But even if some conservative Republican critics are wrong about Section 1233, there is good reason to worry about Obama’s nationalization scheme.
The reason can be found in Econ 101. Medical care doesn’t grow on trees. It must be produced by human and physical capital, and those resources are limited. Therefore, if demand for health care services increases — which is Obama’s point in extending health insurance — prices must go up. But somehow Obama also promises, “I won’t sign a bill that doesn’t reduce health care inflation”.
This is magical thinking. Obama, talented as he is, can’t repeal the laws of supply and demand. Costs are real. If they are incurred, someone has to pay them. But as economist Thomas Sowell points out, politicians can control costs — by refusing to pay for the services.
It’s called rationing.
Advocates of nationalization hate that word because it forces them to face an ugly truth. If government pays for more people’s health care and wants to control costs, it must limit what we buy.
So much for Obama’s promise not to interfere with our freedom of choice.
The media and the left (redundant) have focused the discussion of “death panels” on end of life counseling. That is not and nave has been the real problem. The real problem is the panels – already funded under the “stimulus” plan (they got that in before even starting the health care bills) that will decide what treatments will be allowed for certain people.
In other words, it is not getting unplugged one has to fear right now. It is getting plugged in in the first place.
The media and the left have conflated the end of life counseling with the criticism of this panel which will decide who gets the hip and who gets the pills. These are Obama’s own sentiments. He has expressed them repeatedly. He has called for rationing himself, while not calling it that.
As Stossel points out, there is no other way for them to control costs. The CBO has shot down every other scheme that was supposed to save gobs of money. Withholding services, imposing long waits on services (in hopes you’ll die first or heal by yourself - it makes no difference to them which) and bureaucratic red tape to slow demand are all they can do to control costs.
One other point Stossel makes that should chill you. Right now, the doctor works for you. Under ObamaCare, the doctor answers to the state.
Feeling hopeful?
While agreeing wholly with Stossel’s overall point, I have to disagree that Palin was wrong about the “death board” metaphor (simile?). She was being aggressive and polemical, yes, and Stossel is right that there is no literal “death board” provision in the bill, but, as Steyn and others pointed out, the combination of rationing and “end of life counseling” (which remunerated physicians for initiating the conversation) effectively made the whole system a death board. And I think the accuracy of her observation is born out by the fact that, under tremendous public pressure, the Senate removed it. The public understood that she had captured the essence of this provision and didn’t like what they saw.
Yeah! What both ya’ll said!
I think, too, that everyone has discounted the idea that doctors would be PAID for initiating “end of life counseling”. Obama and his lackeys keep pointing out that this would be voluntary on the part of the patient. However, doctors are human and they like money as much as the next person. Think about it, if the government is offering you $50 or $100 for every time you spend 15 – 30 minutes having one of these ‘voluntary’ “end of life counseling” sessions, aren’t you going to do your level best to make darn sure that you have them at every possible opportunity? Add to that the real threat of rationing by some governement appointed lackeys and you have created a defacto ‘death panel’ while maintaining the appearance of everything being voluntary. Smoke and mirrors – just what Obama and his fellow Democrats are experts at using to bamboozle the public.
I think, too, that everyone has discounted the idea that doctors would be PAID for initiating “end of life counseling”.
Why on earth would we conclude that, when it’s spelled out in black and white that they would? The now-removed provision was done by editing medicaid– or was it medicare? I have the research on my home computer, or you can hit Jordan179′s LJ– specifically to pay for the consultations every five years, or if there was a change in health situation.
No idea where this notion that they *would not* pay for it came from…..
(mildly ranting at the meme going around, BTW, in case it wasn’t clear– I’ve had folks tell me it’s “silly” to think doctors would be paid for such “advice”….)