Well, maybe.
Unwittingly, this guy hit the nail on the head:
"It's reacting to ignorance and stupidity," said Tom Frazier, executive directive of the Coalition of Wisconsin Aging Groups. "That's not a way to run a government."
Precisely.
The Government should have NOTHING to do with end-of-life decisionmaking.
Mr. Frazier may well think that the Government should get its nose into the question. He's .....ahhh......dead wrong.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The basic issue (problem) is the rationing of health care that is inevitable under Obamacare. This remains a problem regardless of whether "death panels" are in or out of the legislation.
Unless there is sustainable, adequate financing, over-promising while underfunding health insurance will surely lead to rationing when, down the road, government has to fact the shortfall.
The government must not be authorized, whether through "comparative effectiveness" research using "quality adjusted life years" or other measures, to compel or encourage denial of life-saving medical treatments, food or fluids based on the patient's age, disability or quality of life.
Finally, measures to promote living wills and other advance care directives must not be used to pressure patients into rejecting life-saving treatment as a means of saving money, nor provide for assisted suicide as an alternative.
It is extremely troubling that Compassion and Choices, the nation's leading pro-assisted suicide organization, is not only aggressive promoting the troubling provisions but claims responsibility for the inclusion of the objectionable provisions that would surely result in the denial of life-saving treatments to the most vulnerable patients - the elderly, those with disabilities and others.
My concern is wven more basic. Let's just stipulate that this administration has not ulterior motive. Let's assume that everything about this administration is good and they would never harm anyone through weasel-words in healthcare (like the whole "Death Panel" thing). But what about the next administration? Or the next? Or the one after that?
Giving the government this kind of power opens the door for abuse. Plain and simple.
.....which is PRECISELY the reason that I disagreed with GWB's "Patriot Act" provisions that enabled domestic 'intel.'
Some of those provisions were taken out after Sensenbrenner (and Feingold) objected strenuously--but not enough for my comfort.
Bad policy ALWAYS leads to bad results--sooner or later.
Post a Comment