Filed Under: Headline • Not So Fast!
About Those “Death Panels”
It seems inevitable that the government will grab the remains of “private” medical care, so I will look at our medical futures. One development will be the implementation of the infamous “death panels” that socialists swear are a figment of the imaginations of paranoid persons like Sarah Palin.
For example, I received emails from the religious left-wing organization “Sojourners,” which declared that Palin was lying when she made the comment last August 7 in her Facebook page that declared:
The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
In the ensuing firestorm, the New York Times called it a “false rumor,” and the “fact checkers” at the Politifact website named her statement the “Lie of the Year.” Kate Snow of ABC News said the claim was “shocking” and “inflammatory.”
Neither the House nor the Senate bills use the phrase “death panels,” but that is not surprising. None of the other countries that have socialist care actually have committees with that name. However, the “death panel” mentality certainly exists, and it exists precisely because socialist medical care exists not for care of individuals, but rather to enforce larger egalitarian political goals.
Ironically, the New York Times provides the “smoking gun” to the egalitarian mentality that leads to the “death panels” route. The paper last year carried a story about a British woman, Debbie Hirst, who suffered from cancer, but could not receive the medications she needed because the National Health Service declared them too costly.
Hirst decided to raise the money herself by selling her house, but the government said that if she did that, then it would not pay for any of her care:
Officials said that allowing Mrs. Hirst and others like her to pay for extra drugs to supplement government care would violate the philosophy of the health service by giving richer patients an unfair advantage over poorer ones.
Patients “cannot, in one episode of treatment, be treated on the N.H.S. and then allowed, as part of the same episode and the same treatment, to pay money for more drugs,” the health secretary, Alan Johnson, told Parliament.
“That way lies the end of the founding principles of the N.H.S.,” Mr. Johnson said.
In other words, unless one can justify one’s treatment under larger socialist purposes, then the government will be happy to let someone die, for enforced egalitarianism trumps actual care. This is not something new. Writing in the November 1993 Freeman, Dr. Jane Orient noted that government medical “cost containment” is another term for denying care:
The global budgeters “contain costs”—ration health care by denying those things that you do need insurance to pay for: heart surgery, radiation treatments for cancer, hip replacements, things like that. Out of “compassion,” reformers may open another exit: the one that leads to the cemetery. (Emphasis mine) Do you think it’s accidental that euthanasia and “universal access” are on the agenda at the same time?
Thomas Sowell is correct. Entrepreneurs lower real costs by finding ways to create more goods and using fewer resources. Governments “lower” costs via raw force or denying medical care, and if a person offers to pay for the care, well, that defeats the real purpose of socialism. Yet, we are told that private entrepreneurship in medical care is evil and medical socialism is good. People who accept such things as being true also will endorse the presence of “death panels,” even while denying that the panels exist.








Pingback by About Those “Death Panels” « thak’s cool links on 30 December 2009:
[...] The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty » About Those “Death Panels”. Just in case you haven’t figured it out yet… [...]
Comment by Steve Farrell on 30 December 2009:
Thank you for this clearly presented common sense article! With three adult children with very expensive medical needs a parent can’t help fear what will come of their needs if the states under the tenth amendment fail to reject this full shift to socialist medicine.
Comment by Karen on 31 December 2009:
The Hirst scenario described in this piece is quite a scary one. It is, however, just projection, one that is either inaptly applied or intentionally inflammatory. There is nothing in the pending legislation that would suggest disallowing folks’ paying for their own medical care and thus legitimize the use of the label, “death panel.” Quite the opposite–we will likely end up paying more out of pocket as the weight of the system squeezes both “insurance” coverage and payments.
Comment by cavalier973 on 3 January 2010:
“There is nothing in the pending legislation that would suggest disallowing folks’ paying for their own medical care and thus legitimize the use of the label, ‘death panel.’ ”
Perhaps so, but it seems to me in that case that people would be paying for treatment that they are then denied, as I understand the legislation to mandate the purchase of some form of health insurance that meets government standards.
Comment by S B Benjamin on 4 January 2010:
Actually, the potential for that denial AND the inability to pay for it yourself is already here. Ask any Medicare patient whether or not, if a procedure is denied by Medicare, he may pay for it privately. You will be quite surprised at the answer. Incidentally, President Clinton added a provision to Social Security by Executive Order that requires anyone taking Social Security to be enrolled in Medicare. There is a lawsuit challenging this at the moment.