I think the President and his supporters are being a little bit naive about the "death panels" claim, when the President himself was talking about the difficulties in having Medicare pay for end-of-life care:
THE PRESIDENT: Now, I actually think that the tougher issue around medical care — it’s a related one — is what you do around things like end-of-life care —
NYT: Yes, where it’s $20,000 for an extra week of life.
THE PRESIDENT: Exactly. And I just recently went through this. I mean, I’ve told this story, maybe not publicly, but when my grandmother got very ill during the campaign, she got cancer; it was determined to be terminal. And about two or three weeks after her diagnosis she fell, broke her hip. It was determined that she might have had a mild stroke, which is what had precipitated the fall.
So now she’s in the hospital, and the doctor says, Look, you’ve got about — maybe you have three months, maybe you have six months, maybe you have nine months to live. Because of the weakness of your heart, if you have an operation on your hip there are certain risks that — you know, your heart can’t take it. On the other hand, if you just sit there with your hip like this, you’re just going to waste away and your quality of life will be terrible.
And she elected to get the hip replacement and was fine for about two weeks after the hip replacement, and then suddenly just — you know, things fell apart.
I don’t know how much that hip replacement cost. I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she’s my grandmother. Whether, sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question. If somebody told me that my grandmother couldn’t have a hip replacement and she had to lie there in misery in the waning days of her life — that would be pretty upsetting.
NYT: And it’s going to be hard for people who don’t have the option of paying for it.
THE PRESIDENT: So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?
I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.
NYT: So how do you — how do we deal with it?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.
This is a pretty easy set of thoughts to twist out of shape, no? Obviously, "death panels" is unfair -- but why put it out there in the first place?
My sympathies are with the President, who's got a very tough nut to crack. Thankfully (for my long-term job prospects), it's pretty clear that it's the insurance industry that's going to take one for the team first. Doubtless, pharma will be next (although they appear to have negotiated with the crocodile) and then it'll be hospital employee salaries...
5 comments:
"...the President and his supporters are being a little bit naive about the "death panels" claim, when the President himself was talking about the difficulties in having Medicare pay for end-of-life care..."
This is the problem with political discussions. Each side changes the issue but describes it in a way in an effort to fool the listener/reader.
There is no doubt that major changes to our health care system will have to evolve either slowly by new legislation or more quickly as medicare goes bankrupt and more businesses choose not to provide health benefits. Rationing and changes to end-of-life care will have to be a part of it. The question is "can it be postponed."
However, those are NOT in any bill being discussed today. Maybe you feel they should be. But since they are not the republicans have chosen to lie and say that the Democrats are all ready pushing this. Just like the talk about how our taxes have already gone up, gun rights and "our liberties" have already been taken away, and how the Obama administration wanted all along to take over the auto industry, the banking system, and energy sector.
Its tough to read the entire post when its starts with a straw man...
Gee, Rich, didn't I say that "death panels" was rabid, ridiculous and unfair?
After weeks of "bend the curve" and Orszagian comments about the current growth rate in medical care costs, I don't think it's unfair to look at what the President himself has said about where the cost increase (or decreases) may come.
Rich, seeing as how you are against strawmen, can I then assume that you believe that the "Dole-Gingrich" ads that the '96 Clinton campaign ran were unfair, as Newt was never on the ticket?
As the Democrats have been the party of Mediscare for a long, long time, it's amusing to watch it be used against them, even though the attacks are (characteristically of Mediscare) irrelevant and unfair.
"Mediscare" has never included euthanasia for unhealthy seniors or children with disabilities. I find it hard to belief that you don't see the leap we have made from political double-speak to outright lying over the past decade. Dole-Gingrich was no different than Pelosi/Reid Ads last Fall. Dole was far too moderate to target alone.
This should be a discussion on two fronts 1. insuring the uninsured and 2. fixing an entitlement program that has worked well but will not be able to provide for the aging population.
W brought up SS reform after the 2004 election, the only policy of his I supported since 2003, and later said it was his only mistake. He feels that way because the stock market crashed which now guarantees that SS will never go into private investments.
I think I've made my point (or you've made yours) in that 'unfairer than "Dole-Gingrich/wither-on-the-vine"' means lying. Okay, I can buy that.
Your second point makes my original point for me. RET Q#1 is the popular one -- RET Q#2 is the 3rd rail. Why did the Obama administration decide to raise both points? Is it not surprising that GOPers are attempting to make Obama lick that 3rd rail?
As I said, my sympathies are with Obama, who is attempting to deal with a difficult problem in (mostly) an adult manner. I'm not much in support of Q1 (as worked out by the congressional Democrats) and very sympathetic to the end goals of Q2, if not the means.
What is the deal with O's own cabinet members throwing the public option under the bus? Sebelius claims that it is 'not essential' to health care reform, and earlier Rhambo saying the same thing. Also, the so called 'bluedogs'(or republicans who claimed to be democrats to win elections) fueling the rhetoric of "death panels". For whatever reason the democrats can never seem to all agree on the same thing.
Post a Comment