“Those defending the House legislation claim rationing is not in any of its versions…[but] the unprecedented power this legislation would grant to virtually unaccountable government agencies is all but certain to lead to rationing.”
Let me start of by saying that the phrase “death panel” is ridiculous and stupid. Ridiculous for the various ways it’s been debunked, and stupid because we all know what comes next…NBC News and everyone else on Journ-o-list then tarring every criticism of ObamaCare as being entirely aboot these fictional “death panels.” That said, it’s not illegitimate to raise concerns aboot health care rationing.
Rationing is a little personal for me, because one of the things frequently discussed when it comes to rationing are experimental medicines. My mother is a breast cancer survivor, and had it not been for experimental medicine she might be dead right now. And when no one is really sure what’s in the bill, and when part of the Den game plan has always been to say one thing than do the other (see recent comments from Barney Frank and Michael Moore, plus Tom Daschle’s recent book “Critical”) arguments like these are valid…
The most critical test of any reform proposal is whether it will empower individuals or impose on them. It is a fact that the leading bills in Congress would increase the power of government and decrease individual freedom. You cannot spend an additional $1 trillion of taxpayer money and reduce the role of government. You will get new bureaucracies, more regulation, more complexity. That means you will have less control of your healthcare.
Disagree? Just read the versions of healthcare legislation:H.R.3200 in the House. One key proposal is to mandate an “essential benefit package” for every private insurance policy sold in the United States. Currently, individuals and employers usually make these coverage decisions. This legislation creates a new federal Health Benefits Advisory Committee that would decide instead. For example, if you are a single male with no children, the legislation still requires you to have maternity benefits and well-baby and well-child care coverage. You don’t want or don’t need that coverage? Sorry, you have to pay for it anyway.
Other planned agencies would give the federal government unprecedented and unaccountable control over your healthcare. The so-called Health Choices Administration and the National Health Insurance Exchange would set various standards for all health insurance policies. The president is also pushing for another new agency called the Independent Medicare Advisory Council. Described as a cost-control initiative,it would be made up of five government appointees who would, by determining Medicare reimbursement amounts, in essence decide what would be covered and what would not. The fear of government rationing is based on the premise that once government has such power, especially the ability to control what is covered by your private insurance policy, it also has the power to deny and restrict.
The editorial in question also goes in to more effective ways to reform health care…you know, the reforms the D’s claim we don’t care aboot and have no ideas on. If we want an honest debate, let’s have an honest debate.
No, screaming and “death panels” aren’t productive.
Neither are sending union thugs to assault protesters, or dismissing valid concerns just because they’re inconvenient for you to answer.