Why Palin Worries About Death Panels
Sarah Palin, with a huge assist from some nameless ghostwriter, has come off of Facebook and gone mainstream with an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.
The piece includes some elements that have been discussed elsewhere: continued uncontrolled costs, tort reform, patient-centricity…. and of course, the ubiquitous, hysteria-driving “death panels”.
Leaving aside the rational bits (and there are some), I played around a bit, mentally, with her scenario of “unelected bureaucrats [making] decisions affecting life or death health-care matters”. This turned out to be a worthwhile exercise, because up until now I’ve had the hardest time understanding why she (or others) could seriously be worried about these “death panels”.
But I’ve finally figured out why some folks might fear such a thing. Palin (and others) see such a possibility because they know there are government officials who want to make those decisions for you.
They’ve seen it. We’ve all seen it. More here at Polimom Too.
28 Responses to “Why Palin Worries About Death Panels”
Did anyone else who read this op-ed wonder who really wrote it. Palin never struck me as that articulate, and citing sources and studies has not been her forte'. Is she studying issues and taking a writing class, or is there a ghost writer/researcher behind this? The op-ed itself is calm, well reasoned and raises many critical issues. It just “sounds” more of policy wonk than it does Sarah Palin.
I'm not worried about Palin. She has a team keeping her afloat for now as a “national” GOP figure in a weak field.
As to the concerns intelligent and moral people have long held about this aspect of government health care, the related background has been provided by me numerous times already, for those who care to be actually informed.
Well, whoever wrote it, outside of the death panels issue it seems very well written. If anyone is worried about government death panels, they can choose private insurance and deal with for-profit death panels…which is what we have now.
I prefer single payer, but see a private/public combo as a reasonable compromise. A number of ideas in the op-ed peice would help keep private industry competitive with the public option. Tort reform is my big one…we have to have it. Dems won't do it for the obvious political funding reasons.
“I prefer single payer, but see a private/public combo as a reasonable compromise.”
Any public (government) expansion is controversial, especially given the Dems' increasingly worse record this year. Better would be actual reforms, which require no new public role creation at all. I'm anticipating some kind of new public role, not necessarily limited to any new agency that would be in charge of “oversight” and managing the insurers as a highly controlled cartel (using the financial firms as a model), or to new regulations (community rating, pre-existing conditions, etc.). I'm not sure what the new role would be, but I suspect it would either be something real that I've given examples of before (high-risk pool; Medicaid, etc.) or retention of the universal health care effort (which is what the “public option” is) but with the “trigger” conditionality (which is subject to eradication later).
“Tort reform is my big one…we have to have it. Dems won't do it for the obvious political funding reasons.”
In fact, that's a major reason not only for keeping private insurers in existence now (along with the opportunity for cost-shifting from public programs, rigging “competition,” etc.) but later, with what is called “single-payer” (typically Medicare for everyone). Keeping providers (not insurers but doctors, hospitals, etc.) at least nominally private (if not effectively) means they don't have sovereign immunity and can still be sued. (In fact, I've anticipated that we could see ratcheted-upward requirements not only then, but at any time, for liability insurance, or even have taxpayers subsidize this to boost the payouts for lawsuits over time.)
If Senator McCain is unhappy with Palin's comments, then thats good enough for me to drop what she says out of hand.
There is no reason why we cannot do it all…outside of the 375 million dollars pumped into this debate by lobbyists on both sides.
“Dems' increasingly worse record this year”
Saying something does not make it so….you may have gotten Kathy do agree, but I'm not a liberal
Compared to the last 8 years under Bush, Dems are still way ahead of the curve.
This is off my own post topic, but I wonder whether anybody could help me understand something. Why is it that the Dems don't seem to be incorporating things like tort reform? Or decoupling employment from health insurance?
Are you setting them up so DLS can knock them down?
Tort reform would take a giant chunk out of the campaign contributions that Dems receive from tort attornies.
Actually no, I'm not trying to set anything up.
But when I hear complaints about how the only reason people are resisting government-run health care (or expanded government involvement, or whatever) is because the insurance companies are “paying them off”, the allegation that Dems are protecting campaign contributions from tort attorneys makes me skeptical.
Too easy. (Maybe that means it's the right answer? KISS and all that)
But what about decoupling health insurance from employers? What's holding that idea up?
The Unions are holding up that idea. The rank and file don't want to have to pay taxes on their generous health care benefits.
Yes, that occurred to me. But it just seems preposterous that 12% of the population would be standing in front of a problematic element of real reform.
I think that union membership accounts for 12% of the workforce, not of the population. And, from what I understand about the benefits packages that electrical union workers enjoy here in NYC, the increased tax load to their memebers would be substantial (I've been told by a person who runs a union electrical shop that it costs him $100/hour/employee, of which $45 goes to benefits packages – not all healthcare, but it could become fair-game to make the program deficit neutral.
eh. you're right — 12% of the workforce. sloppy of me.
I think this is kinda bugging me. I may have to put a wider call out to the Dems and/ or Liberals, and see if they can articulate some reason these elements are being ignored so baldly. I'm curious is there are valid arguments that make sense (besides protecting union benefits from taxes).
Why are you looking beyond the obvious answers?
“Saying something does not make it so.”
Reporting a fact is no different than saying the earth is round, when that fact is pertinent.
Next issue…
* * *
“But what about decoupling health insurance from employers? What's holding that idea up?”
And other reforms that have nothing to do with expanding the scope of Washington in health care?
No answers to those months-old questions, so far. Don't expect any answers now, either.
THE ANSWER arrived in my inbox today!
Here it is:
Health insurance is so expensive these days for individuals let alone family
plans. You need to check out this company; i got an insurance plan for my wife
and two kids for $250.00 a month.
[URL DELETED TO PROTECT THE GUILTY] /Y3JpZD0zNzA1OSZjYXQ9MzYwJmxpZD0xNzU5JmltPTEmYWN0PWNsaWNri9Yy5BA0kHQXz1T2R_eX4w
For correspondence about this email, just reply or send a letter to:
[redacted]
CStanley's right on this one, Polimom. Sometimes the obvious is true. Dems want/need all the support they can get for reform. Alienating trial lawyers and unions isn't politically expedient either now or in the next election when they will need cash and campaign workers. Side note: union workers may be 12% of the total work force, but in many rust belt states (mostly Dem) they are a much larger percentage of the work force (and the vote).
There is also background noise about deals with the drug industry to keep them from jumping onto the opposition bandwagon. All of this is just another example of how both parties operate, often protecting their special interest supporters at the expense of the broader public welfare.
“The Unions are holding up that idea.”
Here's a health reform idea that the unions in Michigan are holding up, indeed. Fiefdom and feather-bed protection, at taxpayer expense. (Dillon is a Democrat who merits the governorship due to this.)
(Michigan is the state which California rejected to house excess prisoners, due to high costs, BTW.)
http://www.freep.com/article/20090902/NEWS06/90…
http://www.michiganliberal.com/diary/15057/dill…
Sigh…. I can hardly tell you how badly that irritates me.
And do you and CStanley agree with the Dem accusation that Republicans are fighting the public option because they're protecting insurance companies?
Polimom – Thanks for asking. My answer is yes, Republicans do tend to protect the big insurance companies. I would make this distinction though. There are philosophical reasons for opposing a public option that go beyond big insurance not wanting government competition (I'll let CS tell you about that).
On tort reform, there are ways to control malpractice costs that would not infringe on the rights of damaged plaintiffs, but would stop or reduce frivolous suits and pull back trial lawyer fees…without artificial caps on awards for actual malpractice.
Thanks, tidbits, for your response. Yes, I understand that there are philosophical reasons for opposing a public option. But it is for that very reason that I was asking about the other side.
Knowing that the Dem accusation against the opposition ignores the philosophical reasons, I was making the assumption that the reverse holds true. i.e.: that there must be something more profound about ignoring tort reform and/or decoupling health insurance from employers.
Well, I could make a devil's advocate argument on coupling health insurance to employers. If you are going to have a “universal” system, you need a responsible party or parties for ease of enforcement of mandates, much like income tax withholding to assure tax payments from employees. While, I don't think it's a great argument, you could take that “efficiency of operation” approach.
On tort reform, no such gem, but I may be jaded from all those years as a litigation attorney.
“The Unions are holding up that idea. The rank and file don't want to have to pay taxes on their generous health care benefits.”
How is this at all a union thing? I am in no union, and I don't want to have to pay *for* my generous health care benefits, nor the taxes on them. When I saw Polimom's original question about decoupling health care from employment, what I thought of was all the workers and employers, not unions any more than the rest of us. It is in my company's interest to keep me healthy, so they pay out $2500/year to give me insurance. It is in my best interest not to go out an seek a job that I might like better — or start my own business — because $2500 is a helluva a lot of money, and would be much more if it were just little me seeking out a policy vs the huge company I work for.
Now, of course, if the American public could act like one big union or one big company and collectively bargain for a good deal on health insurance, that might mean we could decouple insurance from employers. However, too many seem to think that's a bad idea and suddenly we're talking about hippy pinko commies.
A lot of liberals like to believe that their party is “better” than the conservatives. They rarely like to look into the mirror and see that their party is just as corrupt and owned by lobbyists as the Republican party. They don't like to talk about tort reform because it reminds them on this nasty little truth.
You make a good point, roro80, about the value of the largest pool possible. That is why single-payer, though I would not favor it, makes more sense than the current babble in Congress about public “option” or triggered public “option.”
Here's a question for the conservatives. Just how much money (expressed as a percentage of health care costs) do you think tort reform would save? Personally I want a true reform of the medical malpractice system far more radical than what Republicans want, but I'm curious about the answer to this one.
Tort reform is fine if it is replaced with criminal law as in Europe. You cannot sue so easily in Europe, but if the doctor is negligent, the doctor goes to jail much easier than here.
A tort is a wrong. There must be reciprocity for a wrong, either by civil liability or criminal incarceration. We cannot just eliminate Justice from the equation for the sake of business viability.