There are two events that should give people pause when considering universal health care. First is Hurricane Katrina and several facilities euthanisizing patients not because of terminal illness, but because they didn't think they could move them. Second is Charlotte Wyatt who doctors want to euthanize (or more accurately let die) because they don’t think she is worth saving. A court has rules that the doctors can make this decision even though it is contrary to the will of the parents. In the first case, it is people making mistaken practical judgments. In the second case, it's little more than outright eugenics.
It is one thing to let some one commit suicide because they've lived a full life and have little hope of recovery. It is another to mandate death to people because they aren't worth taking care of. The first case can be called "right to die". The second case is more properly called the "right to kill". Confusing the two makes it easier for the "right to die" crowd to be a "right to kill" crowd.
Right now it is particularly difficult for people to be put to death against their stated (or their family members) will in the United States; that is until universal health care is introduced (and hopefully it never will be). To summarize, the government can't be trusted to know which phone calls belong to terrorists and which belong to moms planning on getting their kids to soccer practice. The government can't be trusted to get industry advice and not sell out to the rich. The government can't be trusted even to hold prisoners captured on the field of battle. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE TAKE ALL MY MEDICAL RECORDS AND HAVE COMPLETE CONTROL OVER MY HEALTH CARE!!!
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - lori
Twice in your article you've accused medical personnel in New Orleans of euthanizing patients.
Were you there?
An investigation is underway, but no charges have been filed.
Care to recant your accusation until further evidence is available?
2 - Dave Nalle
I'm not sure that whether or not the accusations are proven makes any difference to JB's basic argument here. If he's repeating accusations that's what he's doing and he's doing it to make a point. I'd say his point is more important than the accuracy of the as yet unproven accusations.
Dave
3 - lori
Well, he's not saying he's just repeating someone else's accusations. He's making statements as if they're fact.
"New Orleans medical professionals decided that it was too much effort to try to keep them alive so they killed them."
Does Blogcritics usually go around making murder accusations?
Whatever point this writer is trying to make gets lost in the first paragraph.
4 - SonnyD
If the point of this post was that John doesn't want the government in charge of health care, I'll agree with that. But what was going on with all the other stuff that was either unproven or downright untrue? If he's trying to make a point that the government can't be trusted to do anything right, he should put a little more effort into it and come up with examples that are true. That shouldn't be too awfully hard.
5 - Bliffle
I think the point is that Socialized Medicine will lead inevitably to economically-inspired euthanasia. But one can make the same case for commercial health insurance (sometimes I feel that my insurance company would like to see me just die now that I've aged from a big premium payer to a big service demander).
6 - Howard
"Bureaucrats like wasting money, when they waste too much there isn't enough to take care of business. Apply this to health care and it means people without money who have come to rely on public health care will get screwed."
Are we so far down the road to universal health care there is no escape? LBJ gave us Medicare, estimated to "someday" cost $10 billion a year. Now that we are into full swing, the program spends hundreds of billions of dollars each year. Where did the "right to medical care from birth to death" come from? We started out with a Bill of Rights that has been amended several times, but still doesn't address a right to health care. Let charities and local agencies continue their historic roles in care of the indigent. Our "rights" need to stop at that level.
7 - Nancy
The government has repeatedly & increasingly demonstrated that they don't know their ass from their elbow(s), and that they can't handle even the most basic emergency services, as well as the most basic routine ones (like medicare, which they've botched, and the port security issue, ditto). So I don't want them poking their inept & officious noses into my medical data or treatment, on ANY pretext. They're already mandating reproductive health & rights, in violation of the constitution, via the FDA & other half-assed charlatan bureaucracies supposed to safeguard public health, that just end up endangering it by kowtowing to current political pressure. I have no doubt that it will soon be 'convenient' to deny coverage to this one or that one because they vote the wrong way, or are the wrong color. Dubya & the goons in the DeLay ring are already abusing the IRS, using it to investigate those who are critical of their shenanigans. I put nothing past politicians (of any party) when it comes to corruption & wrongdoing.
8 - Bliffle
Nancy: "...I have no doubt that it will soon be 'convenient' to deny coverage to this one or that one because they vote the wrong way, or ..."
True. But one can raise the same objections about commercial health insurance, e.g., 'pre-existing conditions', or arbitrarily changing policy terms unilaterally.
9 - Nancy
Yes, and they do. But I still don't want the government sticking its nose in & compounding the difficulties. Anything the government gets involved with immediately becomes exponentially more difficult, entangled, and expensive.
10 - Mark Schannon
Howard, you're correct when you say the Bill of Rights doesn't address health care. Nor does it address social security, pensions, unions, welfare, or universal education. These are moral and values decisions that have evolved over the years. They're legislative, which have the full force of law behind them.
No one can argue that health care costs aren't out of control, but a solution that says simply, no money, no life--which is, in effect what you're saying--does not reflect my values. Charities and local agencies can't take over the health care issue--they can barely afford to address the issues they currently face.
When you turn 65, you'll discover that, unless you're a multi-millionaire--and that's not an exageration--without medicare, if you get ill you're toast and burnt toast at that. Today, without medicare, people would have to pay $15-20,000 a year for barely adequate insurance.
My wife and I are in our late 50s & I'm a consultant, and our insurance plus out of pocket costs are over $20k/year. (Yes, we're smokers, but know what--that adds $2000/year.) How many people can afford that?
If not motivated by humanity, Howard, how about enlighted self-interest?
In Jamesons Veritas
11 - John Bambenek
Lori-
Seems like an admission to me.
The rest-
Commercial health care has problems, but the difference between socialized health care and commercial health care is choice. If the government decides to screw you, your screwed. With commercial health care you can change insurance companies, change medical providers, or try to roll your own. I'm not saying those things are easy to accomplish, but I'm also not defending the current system that does their best to limit choices.
The solution is more free choice in health care, not less. That way when someone has values they are trying to impose you don't like, you go to someone else. If a government tries to impose choices you don't like, you only choice is to emigrate.
12 - Dave Nalle
That does seem pretty definitive, JB. I wonder if any of those who attacked you above will have the grace to apologize.
Dave
13 - Howard
Mark, I fooled you. I have been covered by Medicare for over 12 years but I still think the program was a horrible idea. There is no way to prove it, but I suspect Medicare is the prime reason your medical insurance costs so much. I am also convinced Medicare made thieves out of many doctors, encouraging them to schedule unecessary proceedures and tests just to increase their gross income.
Our health care industry is out of whack. Our costs of a hospital stay to cover some minor proceedure are outrageous. Doctors charge huge fees and yet complain they are barely making ends meet. Costs of prescription drugs are exploding. The primary culprit, I think, is health insurance that does not require a significant co-pay by the insured. The standard attitude of the public is, "if I don't have to pay any more, the sky's the limit." Just another little problem for our elected representatives to solve.
14 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Howard, there is one more problem in the health care system that a nurse midwife pointed out to me when I was flat on my back recovering from a heart attack, a captive audience to her pontificating. The nurse midwife is a family friend.
American hospitals spend huge amounts of money on use and throw items - all of which are made ultimately from pertroleum. They could be saving money on super hot steam laundries to sterilize equipment for re-use like they did when I was a kid.
15 - John Bambenek
Dave-
Every single column I have ever written for my paper has resulted in dozens of letters demanding I apologize for this or that. When they're shown wrong, they never seem to retract. You don't get into the opinions business without being able to take a few hits... sweater vests and all.
Howard and Ruvy-
There is no incentive for hospitals to save. If they can pass the costs on to insurance companies, why do they care? The patient doesn't care as long as they don't pay, either.
16 - RJ Elliott
Whenever the government declares that it will be the sole provider of something, it scares me.
If they alone have the ability to provide a good or a service to me for "free" then they also have the power to prevent me from having access to that good or service, should they choose to "punish" me in that manner.
The more power that we allow a central government to accumulate, the fewer rights and options the citizens have left...
17 - lori
John, I'm not apologizing for anything. That story you linked to gave an unnamed source.
The situation is still under investigation in Louisiana, and no charges have been filed. Until then, try using the word "allegedly."
Also, your statement, "New Orleans medical professionals decided that it was too much effort to try to keep them alive so they killed them" doesn't even have substantiation in the article you linked to. The unnamed source never said any such thing.
18 - John Bambenek
Lori-
Of course you won't apologize, you won't apologize even after there are convictions.
I didn't accuse people of a crime, I accused them of an action. Killing people isn't necessarily murder. That and I'm not bound by innocent until proven guilty becuase I'm not the government or a court.
There is sufficient evidence that it happened t convince me, I can pull up more but you only seem to care what gets proven in a court.
However, the statement that the article doesn't provide substantiation to my claim is just wrong, it very clearly does. But you are entitled to play partisan hack if you want.
19 - Bliffle
Ruvy: "American hospitals spend huge amounts of money on use and throw items - all of which are made ultimately from pertroleum. They could be saving money on super hot steam laundries to sterilize equipment for re-use like they did when I was a kid.
"
Those auto-claves of our youth were expensive to buy and expensive to operate, and the salaries of the operators were expensive, too. The switch to throw-aways was economically inpsired: they're cheaper. Another victory for cheap mass-production over skilled labor. Oh, and sometimes the autoclaves were pushed (to save a little money) and resulted in poor sterilization, scandals, and lawsuits.
20 - Bliffle
Bambe: "Commercial health care has problems, but the difference between socialized health care and commercial health care is choice. If the government decides to screw you, your screwed. With commercial health care you can change insurance companies, change medical providers, or try to roll your own. I'm not saying those things are easy to accomplish, but I'm also not defending the current system that does their best to limit choices.
"
You're living in a dream world. Once you have a "condition", say, artheriosclerosis, you no longer have a choice: you must stick with the commercial company you have, no matter what premium they impose, because nobody else will take you (you have a "preexisting condition"). Nobody wants SICK people! They want Premium Payers, not patients. Premium payers bring IN money, patients require paying OUT money. Get it? They are trying to MAKE money.
21 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Bliffle,
Those auto-claves of our youth were expensive to buy and expensive to operate, and the salaries of the operators were expensive, too. The switch to throw-aways was economically inpsired:
I looked up autoclaves in Wikipedia. Apparently, technology has advanced somewhat - and the price of oil has increased about 9 fold since 1973. Originally, I'm sure you were right. Progress has changed the equasion.
22 - Bliffle
Bambe: "There is no incentive for hospitals to save. If they can pass the costs on to insurance companies, why do they care? The patient doesn't care as long as they don't pay, either."
This discloses your lack of any real management experience in a company or institution. Every department at every level in any arm of a business or institution is constantly under the gun to reduce costs. "Passing along" a cost requires arm-wrestling with YOUR boss, you know, the same guy who determines your pay and advancement. the same guy who does your Performance Review. And what's the easiest thing to spot? The item that's numerical and quantifiable and universal? Costs, that's what. Nobody gets a pass on costs. The only exception to this is Budget Burning, when the Big Boss is approaching end-of-fiscal-year accounting and hasn't spent his budgeted amount and is fearful of having next years budget reduced as a consequence. But that has nothing to do with what you describe.
23 - Bliffle
Howard: ". There is no way to prove it, but I suspect Medicare is the prime reason your medical insurance costs so much."
Huh? How does Medicare affect commercial insurance rates? Surely not by paying doctors glamorous fees, since docs complain about low Medicare rates, and many docs won't even take Medicare patients (complaining about the low rates).
" I am also convinced Medicare made thieves out of many doctors, encouraging them to schedule unecessary proceedures and tests just to increase their gross income."
Huh? Docs complain that Medicare is making them poor. I've had endless problems getting docs to give NECESSARY tests, like a simple blood test or an EEG, etc.
"Our health care industry is out of whack. Our costs of a hospital stay to cover some minor proceedure are outrageous. Doctors charge huge fees and yet complain they are barely making ends meet."
As far as I know, my heart doc is not complaining: he has two very nice Ferraris. A bit flashy, but he has good taste: one is a Dino.
" Costs of prescription drugs are exploding. The primary culprit, I think, is health insurance that does not require a significant co-pay by the insured."
No, you're wrong. The high cost of drugs is the consequence of the monopoly that each pharma has on it's favorite drugs, even tho they may have been developed in a publicly funded university or at the NIH. The congress is quite compliant in extending the patent periods. US citizens, in particular, are trapped into being Big Payers for drugs (that they helped develop as taxpayers) compared to foreigners. Our congress, under the relentless pressure of thousands of pharma lobbyists are screwing the public. It's a very successful conspiracy. Changing the co-pay changes nothing. It's not patients fault.
I think you're just guessing about what causes the problems.
My GP tells me that under relentless pressure from the Commercial Insurance Companies she's had to raise her patient load from 600 to 2000 patients, so she's working 12 hours a day to provide good service. Other docs may be short-changing their patients to make their own lives easier.
The problems in the health system are the result of the efforts of the insurance companies, hospitals, pharmas, AMA, etc., to reap huge profits while insulating themselves from risk. They've built a lobbying system that is unmatched to push their parochial goals. And it works: the health industry is the most profitable and the least risky of any business in the US. Salaries and bonuses of execs are tops. Just ask Bill Frist.
24 - John Bambenek
Bliffle-
Even if that were true, then I'd say more choice, let the person switch out. As I understand federal law, once you are insured, you can switch insurance companies during election periods and retain coverage without preexisting conditions. What makes you think government run health care isn't about bring in money too? They have the same incentives. The difference is you can bring in more money with good customer service.
There are also other economic incentives that can be put in place to help the process along. I'm not saying it's ideal, but it's better than a system that is government run that has no incentives at all.
As far as management experience of a company I have no interest in comparing qualifications except to say that a company who cannot pass their costs on and still makes a profit has a technical name... "bankrupt". That's what businesses all do, pass on costs. Sure, they have incentives to reduce costs, but if they can inflate their margins by selling $2 knee braces to insurance companies for $150, don't you think they'd do it? They're also under the gun to increase revenue, after all.
25 - Baronius
"There is no way to prove it, but I suspect Medicare is the prime reason your medical insurance costs so much."
Here's your proof: go set up a lemonade stand. I promise I'll buy lemonade for 90% of your customers, no matter how much you charge. Your only obligation is that you have to charge the same price to everyone.
What do you think is going to happen to the price of lemonade?