Krauthammer: An Obamacare Exit Strategy

Charles Johnson

HealthAugust 2009 • Views: 2,487

Charles Krauthammer takes a rather cynical look at A Strategy to Save Obamacare.

Jump to bottom

123 comments

Killgore Trout Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:26:47am

He buys into the Death Panel thing...

(2) Jettison any reference to end-of-life counseling. People see (correctly) such Medicare-paid advice as subtle encouragement to voluntarily refuse treatment. People don't want government involvement in a process they consider the private province of patient, family and doctor. The Senate is already dropping it. The House must follow.

Makes the rest of his assertions on this topic suspect to me.

JohnnyReb Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:27:43am

This is spot on and why most people do not want reform in the traditional sense:

"Once granted, guaranteed universal health care is not relinquished."

lawhawk Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:27:59am

Any reasonable idea about health care reform will be rejected precisely because it will be too reasonable for the left wing of the Democrat party. They want single payer, and are more than willing to block it to get their way. That might get some GOPers on board, but as Krauthammer says, this is going to be a bait and switch, and it will still end up costing taxpayers trillions in the end.

Baier Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:28:22am

re: #1 Killgore Trout

I think you're misreading that. He wrote a piece saying Palin and CO. had is wrong on the death panels that was posted here.

lawhawk Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:29:08am

re: #1 Killgore Trout

He buys into the Death Panel thing...

Makes the rest of his assertions on this topic suspect to me.

See what Krauthammer said about it in his previous op-ed on the subject. It warned that the voluntariness of such discussions had built in incentives to provide care that didn't extend to heroic measures - the kind of measures that many people want.

Killgore Trout Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:29:11am

Interesting...

Government will impose an individual mandate that will force the purchase of health insurance on the millions of healthy young people who today forgo it. And government will subsidize all the others who are too poor to buy health insurance. The result? Two enormous new revenue streams created by government for the insurance companies.
And here's what makes it so politically seductive: The end result is the liberal dream of universal and guaranteed coverage -- but without overt nationalization.

Fast Eddie Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:29:46am

Seems to me that we should be thinking more about an Obama Exit Strategy for the whole country.

VioletTiger Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:29:58am

I hope Mr Krauthammer is wrong this time and what he predicts does not come to pass. This is a good reason right here:

The regulated insurance companies will get two things in return. Government will impose an individual mandate that will force the purchase of health insurance on the millions of healthy young people who today forgo it. And government will subsidize all the others who are too poor to buy health insurance. The result? Two enormous new revenue streams created by government for the insurance companies.

And here's what makes it so politically seductive: The end result is the liberal dream of universal and guaranteed coverage -- but without overt nationalization. It is all done through private insurance companies. Ostensibly private. They will, in reality, have been turned into government utilities. No longer able to control whom they can enroll, whom they can drop and how much they can limit their own liability, they will live off government largess -- subsidized premiums from the poor; forced premiums from the young and healthy.

More government, less liberty.
Just say no.

Baier Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:30:13am

re: #1 Killgore Trout

He buys into the Death Panel thing...

Makes the rest of his assertions on this topic suspect to me.

We might start by asking Sarah Palin to leave the room. I've got nothing against her. She's a remarkable political talent. But there are no "death panels" in the Democratic health care bills, and to say that there are is to debase the debate.

Linkage

lawhawk Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:30:13am

re: #6 Killgore Trout

And it will still allow the Democrats to revile insurance companies, even as the insurers rack up profits because of the new revenue streams. Warren Buffett must love that idea.

Occasional Reader Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:30:40am

"Cynical"? No, "clear-eyed" is what I'd call it.

Killgore Trout Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:31:08am

re: #5 lawhawk

Personally I would want end of life counseling. I think it's a very important part of healthcare. In fact it might even be the most important thing we will face in our entire lives. Why should we get counseling for it?

karmic_inquisitor Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:31:40am

In some language somewhere "Mendacity" is an anagram from "Barack Obama".

Occasional Reader Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:31:45am

Guys, stop trying to bully Killgore into not distorting what conservatives write or say... it's terribly mean of you.

calcajun Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:31:53am

As I said earlier, the plan in its present state is benign. Wait until costs go up--the boomers get old--and then you will see the "counselors" suggesting death with dignity to gram and pappy--only we're going to be gram and pappy when it happens.

There's a lot there to digest--must ponder this.

Walter L. Newton Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:32:35am

re: #14 Occasional Reader

Guys, stop trying to bully Killgore into not distorting what conservatives write or say... it's terribly mean of you.

/

He's entitled to his opinion here.

Ben Hur Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:32:51am

re: #14 Occasional Reader

Guys, stop trying to bully Killgore into not distorting what conservatives write or say... it's terribly mean of you.

/

You sound a little grumpy this am.

Didn't you have your breakfast?

MacDuff Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:33:25am

Adopting a "cynical" view of anything Obama does is, I believe, rather prudent.

Mostly sane, most of the time. Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:33:33am

re: #17 Ben Hur

You sound a little grumpy this am.

Didn't you have your breakfast?

One of those items would be a little crunchy.

Killgore Trout Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:33:44am

re: #9 Baier

It's not an outrage. It's surely not a death panel. But it is subtle pressure applied by society through your doctor. And when you include it in a health care reform whose major objective is to bend the cost curve downward, you have to be a fool or a knave to deny that it's intended to gently point you in a certain direction, toward the corner of the sick room where stands a ghostly figure, scythe in hand, offering release.

I just don't see it that way.

itellu3times Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:35:31am

Sounds about right to me.

But I can't see little Miss Botox following this good advice.

Wendya Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:35:42am

re: #12 Killgore Trout

Personally I would want end of life counseling. I think it's a very important part of healthcare. In fact it might even be the most important thing we will face in our entire lives. Why should we get counseling for it?

There is nothing stopping you from telling your loved ones and putting your wishes into writing. Why should the taxpayers fund a formal counseling session? I wrote up an advance health care directive 10 years ago without any doctor or government pushing me to do so.

Killgore Trout Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:35:44am

In regards to end of life counseling: It should be offered. It should be mandatory that it be available. Just because some people are afraid of it doesn't mean that others should be deprived of the service.

VioletTiger Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:36:26am

re: #12 Killgore Trout

Personally I would want end of life counseling. I think it's a very important part of healthcare. In fact it might even be the most important thing we will face in our entire lives. Why should we get counseling for it?

I'm not sure you actually need counceling for this.

Mr Tiger and I both have living wills, etc. My mother did as well. The hardest thing I ever had to do is comply with her wishes.
Most people discuss this already with loved ones.

Walter L. Newton Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:36:52am

re: #22 Wendya

There is nothing stopping you from telling your loved ones and putting your wishes into writing. Why should the taxpayers fund a formal counseling session? I wrote up an advance health care directive 10 years ago without any doctor or government pushing me to do so.

Because some people like the idea of socialized health care. Simple.

Killgore Trout Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:36:57am

re: #22 Wendya

It's a service that should be available. Maybe I don't understand all the implications, maybe there are things I haven't thought of. I think it's an important decision.

reine.de.tout Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:37:56am

re: #12 Killgore Trout

Personally I would want end of life counseling. I think it's a very important part of healthcare. In fact it might even be the most important thing we will face in our entire lives. Why should we get counseling for it?

You can get "end of life" counseling now.

In fact, my parents had their "end of life" instructions written into the power of attorney and medical power of attorney they gave me.

It is common practice.

Mostly sane, most of the time. Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:38:36am

The thought I keep having is that Charles Krauthammer has more reason than most of us do to care about the state of health care in America. I am not physically fragile; odds are, I will not need any major medical care in the next 12 months. He will, every day, for the rest of his life.

Danny Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:39:02am

Am I reading this wrong or is Krauthammer sarcastically pretending to offer democrats a way to "salvage" healthcare reform, but really warning the reader to "watch out"?

Kragar Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:39:17am

The thing to remember about Obamacare is -

GOOD LORD, WHAT IS THAT!

itellu3times Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:39:22am

re: #20 Killgore Trout

I just don't see it that way.

Well you're right, and CK was engaging in some hyperbole there, but the whole point of the bill will eventually put decision power and rationing under government control, so misplacing the fault under the counseling section isn't as awful as it would be if there really were no such problems elsewhere.

MJ Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:39:24am

"...This scheme is the ultimate bait-and-switch. The pleasure comes now, the pain later. Government-subsidized universal and virtually unlimited coverage will vastly compound already out-of-control government spending on health care. The financial and budgetary consequences will be catastrophic.
However, they will not appear immediately. And when they do, the only solution will be rationing. That's when the liberals will give the FCCCER regulatory power and give you end-of-life counseling...

Rationing will not effect everyone equally. Anyone think for one moment that members of Congress will have their or their families health care rationed?

zombie Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:39:32am

From Krauthammer:

(2) Jettison any reference to end-of-life counseling. People see (correctly) such Medicare-paid advice as subtle encouragement to voluntarily refuse treatment. People don't want government involvement in a process they consider the private province of patient, family and doctor. The Senate is already dropping it. The House must follow.

I don't agree -- I just saw "Logan's Run" again last night and I kind of like the system they had. You can even choose your own music, and a nice scene of deer grazing in a meadow...ah, just go to sleep...forever.

I want the Logan's Run Act appended to the bill!

JammieWearingFool Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:39:33am

Maybe insulting opponents of ObamaCare a little bit more would help the cause.

Sharmuta Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:39:59am

(5) Promise nothing but pleasure -- for now. Make health insurance universal and permanently protected. Tear up the existing bills and write a clean one -- Obamacare 2.0 -- promulgating draconian health-insurance regulation that prohibits (a) denying coverage for preexisting conditions, (b) dropping coverage if the client gets sick and (c) capping insurance company reimbursement.

This is the one aspect of the bill I actually support. I understand it's a business, but insurance companies not covering pre-existing conditions such as Downs Syndrome is disgusting, and kicking sick people off their coverage defeats the purpose of having the insurance in the first place, imo.

I'd really like to see some common sense reforms go through instead of this monstrosity. Why we can't take baby steps to reform issues here and there and see the effect before moving on to other issues s beyond me.

Wendya Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:40:08am

re: #20 Killgore Trout

I just don't see it that way.

Of course you don't. When it's the government directing counseling there is going to be a subtle push towards death. Do you really think Mr "Give grannie a pill and make sure she is bedridden for the rest of her shortened life" Is going to support people who want to extend their lives through any means necessary? You can bet your ass there will be a lot of guilt trips laid on the terminally ill and elderly to just "give up" and stop being a burden on their families.

reine.de.tout Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:40:25am

re: #26 Killgore Trout

It's a service that should be available. Maybe I don't understand all the implications, maybe there are things I haven't thought of. I think it's an important decision.

The "service" exists now. In fact, there is quite a lot of information about this, including a booklet the VA issued which lists questions that people should ask themselves. Many people have a "living will" (my parents did).

avanti Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:40:29am

Found a new poll linked from Hot Air on health care, perceptions of Obama's , 2012 match ups, GOP candidates and more.

Lots of poll data.

kansas Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:40:37am

re: #33 zombie

From Krauthammer:

I don't agree -- I just saw "Logan's Run" again last night and I kind of like the system they had. You can even choose your own music, and a nice scene of deer grazing in a meadow...ah, just go to sleep...forever.

I want the Logan's Run Act appended to the bill!

I want to have mine with a young Jenny Agutter.

VioletTiger Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:40:41am

re: #22 Wendya

There is nothing stopping you from telling your loved ones and putting your wishes into writing. Why should the taxpayers fund a formal counseling session? I wrote up an advance health care directive 10 years ago without any doctor or government pushing me to do so.

Exactly.
And when it comes down to it, they ask you anyway.
My Mom had her directive right there. I had a copy in my hands. But they still asked me what I wanted to do.
This is a personal and family decision and discussion. I have no problem with people discussing it. I just don't think it REQUIRES any sort of professional counseling.

Cato the Elder Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:40:43am

re: #24 VioletTiger

I'm not sure you actually need counceling for this.

Mr Tiger and I both have living wills, etc. My mother did as well. The hardest thing I ever had to do is comply with her wishes.
Most people discuss this already with loved ones.

Because you don't need or want counseling, it shouldn't be offered to anyone else who might desire it?

I will never need a hysterectomy. People should pay for their own if they want 'em.

Kenneth Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:41:08am

Krauthammer nails it here:

Isn't there a catch? Of course there is. This scheme is the ultimate bait-and-switch. The pleasure comes now, the pain later. Government-subsidized universal and virtually unlimited coverage will vastly compound already out-of-control government spending on health care. The financial and budgetary consequences will be catastrophic.

However, they will not appear immediately. And when they do, the only solution will be rationing. That's when the liberals will give the FCCCER regulatory power and give you end-of-life counseling.

But by then, resistance will be feeble. Why? Because at that point the only remaining option will be to give up the benefits we will have become accustomed to. Once granted, guaranteed universal health care is not relinquished. Look at Canada. Look at Britain. They got hooked; now they ration. So will we.

Up here in Canada, all governments are struggling with healthcare costs that will not go down. Several provincial governments are looking at ways to introduce private healthcare. We're trying to get out of the morass, while the US seems determined to jump in.

doppelganglander Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:41:25am

re: #26 Killgore Trout

It's a service that should be available. Maybe I don't understand all the implications, maybe there are things I haven't thought of. I think it's an important decision.

It's a very important decision, which is why many people do not want the government involved. I've expressed my wishes verbally to my family, and when I'm older or if I'm in poor health, I'll get it in writing. I don't want a government employee sitting me down with a copy of "So You're Thinking You Should Just Die Already."

Kosh's Shadow Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:42:27am

re: #33 zombie

From Krauthammer:

I don't agree -- I just saw "Logan's Run" again last night and I kind of like the system they had. You can even choose your own music, and a nice scene of deer grazing in a meadow...ah, just go to sleep...forever.

I want the Logan's Run Act appended to the bill!

Wasn't that at in Soylent Green, not Logan's Run?
Logan's Run, they just kind of exploded in midair, IIRC. (Saw it many years ago.)

Mostly sane, most of the time. Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:43:10am

re: #44 Kosh's Shadow

Wasn't that at in Soylent Green, not Logan's Run?
Logan's Run, they just kind of exploded in midair, IIRC. (Saw it many years ago.)

You also got offed really, really young in Logan's Run. 21 in the book, 30 in the movie, IIRC.

(Full disclosure: I'm 39)

VioletTiger Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:43:37am

re: #35 Sharmuta

This is the one aspect of the bill I actually support. I understand it's a business, but insurance companies not covering pre-existing conditions such as Downs Syndrome is disgusting, and kicking sick people off their coverage defeats the purpose of having the insurance in the first place, imo.

I'd really like to see some common sense reforms go through instead of this monstrosity. Why we can't take baby steps to reform issues here and there and see the effect before moving on to other issues s beyond me.

The first thing they need to tackle is tort reform.
But they won't.

MacDuff Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:44:09am

It seems that every discussion of heathcare seems to evolve into a discussion about "end of life" issues and death. Odd.

Killgore Trout Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:45:02am

re: #27 reine.de.tout

You can get "end of life" counseling now.

Yes, through many insurance programs it is available. It should continue to be available after healthcare reform.

Wendya Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:45:03am

re: #26 Killgore Trout

It's a service that should be available. Maybe I don't understand all the implications, maybe there are things I haven't thought of. I think it's an important decision.

So we should subsidize counseling for the clueless? I'd say the vast majority of people know they must make their wishes known or their families will do it for them. If they choose not to act, that is their right and you need to respect it.

Kenneth Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:45:25am

re: #46 VioletTiger

The first thing they need to tackle is tort reform.
But they won't.

Tort reform won't be a cake walk.

Occasional Reader Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:45:38am

re: #17 Ben Hur

You sound a little grumpy this am.

Didn't you have your breakfast?

Mmmm... Kimberlicious...

Flyovercountry Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:46:51am

Krauthammer managed to hit the nail on the head with this one. Simply changing the terms and rephrasing things in terms of salesmanship is where this debate is going to go next. As conservatives, we need to stop accepting the premises of the left. Our health care system is not broken. As a compassionate society, we do need to provide health care for our citizens who can not afford it, but we already do that. Here is that program.
[Link: www.cms.hhs.gov...]
If you read this, you will see that the poor actually do quite well for themselves. This monstrosity of a plan is not about health care, it is about government control.

haakondahl Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:46:59am

re: #1 Killgore Trout

He buys into the Death Panel thing...

Makes the rest of his assertions on this topic suspect to me.

No he doesn't, FFS. He fired a broadside to starboard and a broadside to port a few days ago.
He found the end-of-life counseling creepy, and intrusive if mandated. He also thought Palin did a lot more harm than good screeching about "death panels".

debutaunt Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:47:18am

re: #43 doppelganglander

It's a very important decision, which is why many people do not want the government involved. I've expressed my wishes verbally to my family, and when I'm older or if I'm in poor health, I'll get it in writing. I don't want a government employee sitting me down with a copy of "So You're Thinking You Should Just Die Already."

I don't believe the government is interested in what's best for me. My doctor and family have that interest.

Sharmuta Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:47:48am

re: #46 VioletTiger

The first thing they need to tackle is tort reform.
But they won't.

I agree! But there are other reforms we could get now that many of us would support, but this bill and the lack of tort reform make support from the right and moderates evaporate.

Occasional Reader Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:48:38am

re: #42 Kenneth

Krauthammer nails it here:

Up here in Canada, all governments are struggling with healthcare costs that will not go down. Several provincial governments are looking at ways to introduce private healthcare. We're trying to get out of the morass, while the US seems determined to jump in.

And of course, all the Dems indignantly deny that they're seeing Obamacare as merely the camel's nose in the tent, on the path to "single payer" Nirvana. Taranto has been doing a brilliant job exposing their, er, what's the term... oh yeah, lying on this topic. I always find it quite astonishing when a politician of any stripe will indignantly deny positions he has publicly taken only a few years (or months) back; even (as in the case of Obama on this topic) talking points put on his own website, audio and video recordings, etc. One really has to ask: Just how stupid do they think we are?

Cato the Elder Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:48:47am

re: #49 Wendya

So we should subsidize counseling for the clueless? I'd say the vast majority of people know they must make their wishes known or their families will do it for them. If they choose not to act, that is their right and you need to respect it.

God forbid there should be any help available in deciding about the various options. Because, you know, it's simpler than buying a car or investing in a Wall Street scam.

doppelganglander Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:49:06am

re: #48 Killgore Trout

Yes, through many insurance programs it is available. It should continue to be available after healthcare reform.

It's also available from non-profit organizations that serve the elderly. I've never had to look into it, but I suspect if you are dealing with a particular, potentially fatal disease, the organizations for that disease can also help you out. Not everything has to be done by the government.

reine.de.tout Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:49:07am

re: #48 Killgore Trout

Yes, through many insurance programs it is available. It should continue to be available after healthcare reform.

Actually, I'm not aware that my insurance covers "end of life" counseling. It does cover doctor's office visits and annual exams, during which time I can ASK the doctor any questions I have about these things.

Otherwise, end of life "counseling", as far as I know, is done through a living will or in written or verbal instructions people give to their caretakers. There are plenty of websites that give examples of living wills and other questions people should ask themselves when determining what their end-of-life wishes will be.

VioletTiger Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:49:08am

re: #41 Cato the Elder

Because you don't need or want counseling, it shouldn't be offered to anyone else who might desire it?

I will never need a hysterectomy. People should pay for their own if they want 'em.

I said it does not REQUIRE professional counceling.
Doesn't mean you can't get it. It's a decision and an important one, but it is not healthcare.

Occasional Reader Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:49:22am

re: #50 Kenneth

Tort reform won't be a cake walk.

I have some very informative pie charts that demonstrate exactly how difficult it will be.

VioletTiger Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:49:43am

re: #50 Kenneth

Tort reform won't be a cake walk.

mmm, looks like Italian cream!

zombie Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:49:53am

re: #44 Kosh's Shadow

Wasn't that at in Soylent Green, not Logan's Run?
Logan's Run, they just kind of exploded in midair, IIRC. (Saw it many years ago.)

Drat, you're right.

It's just that "Soylent Green" has such a bad reputation these days, I think the public would agree to the "Logan's Run Act" more readily, despite the inaccuracy.

Cato the Elder Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:50:53am

The rest of the world only wishes they had our insurance system. They line up to come here for MBAs so they can go home and replicate it there.

Mostly sane, most of the time. Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:51:07am

My grandmother did her end-of-life counseling with her doctor and her daughter. I don't see why the government should get involved.

A doctor can give you realistic answers about what you might face, and your next-of-kin should be there so they know what you chose.

reine.de.tout Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:51:27am

re: #58 doppelganglander

It's also available from non-profit organizations that serve the elderly. I've never had to look into it, but I suspect if you are dealing with a particular, potentially fatal disease, the organizations for that disease can also help you out. Not everything has to be done by the government.

This sort of counseling and assistance exists now without government intervention, and as you say, assistance is available at no charge. No government intrusion needed.

VioletTiger Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:51:27am

re: #55 Sharmuta

I agree! But there are other reforms we could get now that many of us would support, but this bill and the lack of tort reform make support from the right and moderates evaporate.

I like your idea of doing this in baby steps.

Too bad the One insists on a big win or nothing.

MacDuff Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:52:10am

re: #63 zombie

Maybe they'll just bribe us Boomers to off ourselves like in "Boomsday".

NukeAtomrod Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:52:14am

I gotta say, Krauthammer hit the nail on the head again. Obama would do himself a lot of good if he would take his advice.

NukeAtomrod Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:52:54am

re: #63 zombie

Drat, you're right.

It's just that "Soylent Green" has such a bad reputation these days, I think the public would agree to the "Logan's Run Act" more readily, despite the inaccuracy.

We could all hope to RENEW!

haakondahl Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:52:55am

re: #14 Occasional Reader

Guys, stop trying to bully Killgore into not distorting what conservatives write or say... it's terribly mean of you.

/

Sick to fucking death of the Killgore and Cato axis of weevils. You two flounce off in every other post. It's not the disagreements, or even the disagreeableness, if you will. It's the insufferably smug dismissals you excrete upon the unwashed masses of lizards.
I don't agree with Avanti or ice a whole lot of the time, but I guess they haven't been here long enough to grow such malignant disdain for LGF as you two have.

SixDegrees Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:53:49am

re: #22 Wendya

There is nothing stopping you from telling your loved ones and putting your wishes into writing. Why should the taxpayers fund a formal counseling session? I wrote up an advance health care directive 10 years ago without any doctor or government pushing me to do so.

Good for you. Unfortunately, you are in a small minority. People are, by and large, woefully unprepared for death or incapacity, and the problem is particularly acute for younger people. Much unnecessary grief is suffered because people haven't made their wishes known or put their affairs in formal order. The Schiavo case is a prime example of horror played out over years that ought to have been prevented by a couple hours chat with an attorney with expertise in such matters. I see nothing at all wrong with encouraging people to make the time for such things before happenstance places self-direction beyond their abilities.

haakondahl Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:54:24am

re: #44 Kosh's Shadow

Wasn't that at in Soylent Green, not Logan's Run?
Logan's Run, they just kind of exploded in midair, IIRC. (Saw it many years ago.)

Parts: The Clonus Horror

See the MST3K version--save yourself the trouble.

"Have some sun, my little friend..."

danrudy Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:54:28am

WSJ opinion piece which describes Emanuels belief that MD's should serve societies needs and not just advocate for their individual patients. ("the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...for the trekkies)

Agree or disagree, I believe much of the "death Panel " discussion gets in genesis in such opinions as offered by Dr. Emanuel

[Link: online.wsj.com...]

back to work

Cato the Elder Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:55:39am

re: #65 EmmmieG

My grandmother did her end-of-life counseling with her doctor and her daughter. I don't see why the government should get involved.

A doctor can give you realistic answers about what you might face, and your next-of-kin should be there so they know what you chose.

The government is not getting involved. Requiring that a service be offered by insurance does not mean those providing the service will be "from the government".

danrudy Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:55:47am

opps...from the article...

"Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.""

reine.de.tout Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:55:52am

re: #65 EmmmieG

My grandmother did her end-of-life counseling with her doctor and her daughter. I don't see why the government should get involved.

A doctor can give you realistic answers about what you might face, and your next-of-kin should be there so they know what you chose.

If a person has a fatal disease, yes, this can be done during a doctor's visit.

for those of us who don't yet have a disease, general information is available and can be written into a "living will" - there are various forms for that readily available for anyone who looks for it.
Legal Zoom

Caring connections

Mayo Clinic

AllLaw.com

Illinois Living Will form

Kenneth Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:55:53am

re: #56 Occasional Reader

One really has to ask: Just how stupid do they think we are?

Stupid enough to vote for a man with no executive experience, no managerial experience and very little legislative experience to the most important job in the world.

Cato the Elder Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:56:26am

re: #71 haakondahl

Sick to fucking death of the Killgore and Cato axis of weevils. You two flounce off in every other post. It's not the disagreements, or even the disagreeableness, if you will. It's the insufferably smug dismissals you excrete upon the unwashed masses of lizards.
I don't agree with Avanti or ice a whole lot of the time, but I guess they haven't been here long enough to grow such malignant disdain for LGF as you two have.

Tough, Nancy.

haakondahl Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:57:14am

re: #67 VioletTiger

I like your idea of doing this in baby steps.

Too bad the One insists on a big win or nothing.

Of course, this is exactly what John Boehner, Jon Kyl, John S. McCain, Joe Lieberman, Hugh Hewitt, and a shitpile of other non-socialists are saying--have been saying for WEEKS. You want a link, listen to Hugh Hewitt. That's the most informative link you'll see posted here.

The MSM embargo of conservatives has only gotten more complete.

Kenneth Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:57:34am

re: #61 Occasional Reader

I have some very informative pie charts that demonstrate exactly how difficult it will be.

Always going for the brownie points, aren't you?

haakondahl Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:57:49am

re: #79 Cato the Elder

Tough, Nancy.

Yeah, I know.

SixDegrees Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:59:13am

re: #24 VioletTiger

I'm not sure you actually need counceling for this.

Mr Tiger and I both have living wills, etc. My mother did as well. The hardest thing I ever had to do is comply with her wishes.
Most people discuss this already with loved ones.

Actually, most people don't discuss it. And even fewer actually do anything about what they discuss. People get better about chatting it up as they get older, but this leaves millions of young people unprotected in the event of catastrophic accident or illness that leaves them unable to communicate. If you're concerned about making your wishes stick, it is crucial that you have documents spelling out your wishes and empowering some other individual with the ability to make medical decisions on your behalf should you be unable to. If not, you will wind up being put through the state's default method of care, which may or may not be to your liking. Even if it is, though, the decision to accept the default option is one that needs to be made consciously, with full knowledge of what it entails.

SixDegrees Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:02:06am

re: #77 reine.de.tout

If a person has a fatal disease, yes, this can be done during a doctor's visit.

for those of us who don't yet have a disease, general information is available and can be written into a "living will" - there are various forms for that readily available for anyone who looks for it.
Legal Zoom

Caring connections

Mayo Clinic

AllLaw.com

Illinois Living Will form

All true. Without reviewing the specific sites you linked, let me just add that state laws vary tremendously, and you really need to sit down with an attorney with expertise in these matters to ensure that they get done right. The Internet isn't a bad starting point, but this is one of those times when you really need an expert to put things together correctly.

reine.de.tout Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:02:17am

re: #83 SixDegrees

Actually, most people don't discuss it. And even fewer actually do anything about what they discuss. People get better about chatting it up as they get older, but this leaves millions of young people unprotected in the event of catastrophic accident or illness that leaves them unable to communicate. If you're concerned about making your wishes stick, it is crucial that you have documents spelling out your wishes and empowering some other individual with the ability to make medical decisions on your behalf should you be unable to. If not, you will wind up being put through the state's default method of care, which may or may not be to your liking. Even if it is, though, the decision to accept the default option is one that needs to be made consciously, with full knowledge of what it entails.

Well, you see - the provision that people are upset about is the one that says it shall be provided to older people, who you just said are the ones who already think about this and plan for it.

It is not available to younger folks, who you indicate are the ones who need to be thinking about it.

Bottom line - there is plenty of information out there already for people who care to look for it, and it can already be discussed with your doctor during a visit. If people fail to do it, I see absolutely no good coming of having the government REQUIRE people to think about this issue if it isn't one that's important to them.

reine.de.tout Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:02:48am

re: #84 SixDegrees

All true. Without reviewing the specific sites you linked, let me just add that state laws vary tremendously, and you really need to sit down with an attorney with expertise in these matters to ensure that they get done right. The Internet isn't a bad starting point, but this is one of those times when you really need an expert to put things together correctly.

Correct.
And attorneys are not covered in the healthcare bill, I don't think.

MacDuff Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:02:56am

re: #76 danrudy

opps...from the article...

"Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.""

Hmmm, so if you dicriminate against the aged just because they're old, that's bad. If you discrimate against them because they've lived longer, that's OK?

calcajun Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:03:02am

re: #33 zombie

From Krauthammer:

I don't agree -- I just saw "Logan's Run" again last night and I kind of like the system they had. You can even choose your own music, and a nice scene of deer grazing in a meadow...ah, just go to sleep...forever.

I want the Logan's Run Act appended to the bill!

nah-- Soylent Green was better. They should have a provision where they get to make crackers of crackers.

Wendya Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:03:39am

re: #83 SixDegrees

People get better about chatting it up as they get older, but this leaves millions of young people unprotected in the event of catastrophic accident or illness that leaves them unable to communicate.

I'm not really crazy about younger people completing advance directives, unless they have a terminal illness. What you believe about quality of life is different when you're 25 and bulletproof.

Cato the Elder Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:03:42am

re: #82 haakondahl

Yeah, I know.

Malignant disdain, is it?

I call it like I see it. Being a lizard gives one no more automatic claim to respect than being a Kossack.

LGF is my hangout, and I love it here. And I have always said what I think. Which changes from day to day and hour to hour, depending, in part, on the environment. I'm poikilothermic that way...it's a lizard thing.

reine.de.tout Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:04:20am

re: #89 Wendya

I'm not really crazy about younger people completing advance directives, unless they have a terminal illness. What you believe about quality of life is different when you're 25 and bulletproof.

Not only that but the healthcare bill doesn't say anything about 25 year olds, only older folks.

3 wood Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:04:25am

re: #26 Killgore Trout

It's a service that should be available. Maybe I don't understand all the implications, maybe there are things I haven't thought of. I think it's an important decision.

So go get your counseling already, nobody is going to stop you.

The problem lies more in expecting others to pay for it for you.

SixDegrees Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:05:13am

re: #85 reine.de.tout

Well, you see - the provision that people are upset about is the one that says it shall be provided to older people, who you just said are the ones who already think about this and plan for it.

It is not available to younger folks, who you indicate are the ones who need to be thinking about it.

Bottom line - there is plenty of information out there already for people who care to look for it, and it can already be discussed with your doctor during a visit. If people fail to do it, I see absolutely no good coming of having the government REQUIRE people to think about this issue if it isn't one that's important to them.

If they're going to pay for such counseling, they need to pay for everyone's counseling.

I haven't seen anything indicating it was limited to a particular age group.

SixDegrees Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:06:41am

re: #86 reine.de.tout

Correct.
And attorneys are not covered in the healthcare bill, I don't think.

The only thing I've seen is a provision to pay for periodic counseling. No word on what the specifics might be.

It's a moot point anyway. The provision has apparently been removed due to the massive amount of misinformation being spread about it.

danrudy Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:07:16am

re: #87 MacDuff

I happen to agree with you. I think rationing is or at the very least leads to dangerous consequences. First it based upon age and then a new criteria is set up...usefulness to society, income...lol

Slippery slopes all around

Walter L. Newton Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:07:19am

re: #94 SixDegrees

The only thing I've seen is a provision to pay for periodic counseling. No word on what the specifics might be.

It's a moot point anyway. The provision has apparently been removed due to the massive amount of misinformation being spread about it.

... being spread by the progressives.

Wendya Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:07:47am

re: #91 reine.de.tout

Not only that but the healthcare bill doesn't say anything about 25 year olds, only older folks.

Of course. Older folks cost the system more money. What's cheaper? Giving grandma a pain pill or spending money on surgery that will improve her quality of life for a few more years?

Cato the Elder Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:08:19am

re: #82 haakondahl

Oh, and Haakon: Killgore and I flounce? You should live so long.

calcajun Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:09:24am

re: #98 Cato the Elder

Oh, and Haakon: Killgore and I flounce? You should live so long.

Not together. Besides, they'd need costumes and music, and the lighting would have be right...

100

reine.de.tout Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:09:31am

re: #92 3 wood

So go get your counseling already, nobody is going to stop you.

The problem lies more in expecting others to pay for it for you.

Exactly, this is currently done, especially when:
1. A person has a fatal or catastrophic disease and they discuss this issue with their doctor as they discuss treatment options, outlook, etc, OR it's done. when
2. A person goes to their lawyer to have a will drawn up, very often the "package" will include a "living will", general in nature because there is no disease confronting the person at that time. Options cannot be discussed unless there exists a disease or condition for which options exist.

But now, it's all done at the behest of an individual person for whom this is an important question. We are not told by the government that we MUST think about this; we can do in it our own time, in our own way.

101

reine.de.tout Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:10:45am

re: #93 SixDegrees

If they're going to pay for such counseling, they need to pay for everyone's counseling.

I haven't seen anything indicating it was limited to a particular age group.

It isn't limited now.
It exists now.

102

reine.de.tout Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:12:53am

re: #94 SixDegrees

The only thing I've seen is a provision to pay for periodic counseling. No word on what the specifics might be.

It's a moot point anyway. The provision has apparently been removed due to the massive amount of misinformation being spread about it.

The provision to pay for it, iirc, was to pay for it once a person had reached a certain age.

Again, it does not keep a younger person from getting the counseling and having it paid for.

But honestly - how much "counseling" do you need if you don't currently have a disease or condition that could be fatal? Without a fatal disease, the only "counseling" that's available would have to be very general in nature, and information is easily obtainable from your doctor during a visit or from many other sources.

103

Drider Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:13:33am

It was an interesting article right up to the point where uninsured people being forced to buy insurance to give insurance companies enormous streams of revenue.First it forces insurance on people who don't need or want it,hence. give me liberty or give me death...or insurance I guess.Second it will probably force small businesses to purchase this insurance as they are talking about now which is a small business "killer".

Also, I don't think CK recognizes that this administration's entire focus is not on health care, it's on the absolute power that socialized health care will bring them.I don't believe for a second that CK would agree to the plan he laid out himself being he has always been a rather staunch blue blooded conservative, it reads almost like a surrender when you offer up freedom and liberty in favor of entitlements.
Maybe someday in the distant future the CK types will once again be adversaries who have those in power get sweat on their foreheads after reading his columns but at this point in time he is like Internet blogs, good reads, some banter between powerless, voiceless people and useless as tits on a bull as far as altering the shit storm that is bearing down on us.

104

Achilles Tang Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:29:16am

I respect Krauthammer but I take issue with his closing comment "Look at Britain. They got hooked; now they ration. So will we."

That is just the usual political pandering. We do ration health care, we just hide it under different categories. Health care is rationed (not denied, but rationed) for those without insurance. Health care is overcharged for those without insurance and insurance is denied to those not in excellent health, unless they work for the right companies, or government.

All this is rationing, we just pretend it is free choice and competitive markets.

105

MacDuff Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:43:37am

Again, every friggin' discussion on the subject of "HEALTH CARE" seems to degenerate into a discussion of "DEATH CARE", with suggestions on how we can obtain counseling, draw up the papers, etc.

With an aging population in this country, and Boomers (such as me) in their late 50s, 60s and 70s, it's clear that some are very worried about the major impact that WE WILL have on the health care system as a whole (not to mention Social Security, etc.) Sorry, folks, if we are about to become a "strain" on the system, but excuse me if I won't "get out of the way" in the interest of financial viability.

It sounds remarkably like a "reduction of liabilities" strategy in trying to save a failing business. The fact is, though, in this case the LIABILITIES are PEOPLE.

While I'm not arguing that brain-dead individuals be put on machines to keep oxygen in their blood, I AM arguing that "quality of life" cannot necessarily be pre-determined.

I'm HERE, I'm AGING and I'll be damned if I'll forfeit so much as a day of my life in the interest of the "system" or the "needs of the many". We were in the streets 40+ years ago and, if need be, we'll be back out there, albeit on walkers and wheelchairs.

106

Drider Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:55:23am

re: #105 MacDuff

Again, every friggin' discussion on the subject of "HEALTH CARE" seems to degenerate into a discussion of "DEATH CARE", with suggestions on how we can obtain counseling, draw up the papers, etc.

With an aging population in this country, and Boomers (such as me) in their late 50s, 60s and 70s, it's clear that some are very worried about the major impact that WE WILL have on the health care system as a whole (not to mention Social Security, etc.) Sorry, folks, if we are about to become a "strain" on the system, but excuse me if I won't "get out of the way" in the interest of financial viability.

It sounds remarkably like a "reduction of liabilities" strategy in trying to save a failing business. The fact is, though, in this case the LIABILITIES are PEOPLE.

While I'm not arguing that brain-dead individuals be put on machines to keep oxygen in their blood, I AM arguing that "quality of life" cannot necessarily be pre-determined.

I'm HERE, I'm AGING and I'll be damned if I'll forfeit so much as a day of my life in the interest of the "system" or the "needs of the many". We were in the streets 40+ years ago and, if need be, we'll be back out there, albeit on walkers and wheelchairs.

Attend town hall meetings, take all of the like minded friends that you can gather and DON'T be meek but be as respectful as possible until the host blatantly bullshits the people attending...then be loud with displeasure.
The real astro turf crowds are going to be sent forth very soon and some will be hired thugs, be wary.

Oh, lastly, try to ignore references to you being compared to code pinkers, you ARE the only thing slowing this march to socialism down, be proud.

107

Pupdawg Fri, Aug 28, 2009 11:10:00am

Well America, how would you like the poison, cherry-flavored or just plain straight?

I seriously think I need to see my doctor after reading this cynical CK piece...chills, fever and loss of fluids to follow.

108

Floppydusk Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:26:40pm

Did CK or SA write this? Rules for bureaucraticals? Healthier to be an outcast than an incast in the future 'system'.

109

norman1905 Fri, Aug 28, 2009 12:40:51pm

re: #104 Naso Tang

Of course, at some level, there has to be rationing. Otherwise I'd have a team of specialists follow me around treating every sniffle and testing my pee.

The difference is that (at least here in Canada) you have no choice. If you're needing a specialist and it takes 6 months to a year, too bad. You can't pay for treatment, even if you're willing to.

It's immoral.

110

harpsicon Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:02:03pm

re: #12 Killgore Trout

Personally I would want end of life counseling. I think it's a very important part of healthcare. In fact it might even be the most important thing we will face in our entire lives. Why should we get counseling for it?

As long as it's not found in the cost-containment section of the bill?!

111

TheAntichrist Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:13:54pm

I like Krauthammer generally, but I think he's off base here. What he foresees happening is very much like the system in place in the Netherlands, where the government mandates coverage through private insurance companies but subsidizes (on a sliding scale according to income) premiums. IIRC about 60% of the population is subsidized to some extent, the rest pay all their premiums out of pocket. In fact, they went to this system in 2006 after scrapping their Canadian and British style system where the government ran the show. So far it hasn't lead to rationing, or increased costs. In fact, they spend far less than we do per capita for health care and have comparable or even favorable results in nearly every category.

What's nice about it is your health insurance is completely divorced from your employer, and everyone is free to shop around for their carrier. You don't have to use whatever your employer picked for you as most people do in the US, nor worry about health insurance when switching jobs. It has lead to intense competition among the insurance companies for business, to the great benefit of the consumer. It's actually a far more capitalistic system than we have in the US today.

Oh, it's not a "one size fits all" plan either. Insurance companies set their premiums, not the government. The government only sets minimum levels of coverage, you are free to pay more if you desire more coverage. The additional coverage will not be subsidized though, you will just pay more. And in their system, the government actually pays less of a percentage of health care costs than the US government does today even though everyone is covered.

I know this will be unpopular here (let the down-dinging begin lol) but I really do think this is great model for the US. And it's actually less socialistic than the current US system is with the massive government-run Medicare and Medicaid programs.

YMMV

112

Flyovercountry Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:21:17pm

re: #111 TheAntichrist

I like Krauthammer generally, but I think he's off base here. What he foresees happening is very much like the system in place in the Netherlands, where the government mandates coverage through private insurance companies but subsidizes (on a sliding scale according to income) premiums. IIRC about 60% of the population is subsidized to some extent, the rest pay all their premiums out of pocket. In fact, they went to this system in 2006 after scrapping their Canadian and British style system where the government ran the show. So far it hasn't lead to rationing, or increased costs. In fact, they spend far less than we do per capita for health care and have comparable or even favorable results in nearly every category.

What's nice about it is your health insurance is completely divorced from your employer, and everyone is free to shop around for their carrier. You don't have to use whatever your employer picked for you as most people do in the US, nor worry about health insurance when switching jobs. It has lead to intense competition among the insurance companies for business, to the great benefit of the consumer. It's actually a far more capitalistic system than we have in the US today.

Oh, it's not a "one size fits all" plan either. Insurance companies set their premiums, not the government. The government only sets minimum levels of coverage, you are free to pay more if you desire more coverage. The additional coverage will not be subsidized though, you will just pay more. And in their system, the government actually pays less of a percentage of health care costs than the US government does today even though everyone is covered.

I know this will be unpopular here (let the down-dinging begin lol) but I really do think this is great model for the US. And it's actually less socialistic than the current US system is with the massive government-run Medicare and Medicaid programs.

YMMV

Krauthammer was not advocating this in the slightest. This piece was dripping with sarcasm. I believe that he was attempting to paint the Liberals in this country in the worst possible light for them, which is an honest look at what they wish to do.

113

FightingBack Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:40:25pm

The "reform" is needed to deny the Boomers the care that they all will soon need; but that no one will be able to fund.

In NY State, I have been informed that all H1N1 vaccine supply will be distributed (only) by the government. There are 5 priority groups for receiving vaccine. After these groups have been immunized, if supply remains, persons over 64 will be permitted to receive vaccine. All "children" between 6 months and 24 years of age will be in a higher priority group than people over 64 years. People with illnesses, under 24 years, will have priority over people with illness who are over 64.
Also, physicians must comply (at their own cost) with a NYS data base program to register all vaccine recipients.

114

TheAntichrist Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:45:32pm

re: #112 Flyovercountry

Krauthammer was not advocating this in the slightest. This piece was dripping with sarcasm. I believe that he was attempting to paint the Liberals in this country in the worst possible light for them, which is an honest look at what they wish to do.

I know he wasn't advocating this, that's why I said I think he is off-base. Particularly when he wrote:

"Government-subsidized universal and virtually unlimited coverage will vastly compound already out-of-control government spending on health care. The financial and budgetary consequences will be catastrophic.

However, they will not appear immediately. And when they do, the only solution will be rationing. That's when the liberals will give the FCCCER regulatory power and give you end-of-life counseling."

I don't think this will end in the gloom-and-doom scenario he envisions. Particularly if some of the common-sense solutions to containing costs he wroyte about in previous columns are implemented. I wish the GOP would embrace those cost-cutting measures as the price for their support on the insurance reforms talked about in this column. Instead all we get from the GOP is the idiocy over death panels.

115

TheAntichrist Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:48:21pm

re: #113 FightingBack

The "reform" is needed to deny the Boomers the care that they all will soon need; but that no one will be able to fund.

In NY State, I have been informed that all H1N1 vaccine supply will be distributed (only) by the government. There are 5 priority groups for receiving vaccine. After these groups have been immunized, if supply remains, persons over 64 will be permitted to receive vaccine. All "children" between 6 months and 24 years of age will be in a higher priority group than people over 64 years. People with illnesses, under 24 years, will have priority over people with illness who are over 64.
Also, physicians must comply (at their own cost) with a NYS data base program to register all vaccine recipients.

One thing about H1N1 is that it is younger people who are most susceptible to it, in fact hardly any older folks have contracted it. It has been speculated that they may already be immune to H1N1 because it closely resembles a flu virus that went around 60 or so years ago. It makes sense to reserve the vaccine for those most vulnerable to the virus.

116

gregb Fri, Aug 28, 2009 1:50:39pm

re: #5 lawhawk

See what Krauthammer said about it in his previous op-ed on the subject. It warned that the voluntariness of such discussions had built in incentives to provide care that didn't extend to heroic measures - the kind of measures that many people want.

Everybody needs heroes. There's a reason there's so many medical dramas on TV.

I always thought the Palin "death panel" thing was a red herring. Death Panel never equaled end of life counseling. My friend at NHS in the UK always referred to it as the care standards where they could deny treatment due to standards and costs--which in theory might speculatively lead to someone dying. I had never heard the NICE acronym before this article, but I am assuming that was what he had referred to.

So on one side you have the actual text in some version of a bill. On the other side you have the fear that independent of what's in the bill, the actual execution of the policies of the bill might lead to decision that would have a detrimental effect on a future patient that might result in their premature death.

117

Right Brain Fri, Aug 28, 2009 4:19:25pm

If Senator Kennedy was being cared for by the strictures of ObamaCare he would have died last year.

118

realwest Fri, Aug 28, 2009 4:37:35pm

What I just LOVE - nevermind Obamacare, is that Medicare beneificaries are - according to Fox News - going to have to pay MORE for Medicare next year and yet social securitiy and Social Security Disability Insurance recipients will, for the first time, not recieve a Cost of Living Allowance.
Which is great, cause, ya know, neither Mom nor I can afford medicare NOW.
Oh and cardiologists, ONCOLOGISTS and other specialists will receive less reimbursement costs from Medicare next year, while GP's will receive more. I guess that's so those of us living in Flyover country - instead of on the Elite Coasts of the US - who already do not have much in the way of choice of Oncologists and other specialists can do without.
Obama and the Dems' - the party to help the poor and eldery and ill - just PERFECT together.

119

Yashmak Fri, Aug 28, 2009 4:57:32pm

Krauthammer's note about 'getting hooked' on government healthcare is actually the reason I most strongly oppose it. The financial impact, while enormously negative, is secondary to that factor, for the very reasons he outlines.

Once we've adopted this, and the fiscal calamity hits, it will be too late. It will become political suicide to touch the benefits, much like it is political suicide to suggest fixing SocSec, Medicare, etc. No one will be willing to touch it. When no more money can be squeezed from taxpayers to support the plan, the plan's benefits will be cut back, no matter how much they've been 'guaranteed' at the outset.

120

Longacre Fri, Aug 28, 2009 9:06:47pm

re: #12 Killgore Trout

It has nothing to do with whether or not it's a good idea to have end-of-life counseling, and everything to do with who does it and why.

Just like government charity. It's not that the idea or intent is necessarily bad. It is simply not the proper function of government to do that.

121

Ozymandias Sat, Aug 29, 2009 7:28:32am

krauthammer continues to amaze me. i like to think i can cut through the crap but nobody does it, and then sees years ahead, like he does.

122

neoconundrum Sat, Aug 29, 2009 8:23:11am

And so really what is the difference between Krauthammer and Inhofe's opinions?

They both are dead set against any form of government health care.

123

greensoccer Sat, Aug 29, 2009 9:48:01pm

What Krauthammer left out is that President Obama will be able to give medical care at no cost to illegals thereby buying their votes for eternity for the democratic party, I do believe. It will be like the banking industry fiasco all over again. And that is why I see a major medical system breakdown right in the middle of the aging baby boomer period which could be pretty scary because they might not be willing to just withhold medical care, they may move the line further than that These things take a while to develop.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Krauthammer: An Obamacare Exit Strategy

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud