(no subject)

[digitaldiscipline]

A Unitarian minister blasts the right-wing "death panel" talking point (and those who spread it) in a post entitled Hey! Mr. & Mrs. “Real” America, Pardon My Indelicate and Unprofessional Language, But Fuck You and Your “Death Panels” (an impolite sermon for impolite times)

[C&P wholesale from satorisearching]

Comments

[inulro.livejournal.com]

Excellent! Thanks for sharing.

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

Too bad he doesn't have any idea what he's talking about. But I guess it plays better to misunderstand the concern over "death panels" as being opposition to "advanced directives" instead of what it really is, concern that if the government controls all the health care, they will choose to ration it in ways that the people affected would not.

See also: British NHS refusing to put stents in vascular patients over 59, because it's not as economically viable as saving the care dollars for someone with a longer projected lifespan. Or reducing available care (though of course not the tax burden) for people who are deemed "obese".

Old people take up a lot of medical resources. Hell, if we just cut off care to anyone over, say, 80 years old, think about how much more care we could provide to younger people. It's not like those old people are productive anymore anyway.

And hell, since I presume most of the people reading this journal will be more likely to hate the R's, remember that you should always envision your "best law" being enforced by your worst enemy. Think back to all your bile and rage over W, and imagine the American National Health System deeming Republicans to have more utility than Democrats, and apportioning care accordingly.

It is simply a fact of reality that there is a finite amount of medical care available. It will be rationed in some fashion. Would you rather it was rationed by the market, where if you're in dire straights, you can buy what you need, or by your local friendly IRS Auditor Medical Needs Agent, and there's nothing to be done to change his decree, for any amount of money?

You may choose to skive and jeer at the idea of "death panels", but do please try to at least understand what the people talking about them actually mean when they use the phrase.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

I think that the entire debate has been reframed poorly; all the focus has been on the cost of insurance, and medical care, which lends itself to the fairly ghoulish calculus we're discussing.

Frankly, I think the argument ought to be made a whole lot simpler, which boils down to "does access to medical care fall under the heading of 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'?" The semantics of health insurance are a smokescreen, behind which a whole lot of a) uninformed, b) ignorant, or c) selfish people are making their rhetorical hay by coming out against substantial and meaningful reform of the health care system.

With one of the highest health care budgets in the world, the united states ought to be providing better health care at the retail level, and that's demonstrably not true. getting better value per dollar ought to make the free-market zealots dance a jig, but they're the ones most adamantly opposed to it, because, in large part, they're pro-business (and big pharma, the AMA, and the AHA are all working like hell to cut the legs out from under any substantial reform to the system because it threatens their bottom lines).

Every politician in favor of any of the reform bills has pointed out that there is no "death panel" anywhere in the proposed legislation, nor is rationing at the government level. Insurance companies already engage in this stuff, and it's entirely profit-driven, yet they're not being besieged by crowds with torches and pitchforks.

Frankly, I don't know what the right answer is, but the distortions and bullshit and astroturfing aren't helping anyone move in the right direction, whatever it is... unless folks love the status quo (which, for most people, the answer is "fuck no.")

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

Frankly, I think the argument ought to be made a whole lot simpler, which boils down to "does access to medical care fall under the heading of 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'?"

It does, under the "pursuit of happiness" part. Note the lack of guarantee of success. You have every right to seek as much medical care as you like. The people providing such care have every right to charge what the market will bear for it, and cut you off if you can't come to a mutually disagreeable decision on the price vs: supply point.

getting better value per dollar ought to make the free-market zealots dance a jig, but they're the ones most adamantly opposed to it, because, in large part, they're pro-business (and big pharma, the AMA, and the AHA are all working like hell to cut the legs out from under any substantial reform to the system because it threatens their bottom lines).

The only way any of those entities make one cent more profit than they should reasonably be able to squeeze out of the market is through government interference in that market.

Any one cheerleading that interference is, by definition, not a free-market zealot. That phrase is far more applicable to me, who says "get the government entirely out of the game, and let people charge what they can for what they like, and take it from there." But since that involves readjusting the entire framework of what it even means to be a business (I'm opposed to sheltering individuals from egregious errors behind "corporate responsibility", CEOs who can be proven to have willingly cut corners need to be held personally accountable) the free market solution not only isn't on the table, it's not even on the same block as the discussion.

Every politician in favor of any of the reform bills has pointed out that there is no "death panel" anywhere in the proposed legislation, nor is rationing at the government level.

Of course they have, because there's no way they're going on record as supporting anything that does have it in there. But we should also note that a number of these congresspunks have gone on record as saying that they haven't read the bills in question, and wouldn't understand them if they had, so what they say about the bills is somewhat suspect.

I have seen portions of the bill which made reference to something that sure as hell looked like explicit bureaucratic rationing of care, but I can't find the piece at the moment, so I don't expect you to take that as gospel. If I find it, I'll post a link to the relevant bits.

unless folks love the status quo

Being as how I want less government in my health care, and none of the proposed bills do that, the status quo is better than the "reform" being pushed. Just because I don't want my friends to stop eating Big Macs and start smoking crack doesn't mean I think Big Macs are good for you... just better than smoking crack.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

Any one cheerleading that interference is, by definition, not a free-market zealot. That phrase is far more applicable to me, who says "get the government entirely out of the game, and let people charge what they can for what they like, and take it from there." But since that involves readjusting the entire framework of what it even means to be a business (I'm opposed to sheltering individuals from egregious errors behind "corporate responsibility", CEOs who can be proven to have willingly cut corners need to be held personally accountable)

This is why you and I get on as well as we do -- the broad, unpopular strokes, we're shoulder to shoulder on. :-)

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

Here's a much better rendition of "why the problem with American Health Care starts with the Government" than I could give. Notice heavy use of the word "protectionism", which, by definition, is antithetical to the concept of "free market". :D

http://www.strike-the-root.com/92/allport/allport1.html

[etcet.livejournal.com]

That was an excellent read. Thanks for sharing.