I join millions of Americans in expressing appreciation for the Senate Finance Committee’s decision to remove the provision in the pending health care bill that authorizes end-of-life consultations (Section 1233 of HR 3200). It’s gratifying that the voice of the people is getting through to Congress; however, that provision was not the only disturbing detail in this legislation; it was just one of the more obvious ones (Palin, 2009, ¶1).
As I noted in my statement last week, nationalized health care inevitably leads to rationing. There is simply no way to cover everyone and hold down the costs at the same time. The rationing system proposed by one of President Obama’s key health care advisors is particularly disturbing. I’m speaking of the “Complete Lives System” advocated by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the president’s chief of staff. President Obama has not yet stated any opposition to the “Complete Lives System,” a system which, if enacted, would refuse to allocate medical resources to the elderly, the infirm, and the disabled who have less economic potential. [1] Why the silence from the president on this aspect of his nationalization of health care? Does he agree with the “Complete Lives System”? If not, then why is Dr. Emanuel his policy [adviser]? What is he advising the president on? I just learned that Dr. Emanuel is now distancing himself from his own work and claiming that his “thinking has evolved” on the question of rationing care to benefit the strong and deny the weak. [2] How convenient that he disavowed his own work only after the nature of his scholarship was revealed to the public at large (Palin, 2009, ¶2).
The president is busy assuring us that we can keep our private insurance plans, but common sense (and basic economics) tells us otherwise. The public option in the Democratic health care plan will crowd out private insurers, and that’s what it’s intended to do. A single payer health care plan has been President Obama’s agenda all along, though he is now claiming otherwise. Don’t take my word for it. Here’s what he said back in 2003: (Palin, 2009, ¶3)
“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care plan.... A single payer health care plan – universal health care plan – that’s what I would like to see.” [3] (Palin, 2009, ¶4)
A single-payer health care plan might be what Obama would like to see, but is it what the rest of us would like to see? What does a single payer health care plan look like? We need look no further than other countries who have adopted such a plan. The picture isn’t pretty. [4] The only way they can control costs is to ration care. As I noted in my earlier statement quoting Thomas Sowell, government run health care won’t reduce the price of medical care; it will simply refuse to pay the price. The expensive innovative procedures that people from all over the world come to the United States for will not be available under a government plan that seeks to cover everyone by capping costs (Palin, 2009, ¶5).
Our senior citizens are right to be wary of this health care bill. Medical care at the end of life accounts for 80 percent of all health care. When care is rationed, that is naturally where the cuts will be felt first. The “end-of-life” consultations authorized in Section 1233 of HR 3200 were an obvious and heavy handed attempt at pressuring people to reduce the financial burden on the system by minimizing their own care. Worst still, it actually provided a financial incentive to doctors to initiate these consultations. People are right to point out that such a provision doesn’t sound “purely voluntary” (Palin, 2009, ¶6)
In an article I noted yesterday, Charles Lane wrote: (Palin, 2009, ¶7)
“Ideally, the delicate decisions about how to manage life’s end would be made in a setting that is neutral in both appearance and fact. Yes, it’s good to have a doctor’s perspective. But Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party -- the government -- recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations. You don’t have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach.” [5] (Palin, 2009, ¶8)
I agree. Last year, I issued a proclamation for “Healthcare Decisions Day.” [6] The proclamation sought to increase the public’s knowledge about creating living wills and establishing powers of attorney. There was no incentive to choose one option over another. There was certainly no financial incentive for physicians to push anything. In fact, the proclamation explicitly called on medical professionals and lawyers “to volunteer their time and efforts” to provide information to the public (Palin, 2009, ¶9).
Comparing the “Healthcare Decisions Day” proclamation to Section 1233 of HR 3200 is ridiculous. The two are like apples and oranges. The attempt to link the two shows how desperate the proponents of nationalized health care are to shift the debate away from the disturbing details of their bill (Palin, 2009, ¶10).
There is one aspect of this bill which I have not addressed yet, but it’s a very obvious one. It’s the simple fact that we can’t afford it. But don’t take my word for it. Take the word of Doug Elmendorf, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. He told the Senate Budget Committee last month: (Palin, 2009, ¶11)
“In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.” [7] (Palin, 2009, ¶12)
Dr. Elmendorf went on to note that this health care legislation would increase spending at an unsustainable rate (Palin, 2009, ¶13).
Our nation is already $11.5 trillion in debt. Where will the money come from? Taxes, of course. And will a burdensome new tax help our economy recover? Of course not. The best way to encourage more health care coverage is to foster a strong economy where people can afford to purchase their own coverage if they choose to do so. The current administration’s economic policies have done nothing to help in this regard (Palin, 2009, ¶14).
Health care is without a doubt a complex and contentious issue, but health care reform should be a market oriented solution. There are many ways we can reform the system and lower costs without nationalizing it (Palin, 2009, ¶15).
The economist Arthur Laffer has taken the lead in pushing for a patient-center health care reform policy. He noted in a Wall Street Journal article earlier this month: (Palin, 2009, ¶16)
“A patient-centered health-care reform begins with individual ownership of insurance policies and leverages Health Savings Accounts, a low-premium, high-deductible alternative to traditional insurance that includes a tax-advantaged savings account. It allows people to purchase insurance policies across state lines and reduces the number of mandated benefits insurers are required to cover. It reallocates the majority of Medicaid spending into a simple voucher for low-income individuals to purchase their own insurance. And it reduces the cost of medical procedures by reforming tort liability laws.” [8] (Palin, 2009, ¶17)
Those are real reforms that we can live with and afford. Once again, I warn my fellow Americans that if we go down the path of nationalized health care, there will be no turning back. We must stop and think or we may find ourselves losing even more of our freedoms (Palin, 2009, ¶18).
- Sarah Palin
[1] See http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Al location-of-Scarce-Medical -Interventions
[2] See http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/14/white-ho use-adviser-backs-off-rati oning/
[3]See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hsqzSKuC44
[4] See http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2M0ODk0OTNkZjk =wNGM4OGMyYTEwYWY3ODUzMzFiO Tc
[5] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article /2009/08/07/AR200908070304 3.html
[6] See http://www.gov.state.ak.us/archive.php?id=1094&type= 6
[7] See http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/07/cbo-sees-no -federal-cost-savings-in-d em-health-plans.html
[8] See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619 004574324361508092006.html
Commentary
Governor Palin addresses these core issues with her statement: nationalized health care will lead to rationing. Rationing will cut care to those who are deemed of least economic benefit to society. A government run health care system is not free. It must be paid for and the necessary result is higher spending and higher taxes -- the exact opposite of what we need for economic growth. Governor Palin delineated one of several market-oriented solutions to reforming our health care system. Further, though end-of-life consultations has been removed from the bill, the core ideology of "Complete Lives" is and remains the underpinning of Obama's health care plan.
The difference between Governor Palin and Obama could not be more stark. Reagan Conservatism, and a culture that respects life and human dignity underpins her thought process. Obama advocates socialism, communism and a culture that only values life and human dignity to the extent that it provides a stated level of benefit to society. Obama and his administration are advancing a culture of death.
As with her prior statements, Governor Palin has backed up her statements with references and evidence proving her thesis. Her strategy of posting these statements on her FaceBook page and bypassing the mainstream media is nothing short of brilliant -- considering that they usually get even the most basic facts wrong.
References
Palin, S.L.H. (2009, August 14). "Troubling questions remain about Obama's health care plan." FaceBook, Sarah Palin. Retrieved August 14, 2009 from: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=116979483434
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment