The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Patrick Henry's Health Reform

Text Size

Cato's Jim Harper lays it out clearly: someone has to ration health care, because resources are scarce and wants are infinite. The people doing the rationing can be you, your family, and your doctor, or it can be bureacrats -- i.e., "death panels." Patrick Henry would choose the liberty to decide for himself.

And as far as government death panels go, Betsy McCaughey, who has been blamed by many for the recent talk of death panels in the Obama reform plan, defends some of the more narrrow assertions she has made, in today's web lineup. In some specific situations, she argues, government policies could put the the end-of-life determinations of doctors at odds with the desires of patients.

Elsewhere, Ross Douthat argues that Republicans, who have a rich tradition of saying no, should be very much involved in determining the amount and kinds of care Medicare patients receive, and that their decisions should reflect a kind of stinginess. In other words, bureaucrats should make tough decisions for patients -- doesn't sound very "conservative" to me. In fact it sounds a little bit like he's choosing the death panel option that Harper laid out.

View all comments (3) | Leave a comment

Solo| 8.17.09 @ 12:01PM

It's true that some can afford better health care than others. Those who make excellent incomes can afford the very best in state of the art care and those not so well advantaged simply cannot.

There are people in my neighborhood who make a much better living that do I. They may have a much more reliable means of transportation that requires little maitainance and provides increased safety. All of this puts them at an advantage that I might not enjoy of I own some old clunker that's constantly breaking down.

Is the State to buy me (and everyone else) a new luxury car in order to mitigate this disparity? And...if they tried to do so, what would that do to the rest of the car market? What if the government (needing to save money in order to help the largest number of people) dictated to the car manufacturers that they may only charge half price to the needy and elderly on fixed incomes?

This is exactly what happened with the health care industry. The way to solve the problem is not to do MORE of the same thing...but less.

tj| 8.17.09 @ 1:52PM

A rose by any other name?? Michael Tanner of the CATO Institute cautions that opponents of a government-run “public option” should not be fooled by this “compromise.” It’s suggested that these co-ops would be nonprofits, but many insurers are already classified as “nonprofit” companies–including “mutual” insurance companies and groups like Blue Cross. In addition, states already have the power to set up their own health care co-ops and a number already exist. So, if the “new co-ops” are to operate under the same rules as other nonprofit insurers, why bother? Supporters of government-run health care have no intention of letting the co-ops be independent enterprises. In fact, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) makes it clear, for example, that the co-op’s officers and directors would be appointed by the president and Congress. He insists that there be a single national co-op. And Congress would set the rules under which it operates. As Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) says, “It’s got to be written in a way that accomplishes the objectives of a public option.” If a “co-op” is run by the federal government under rules imposed by the federal government with funding provided by the federal government, that is government-run health insurance by another name. Also check the so called "" Stimulous Bill" death panels already installed and in place"" End run around OUR Constitutional Rights!!!! WAKE UP. They really think WE THE PEOPLE are "TUPID"