Code Pink Showed Up at Jake Tapper's House and Got Quite the Surprise
CNN's Top Legal Analyst: Anger at the Supreme Court Over Trump Case Should...
Biden's Reputation as an Ally of Labor Unions Just Took a Major Hit
Strategy for Winning Thursday’s 3-on-1 Debate
Alexander Hamilton and The Right to Fight the Government
Contract From the American People
A Valuable Investor Asset Class Is At Risk. Congress Should Act.
Our Tragically Foolish Border Policy
Unpacking the 10 Commandments
Presidential Election Farce in Iran
Arizona Voter Rolls Contain Massive Number of Unqualified Voters. We’re Suing to Clean...
Trump Continues to Dominate in the Polls
Democrat Giggles, Mocks News Coverage About the Young Girl Raped By an Illegal...
New DHS Doc Reveals It Labels Trump Supporters, Catholics As Terror Threats
This FY Alone, More Than 13K Criminal Illegal Aliens Arrested In the U.S.
Tipsheet

Any Truth to Palin's 'Death Panel' Concerns?

Here's a truism of life:  The person who pays the bills is boss. 

When you live at home with mom and dad, they get to tell you how to live.  When a company pays you for work, they generally get to tell you what to do when you're there -- and in some cases -- what to do when you are
Advertisement
not there.

Despite all the talk about health decisions being made by doctors and patients -- when government runs health care -- let's be honest -- government will get to make the decisions. 

And so, with the economy slumping and more programs to be funded than money, government would presumably make strategic choices regarding where to find savings.  Some have suggested this may mean that the old or feeble would be less likely to receive expensive operations and procedures.  After all, the logic goes: why put new wine in old wineskins?

President Obama recently alluded to this when -- regarding a question about a 100 year old lady getting a pacemaker -- he said: "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the pain killer."

Sarah Palin's controversial comments about a "death panel" were unfortunate, inasmuch as they probably did more harm than good to the cause she was advocating.  I cannot find any "death panel" mentioned in any of the proposed health care bills, and so her rhetoric sounds extreme.  Instead, what I can find is that we are in grave danger of creating a system in which the logical conclusion would be government rationing of care.

It's also fair -- and honest -- to say that there are, in fact,
Advertisement
top scientists advocating that the government pick an choose health care winners and losers

As I noted a while ago, in his appropriately titled column, 'Why We Must Ration Health Care,' noted bioethecist Peter Singer recently wrote,

"The death of a teenager is a greater tragedy than the death of an 85-year-old, and this should be reflected in our priorities."

While Singer is fortunately not advising the White House, Doctor Ezekiel Emanuel, is.  Ezekiel, of course, is the brother of powerful White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.  He is also Health Policy Advisor for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

As The New York Post recently wrote of Dr. Emanuel,

Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.

Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.

Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).

Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.

Advertisement


So while Sarah Palin's comments probably struck the average person as having come out of nowhere, those who mock the notion that government could -- and would -- eventually ration health care are either being intellectually dishonest -- or are simply not paying attention.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement