Sure, why not. We can start with the panel.
Obama advisor: "We need death panels"
We need Pelosi!
Palliative End of Life Optimum Serenity Initiative (PELOSI)
Obamacare! MMMM,MMMM,MMM,
I will agree to this, with one addition:
We also create “Work Panels”. We will allot that the maximum cost of keeping a worthless goof-off on the public dole is five years. After that they will be gainfully employed, or gainful employment will be provided for them (at the barrel of a gun if necessary).
Of course this will never be agreed to, nor will a brainless moron like the fool that wrote this article ever admit that the real “exploding” problem is the worthless cancers that live off the government, while reproducing additional little cancers that will also live their entire life slopping at the government troth - and voting Democrat.
“allocating health care resources more prudently “
In a collective, centrally planned economy,,of course. In a free market economy, there is no need to “allocate resources”. But i swear by all thats holy, if i ever have money to pay, and am refused a needed treatment for me or one i love,, I will inform the doctor to review the Sopranos doctor on the golf course scene.
“allocating health care resources more prudently “
In a collective, centrally planned economy,,of course. In a free market economy, there is no need to “allocate resources”. But i swear by all thats holy, if i ever have money to pay, and am refused a needed treatment for me or one i love,, I will inform the doctor to review the Sopranos doctor on the golf course scene.
People who enjoy telling others that their life is not valuable enough to preserve, run the risk that the soon to be involuntarily euthanized might make a similar choice about THEM. That damned mathmatical Symetric property gets ya everytime.
So not really death panels, but what’s wrong with limiting care for old people......ok.
What about limiting care for babies in need of life saving treatment?
Or, what about that car accident, where a drunk hits a family car and everyone ends up in ER, are we going to say “hey they’ve got four kids, lets just save two”?
Or what about our warriors wounded, are we only going to treat the ones who will return home whole?
I know it all sounds so silly, yet who would have thought the government would advocate not treating seniors.
This is the problem when the person paying is different than the persmon receiving the benefit. The person paying will have an incentive to minimize costs and the person receiving will have an incentive to maximize expenditures. The only way to reconcile these two positions is with force.
Or we can be free people and let each of us be responsible for his own expenditures. Then each of us can make his own decisions to maximize his own well-being within the limits of his own resources, and no force is necessary.
The entire LSM owes an apology to Sarah Palin. It won’t be forthcoming, but they owe it nevertheless.
Let’s make sure we understand the rules. “...elderly Americans are not entitled to every conceivable medical procedure...” but it is cruel and unusual punishment to deny a prisoner gender reassignment surgery at public expense.
I’m picturing myself like Edward G. Robinson in Soylent Green.
Obama’s Auschwitz = ObamaCare
Without MAJOR changes elsewhere in the healthcare system the writer is correct. That which cannot continue indefinitely will not, and healthcare costs have been rising exponentially (something which cannot continue) for many, many years. Third party payment (insurance or government), opaque prices, obscene cost-shifting, malpractice suits, artificially limited provider supply are all significant factors above and beyond the demographic gorilla in the room.
And what guarantee do we have this “rationing” won’t suddenly become politically based? As in, you cross the wrong politician, your ration gets smaller...or nonexistent?