "government" in this debate, are overlooking the fundamental similarity between the dreaded "government death panel" and the actual "death panels" that make decisions for the insurance companies.
There are many very good reasons to oppose government-run health care. A focus on "death panels" is not one of them.
My vote is for medical savings accounts, health ensure that could be purchased during ones working years (but last through a life time) and charity.
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.