The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course.
The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
Now, she's taken criticism from all quarters. Jake Tapper wrote a blistering attack of this statement.
One can question whether there will by necessity be any rationing decisions that will need to come as a part of health care reform (and, in fact, we have) but pictures of government bureaucrats forcing euthanasia upon seniors -- and, now, children with Down syndrome -- because they're not productive members of society are not part of any reasonable debate on the facts of the matter. (And frankly, I agreed with
Palin previously, when she was asking members of the media to keep her children
out of any public debate.)
Asked specifically what the former governor was referring to when painting a picture of an Obama "death panel" giving her parents or son Trig a thumbs up or down based on their productivity, Palin spokeswoman Meghan Stapleton responded in an email: "From HR3200 p. 425 see 'Advance Care Planning Consultation'."
Charles Johnson, of LGF, also criticized Palin. Now, Palin's statement was far too provocative. There's of course no death panel that will decide who lives and who dies. The language she used went from proper criticism to fear mongering. She should have phrased her comments in a much more statesperson like manner. That said, those that criticize Palin on the merits of the statement simply haven't read the bill carefully.
There is no question that this bill will create rationing, and there's no question that eventually care will be cut from those that are deemed "unproductive" like her son. In fact, those that criticize misconstrue her reference to page 425 which either mandates or makes optional planning for death. In fact, pages 425-430 do a lot more than merely suggest "advanced care planning". In fact, it's much more complicated than that. The rationing starts on pages 27-30 where "essential benefits" are discussed. A new bureaucracy, the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, will be created to decide what insurance and procedures are deemed "necessary". On page 335, there is a section on "Outcomes Based Measures" which will have the same Health Benefits Advisory Committee do a cost benefit analysis of which procedures are cost effective. As such, if a procedure is deemed "unnecessary" and "not cost effective", it will be regulated out of existence. If you happen to need that procedure to live, get in front of the "death panel" and beg.
Then, within pages 425-430, there is language regulating the type of care that those near death will get. Combine that with "Outcomes Based Measures" and "essential benefits" and suddenly 80 year olds won't get a hip replacement. If you only have a month to live anyway, your care will be minimum.
This bill will also regulate pay and make it independent of specialty. This will drive doctors out of the business. (page 241) So, with 50 million more patients, less doctors, and the tools necessary to ration, that's exactly what the government will do. Furthermore, Palin correctly points out that one of the advisors to President Obama is Dr. Ezekial Emanuel (brother of the Chief of Staff) Dr. Emanuel has famously said this.
Health services should not be guaranteed to] individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia
Now, if the White House creates a system with not enough medical professionals to cover all the new patients, mechanisms to ration care, and has advising it someone that has openly stated that the "unproductive" need to have their care cut off, how else should Sarah Palin read this but that her son won't get care.
If you want to criticize Sarah Palin for her provocative language, scare tactics, and lack of statesmanship, I would agree. That said, on substance, Sarah Palin is absolutely correct.