NYT: O-Care is really No-Care

posted at 12:55 pm on April 7, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

For months, media outlets like the New York Times scolded conservatives over their concerns about rationed medical care.  Sarah Palin outraged them by referring to “death panels” when the ObamaCare bill wound up containing language enabling “comparative effectiveness” boards as guiding lights for medical care decisions.  Last July I wrote about comparative effectiveness, a medical-care rationing system, by asking the question of who says “no” in a government-run medical system.  Today, the New York Times gives the same answer I did, conveniently after the passage of ObamaCare:

How can we learn to say no?

The federal government is now starting to build the institutions that will try to reduce the soaring growth of health care costs. There will be a group to compare the effectiveness of different treatments, a so-called Medicare innovation center and a Medicare oversight board that can set payment rates.

But all these groups will face the same basic problem. Deep down, Americans tend to believe that more care is better care. We recoil from efforts to restrict care. …

From an economic perspective, health reform will fail if we can’t sometimes push back against the try-anything instinct. The new agencies will be hounded by accusations of rationing, and Medicare’s long-term budget deficit will grow.

So figuring out how we can say no may be the single toughest and most important task facing the people who will be in charge of carrying out reform. “Being able to say no,” Dr. Alan Garber of Stanford says, “is the heart of the issue.”

David Leonhardt goes on to praise ObamaCare as the start of saying “no” to people who want more health care.  That’s an interesting tack for the Times to take, especially after its screeching over the use of “death panels” by critics, which meant exactly the same thing.  Now they admit that the “most important task” of the people running the ObamaCare reform is to deny people medical care — under circumstances where a group of elites decide it’s not worth it.

Once again, we have people looking at this from the notion of a shortage, crisis market.  If we want to solve the problem of overutilization, which is what ObamaCare purports to do, we’re going about it in exactly the wrong manner.  We need to restore pricing signals in order to make consumers aware of the consequences of their decisions, not shield those costs even further by having taxpayers subsidize even more of those costs.  That would require getting insurance out of the way of normal, routine medical care and using it only for catastrophic issues, and providing tax-free shelters for medical-care funds controlled by individual consumers.

Instead, we’re slowly turning the entire medical system into an HMO, only this time with Congress and the executive branch running it.  It will suck so many resources out of the middle class that only the wealthy will have any real options outside of the government-controlled network in a few years as insurers go broke under Obama’s regime of price-fixing.  Once that medical care becomes an entitlement for everyone, no one will have any reason to exercise cost controls, and the comparative effectiveness policies created will wind up becoming the Dr. No of ObamaCare.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Didn’t dare to use the R-word? (rationing.)

Wethal on April 7, 2010 at 12:59 PM

How quaint that the watchdogs of liberty aren’t watching until after the burglar gets away.

Liam on April 7, 2010 at 12:59 PM

David Leonhardt goes on to praise ObamaCare as the start of saying “no” to people who want more health care.

The New York Times…the paper of NO.

Disturb the Universe on April 7, 2010 at 1:01 PM

Told ya so…

Ogabe on April 7, 2010 at 1:01 PM

David Leonhardt goes on to praise ObamaCare as the start of saying “no” to people who want more health care.

He’ll change his tune if and when he comes down with some rare disease. It’s easy to praise the wonders of ObamaCare when you’re healthy.

Knucklehead on April 7, 2010 at 1:02 PM

Who was that congressman who said it would take time to “control the people”? Changing “attitudes” is no doubt the start.

Wethal on April 7, 2010 at 1:03 PM

Sarah is vindicated by the NY Slimes?

farright on April 7, 2010 at 1:03 PM

I don’t know about where you live, but in Philadelphia the local TV stations and newspapers are full of advertisements for hospitals, cancer centers, heart centers, etc. All the time. All of these places have state-of-the-art equipment, technology, highly trained doctors. They advertise just like any other product, hoping the viewer will see their super-duper machines and super-docs and say “I want that!” Temple University Hospital just rolled out a million-dollar proton accelerator that shoots protons directly into brain tumors, thereby avoiding surgery and long chemotherpay regimes.

What are people going to do when the government starts telling them “sorry, you can’t have that – it’s too expensive.”

rockmom on April 7, 2010 at 1:04 PM

At least no care is affordable.

Win Win.

Mr. Joe on April 7, 2010 at 1:04 PM

Doctor: Grandma will die if she doesn’t get life-saving surgery.

Obama and New York Times:

How can we learn to say no?

When will they dare utter the R-word: Rationing?

Sarah Palin: I toldja so. You betcha.

Steve Z on April 7, 2010 at 1:04 PM

Welcome to AmeriKa…..comrade!

mmm…mmm…mmm

dmann on April 7, 2010 at 1:04 PM

People get government health care. The fact that it is no health care at all is something for the future.

Mr. Joe on April 7, 2010 at 1:05 PM

“Being able to say no,” Dr. Alan Garber of Stanford says, “is the heart of the issue.”

 
Fine. You first.

rogerb on April 7, 2010 at 1:05 PM

Well, because it’s OKAY for elites to decide what’s right. That’s what this whole administration is about. If the smart and well-informed people make the decisions, we don’t need democracy.

The Times piece just backs this up. It’s okay to say no if we intellectuals decide to say it.

Same attitude on the nuke piece, by the way…

jdfister on April 7, 2010 at 1:06 PM

Remember the best part of all this: It’s for the good of the people!

Liam on April 7, 2010 at 1:07 PM

I think this warrants a Palin facebook post titled “heh NY Times, I told ya so.”

farright on April 7, 2010 at 1:09 PM

Your right to inhale will be limited by the federal government just like your right to emit carbon dioxide. Since the two are related, it kind of makes sense.

Cicero43 on April 7, 2010 at 1:09 PM

America to New Yorkers: You first!

rockmom on April 7, 2010 at 1:09 PM

You’ll thank me later… /

Mojave Mark on April 7, 2010 at 1:09 PM

That would require getting insurance out of the way of normal, routine medical care and using it only for catastrophic issues, and providing tax-free shelters for medical-care funds controlled by individual consumers.

A simple commonsense solution that is beyond the comprehensive of the oh so educated elite. I only have catastrophic and I love it. I pay $756 per year. Unfortunatley, Nobama will fix that for me in 2014, forcing me to buy coverage I don’t want or need at a higher cost.

theenforser on April 7, 2010 at 1:10 PM

All power to the Soviets!

/NYT

DrSteve on April 7, 2010 at 1:11 PM

Throwing grandma under the bus in 5-4-3-2…

OmahaConservative on April 7, 2010 at 1:11 PM

This poor Republic is rotting from its core. Who would have ever thought this could happen?

rplat on April 7, 2010 at 1:11 PM

How quaint that the watchdogs of liberty aren’t watching until after the burglar gets away.
Liam on April 7, 2010 at 12:59 PM

The newspaper of record has become the newspaper of far-left national socialism.

Chip on April 7, 2010 at 1:11 PM

The “fish wrap of record” is as culpable as Congress for the passage of this assault on our Republic. And now they admit that this bill was passed without due diligence of it’s contents.

Pelosi was not kidding when she stated that “we have to pass the bill to see what’s in it”. How did we get to the point in this Country where we pass bills not knowing what they contain? That is the proof we now live in a country without representation.

Opposite Day on April 7, 2010 at 1:11 PM

The people who will be saying “no” are the same ones explicitly excluded from having to participate in the program.

WitchDoctor on April 7, 2010 at 1:12 PM

And don’t I just feel sooooooooo happy about this? Guess I better enjoy all the time I have with my grandchildren until 2014.

GrannyDee on April 7, 2010 at 1:12 PM

Death panels…

d1carter on April 7, 2010 at 1:13 PM

WitchDoctor on April 7, 2010 at 1:12 PM

spot on

cmsinaz on April 7, 2010 at 1:14 PM

The mob is running the country. This is absolutely ridiculous. I mean we all knew this was in here, but the fact that they blast us for mentioning it and then they themselves admit it once the thing passes…. it makes be blind with fury.

MobileVideoEngineer on April 7, 2010 at 1:15 PM

This poor Republic is rotting from its core. Who would have ever thought this could happen?

rplat on April 7, 2010 at 1:11 PM

‘Rotting’ takes awhile to take its own course. What is happening to us is being pushed and accelerated far beyond a mere ‘rotting’ pace.

Midas on April 7, 2010 at 1:15 PM

The people who will be saying “no” are the same ones explicitly excluded from having to participate in the program.

WitchDoctor on April 7, 2010 at 1:12 PM

Worked out nice for them huh? Well once they let us die for lack of care who will they rule? Oh, that’s right: amnesty, a fresh batch of citizens to rule.

Consequences.

theenforser on April 7, 2010 at 1:15 PM

I’m reminded of Edward G. Robinson’s death scene in Soylent Green.

Who’d a thunk that in our lifetimes, it could become possible for our elderly to be ‘terminated’ by the government?

fact, meet fiction.

DrW on April 7, 2010 at 1:15 PM

The newspaper of record has become the newspaper of far-left national socialism.

Chip on April 7, 2010 at 1:11 PM

I wouldn’t even use it to line my cat’s litterbox.

This is awful. First the unborn, then the aged, and now the very ill. All of it supported by liberals all along.

First they said it would never happen but, not that it is, they’ll defend it and their POS in the White house to the hilt.

Liam on April 7, 2010 at 1:15 PM

This poor Republic is rotting from its core. Who would have ever thought this could happen?
rplat on April 7, 2010 at 1:11 PM

We were warned this might happen:

Frederic Bastiat
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it.”

Benjamin Franklin
When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.

Chip on April 7, 2010 at 1:16 PM

This is just the tip of the iceberg, wait it will get even better. They are just getting people ready to hear their insurance company say no, and for the government to back that up. Grandpa can take the red pill, that should fix him right up.

Johnnyreb on April 7, 2010 at 1:16 PM

Hey Congress.. when you start using it, then the Americans will start after a 6 year grace period in which we will see how you like it then vote you out for someone who doesn’t want it anymore then the rest of the Nation!

upinak on April 7, 2010 at 1:17 PM

Sarah WAS RIGHT.

Can we please put these elite liars on a one way trip to Mars? Please? I’ll chip in $1.25 for gas.

journeyintothewhirlwind on April 7, 2010 at 1:17 PM

From an economic perspective, health reform will fail if we can’t sometimes push back against the try-anything instinct. The new agencies will be hounded by accusations of rationing, and Medicare’s long-term budget deficit will grow.

So now we have the economic perspective and the rationing care perspective coming to light from the very same folks claiming no economic perspective or rationing perspective would result from the passage of the bill.

fourdeucer on April 7, 2010 at 1:17 PM

Instead, we’re slowly turning the entire medical system into an HMO, only this time with Congress and the executive branch running it.

we are doomed…

cmsinaz on April 7, 2010 at 1:17 PM

DrW on April 7, 2010 at 1:15 PM

What color would you like to be?

upinak on April 7, 2010 at 1:17 PM

And don’t forget the wonderful co-ops in every state run by bureaucrats No insurance professionals allowed, except as preferred vendors. Craddle to grave, comrades.

kingsjester on April 7, 2010 at 1:19 PM

And the establishment turns on a dime, again. Before this, we were getting harangued about how everyone deserves healthcare and anybody who voiced opposition to ObamaCare was a monster gung-ho on denying care to people who needed it. Now we’re hearing “we who make all the decisions need to tell people NO when they start begging us for medical care.”

Just another reminder that they never mean what they say, and if you’re hearing something over and over again these days, chances are good that it’s a lie.

Aitch748 on April 7, 2010 at 1:19 PM

The newspaper of record has become the newspaper of far-left national socialism.

Chip on April 7, 2010 at 1:11 PM

Was it ever not?

Disturb the Universe on April 7, 2010 at 1:19 PM

America to New Yorkers: You first!

rockmom

I’ve noticed an awful lot of hate toward New Yorkers here. Sorry, but we are not all liberal lunatics, thanks.

Urban Infidel on April 7, 2010 at 1:20 PM

And don’t forget the wonderful co-ops in every state run by bureaucrats No insurance professionals allowed, except as preferred vendors. Cradle to grave, comrades.

kingsjester on April 7, 2010 at 1:19 PM

Some won’t get that though. They want to prevent some from even getting to the cradle and at the same time they are pushing others into the grave.

MobileVideoEngineer on April 7, 2010 at 1:20 PM

Ain’t gonna need to hear the truth, parse no lies
Everything you think, do, or say
Will be in the Obama regime pill you took today

Ain’t gonna need your ears, won’t need your eyes
You won’t find an ObamaCare doctor who knows a thing to do
Nobody’s even gonna look at you

Cheshire Cat on April 7, 2010 at 1:20 PM

So is bending the health care cost curve the same as bending the life expectancy curve?

SlaveDog on April 7, 2010 at 1:23 PM

The newspaper of record has become the newspaper of far-left national socialism.
Chip on April 7, 2010 at 1:11 PM

Was it ever not?
Disturb the Universe on April 7, 2010 at 1:19 PM

So true – they became that, the question is When?

Chip on April 7, 2010 at 1:23 PM

Questions reflecting confusion have flooded insurance companies, doctors’ offices, human resources departments and business groups.

“They’re saying, ‘Where do we get the free Obama care, and how do I sign up for that?’…”We tell them it’s not free, that there are going to be things in place that help people who are low-income, but that ultimately most of that is not going to be taking place until 2014,” McLean said.

Adults with pre-existing conditions are frustrated to learn that insurers won’t have to cover them until 2014

right2bright on April 7, 2010 at 1:24 PM

My mom, who’s in a nursing home, has left instructions to DNR–do not resuscitate in case of catastrophic emergency. That’s bad enough for me, but that’s her wish.

I’d feel a whole worse if the place called to say she died because it was ‘decided’ by some third party my mom wasn’t ‘worth’ saving because it would cost too much money.

Liam on April 7, 2010 at 1:25 PM

My sister-in-law was born with a genetic condition that renders her increasingly unable to care for herself. Still, through the experimental treatments she has received over her lifetime, she has maintained a higher standard of living than most with her condition; she’s certainly outlived many more. She has been one of the leading test cases for her condition, and the technological innovations used in her treatment have been astounding. Are we now to start saying “no” to others like her? To reduce our drive to save lives in the name of efficiency?

It’s that “try-anything instinct” that pushes us, leads us to solutions we might not otherwise have found. Saying “no” is akin to cancelling the shuttle program — it will have long-reaching, rippling affects across many sectors.

Yet another reason this bill isn’t worth the paper it was printed on.

ScaryBiscuits on April 7, 2010 at 1:25 PM

Right now I would be comforted by a 500 word reply from bleeds blue explaining how this really means freedom and true liberty.

daesleeper on April 7, 2010 at 1:26 PM

No worries some enterprising American doctors will start up an offshore practice and maybe sell shares like a timeshare deal.

Or if the stupid Pinnochio laws dont apply there maybe in one of the last seven of the 57 states

dhunter on April 7, 2010 at 1:26 PM

I don’t see why anybody would be surprised by this.

After they government finishes the takeover of the Health Care they are going to do things that they would never dream of allowing a Health Insurance company to do. All the while charging us the more for the reduced quality and amount of services.

cntrlfrk on April 7, 2010 at 1:27 PM

So 30 million people will now be able forced to buy health insurance, but they won’t get much care.

No wonder the insurance companies supported this bill.

rockmom on April 7, 2010 at 1:28 PM

I expect we’ll hear more about not being “selfish” and taking “more than your share” of health care.

Wethal on April 7, 2010 at 1:28 PM

Tort reform

How are the doctors going to dodge the lawyers when the government tells them they can’t order the battery of tests to cover their arses.

keebs on April 7, 2010 at 1:28 PM

Right now I would be comforted by a 500 word reply from bleeds blue explaining how this really means freedom and true liberty.

daesleeper on April 7, 2010 at 1:26 PM

The libs need only two words: “We won.”

Liam on April 7, 2010 at 1:28 PM

right2bright on April 7, 2010 at 1:24 PM

*snort*

right, but how does that effect those who are adult after 2014 with pre-existing conditions (like serious heart problems, disease which are chronic pain conditions due to nerves etc) when they come to find out… all they are going to get is a pill, and maybe not enough of a pill to help them.

I love my Mom. She has serious heart issues. She was raving about how she can now get a new operation for mitrovalves. Sadly I looked at her, and asked her one thing… Since you smoke still, do you expect them to let you have the operation since you will not follow the doctors orders and go off past medical history saying you haven’t quit? She turned white when she realized that I may be right. I think she is coming around.. slowly.

upinak on April 7, 2010 at 1:29 PM

America to New Yorkers: You first!
rockmom

I’ve noticed an awful lot of hate toward New Yorkers here. Sorry, but we are not all liberal lunatics, thanks.
Urban Infidel on April 7, 2010 at 1:20 PM

Yes, but a lot of the more rational folks have abandoned that loony bin of State, and the rest need to seriously think about it – soon.

Chip on April 7, 2010 at 1:30 PM

How are the doctors going to dodge the lawyers when the government tells them they can’t order the battery of tests to cover their arses.

keebs on April 7, 2010 at 1:28 PM

They’ll move to the few states that do have tort reform or give up medicine entirely. I think there have been articles already on the coming shortage of general practitioners.

It is possible that the standard of acceptable medical care would be revised downward so the doctors would use the “effectiveness panels” criteria for what is considered acceptable medical procedure as a defense.

Wethal on April 7, 2010 at 1:31 PM

Yes we all knew that bams idea was to restrict care to the elites,everyone else will stand in lines like at the end of WWII and get fumigated once a year and told we all must share the responsibility of “social justice”.The big problem with this whole marxist concept is that more will have less,when the disadvantaged realize that they are loosing more than the new class of haves what will happen. We know.

tim c on April 7, 2010 at 1:33 PM

I think Charles Krauthammer should kindly leave the room.

Amadeus on April 7, 2010 at 1:33 PM

I’ve noticed an awful lot of hate toward New Yorkers here. Sorry, but we are not all liberal lunatics, thanks.
Urban Infidel on April 7, 2010 at 1:20 PM

That’s directed at the Yankee fans. I know it must be confusing.

turfmann on April 7, 2010 at 1:33 PM

Questions reflecting confusion have flooded insurance companies, doctors’ offices, human resources departments and business groups.
“They’re saying, ‘Where do we get the free Obama care, and how do I sign up for that?’…”We tell them it’s not free, that there are going to be things in place that help people who are low-income, but that ultimately most of that is not going to be taking place until 2014,” McLean said.
Adults with pre-existing conditions are frustrated to learn that insurers won’t have to cover them until 2014

right2bright on April 7, 2010 at 1:24 PM

As someone else said on the other thread:

Hope and Change™=Bait and Switch
anikol on April 7, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Chip on April 7, 2010 at 1:34 PM

I think this warrants a Palin facebook post titled “heh NY Times, I told ya so.”

farright on April 7, 2010 at 1:09 PM

I was ready to post the same thought until I read all the way through the thread and saw your post. Liberal heads would explode if she thanked the NY Times for vindicating her “death panels” viewpoint.

PatMac on April 7, 2010 at 1:34 PM

The “try anything” approach often leads to the “discover something” result.

Say goodbye to innovation in this country.

Daggett on April 7, 2010 at 1:34 PM

as insurers go broke under Obama’s regime of price-fixing

Insurers will never go broke under ObamaCare, the rates will increase and the subsidies will go up right along with them. The real cost of insurance will be hidden in the vast morass of the Federal Budget.

Sinner on April 7, 2010 at 1:36 PM

Being able to say no vote out Dems in NOvember and NObama in NOvember 2012 is the heart of the issue.

Christien on April 7, 2010 at 1:36 PM

Wonder how long it will be before one of the “elites” notices that health care would be a whole lot cheaper (for the government, of course) if abortions were required?

It will be interesting to see who the “elites” propose aborting: women (like China), random citizens, those with ‘politically incorrect’ parents?? Or perhaps they will propose ex-post-facto abortions on adults who don’t vote “correctly”???

It seems that “1984″ came true 25 years late…complete with “Government of the people, buy the people, and for 4 people”!

landlines on April 7, 2010 at 1:37 PM

What do the useful idiots do when they figure out free means you pay?

tarpon on April 7, 2010 at 1:37 PM

Didn’t dare to use the R-word? (rationing.)

Wethal on April 7, 2010 at 12:59 PM

Supporters of the bill should admit its rationing, along with socialism. However, such unilateral honesty won’t do any good. If opposition to this bill could also be completely honest, in that all entitlements are socialism and should all be repealed as such, we might have a more constructive political atmosphere.

As it stands, no one seems to be willing to own up to the logical conclusion of their philosophies, and so the dishonest language of articles like this will understandably continue. Its almost as if the 2 political camps in this country need mediation.

ernesto on April 7, 2010 at 1:37 PM

Yes we all knew that bams idea was to restrict care to the elites,everyone else will stand in lines like at the end of WWII and get fumigated once a year and told we all must share the responsibility of “social justice”.The big problem with this whole marxist concept is that more will have less,when the disadvantaged realize that they are loosing more than the new class of haves what will happen. We know.
tim c on April 7, 2010 at 1:33 PM

Hopenchange at your service!
(liking the term ‘Bams’)

Chip on April 7, 2010 at 1:37 PM

It’s going to be interesting to see the huge pay-as-you-go cash market that rises up out of this.

Is is completely out of the realm of possibility that this eventually simply morphes into another (really expensive) welfare program for the poor with the base system reverting back to a more pure, market based, cash system?

Youngs98 on April 7, 2010 at 1:37 PM

So when do they recant the “BIGGEST LIE OF 2009″ award that they gave to Sarah over that remark? Anyone want to start a pool on exactly which month, day and year the SLIMES finally says…”OK, OK, she was right. There ARE death panels!!”. You know its coming.

Dan Pet on April 7, 2010 at 1:37 PM

The “try anything” approach often leads to the “discover something” result.

Say goodbye to innovation in this country.

Daggett on April 7, 2010 at 1:34 PM

Innovation will not die. We still have a very well funded and dynamic sports medicine industry, along with innovations in battlefield medicine. Such gloom and doom is rather baseless.

ernesto on April 7, 2010 at 1:38 PM

You all might be interested in reading some of the writings of Wesley J. Smith. He has been talking about this subject for years. He has written several books and blogs at http://www.wesleyjsmith.com

Vera on April 7, 2010 at 1:39 PM

A good title for this article, on so many levels:

“Obamacare: Getting to No you”

ksm on April 7, 2010 at 1:41 PM

Yes, but a lot of the more rational folks have abandoned that loony bin of State, and the rest need to seriously think about it – soon.

Chip on April 7

I know. But remember, a lot of ‘New Yorkers’ are transplants [not me], and they come from where all of you guys live.

Urban Infidel on April 7, 2010 at 1:41 PM

They say most health care costs come in the last two years of life. Since the average life expectancy is 80, mandate suicide at 78. No need for death panels.

See! Sarah Palin was wrong!

John Deaux on April 7, 2010 at 1:41 PM

“Death Panels.”- Sarah Palin

She summed it up in less than 17 1/2 minutes too.

portlandon on April 7, 2010 at 1:42 PM

What are people going to do when the government starts telling them “sorry, you can’t have that – it’s too expensive.”

rockmom on April 7, 2010 at 1:04 PM

Die

Aviator on April 7, 2010 at 1:42 PM

Innovation will not die. We still have a very well funded and dynamic sports medicine industry, along with innovations in battlefield medicine. Such gloom and doom is rather baseless.

ernesto on April 7, 2010 at 1:38 PM

Really? And all of those future innovations in cancer treatments, elderly joint replacements, dementia drug breakthroughs, etc. are going to be funded by the military and commercial sports? You really are delusional.

Johnnyreb on April 7, 2010 at 1:42 PM

The “try anything” approach often leads to the “discover something” result.

Say goodbye to innovation in this country.

Daggett on April 7, 2010 at 1:34 PM

Exactly right!!!

The “comparative effectiveness” approach will guarantee that nothing new is ever tried. It will also guarantee that inappropriate treatments are forced upon individuals who will will be harmed because they don’t react to a treatment like the majority of the population does.

landlines on April 7, 2010 at 1:43 PM

they are NOT “Death Panels

they’re “We’re not going to provide treatment that would keep you alive” Panels

See the difference? Thought so. Like throwing someone off a cliff and using as your defense: “I didn’t kill him…GRAVITY did!”

Justrand on April 7, 2010 at 1:43 PM

Then, after a few years, life expectancy will be 78, so you move the suicide age to 76, and so on, until the suicide age and retirement age match. Social Security and Medicare become solvent again!

Take that, Republicans!

John Deaux on April 7, 2010 at 1:44 PM

Really? And all of those future innovations in cancer treatments, elderly joint replacements, dementia drug breakthroughs, etc. are going to be funded by the military and commercial sports?

Johnnyreb on April 7, 2010 at 1:42 PM

No, but I never said they would. The entire medical R&D sector is not going to simply disappear. To believe it would simply vanish is delusional.

ernesto on April 7, 2010 at 1:45 PM

Innovation will not die. We still have a very well funded and dynamic sports medicine industry, along with innovations in battlefield medicine. Such gloom and doom is rather baseless.

ernesto on April 7, 2010 at 1:38 PM

Not sure if this is sarcasm or not, but I am relieved to know that if I get a rare form of cancer the sports medicine guys will know how to replace my knee and the battlefield specialists can remove the shrapnel.

2L8 on April 7, 2010 at 1:49 PM

Obamacare = Freebie physicals for fat-a** foreigners and freeloaders.

BuckeyeSam on April 7, 2010 at 1:50 PM

I wonder if the senior citizen is a loyal Democrat voter, will the death panel take that into account?
Perhaps a check box on the form?
Actually, now that I think about it, they will still be “voting’ after they die.
Win-Win!

jjshaka on April 7, 2010 at 1:51 PM

If Palin says it,
It is know-nothing nonsense,
Even if it’s true…

Haiku Guy on April 7, 2010 at 1:53 PM

It’s going to be interesting when the libs who pushed so hard for this are faced with the results of their efforts. When their loved ones are left in the lurch because the needed care is ‘too expensive’, what will they do? To whom will they cry?

And, worse for them, who will listen?

One lib here, on a similar thread, basically said this is the 21st Century and America needs to get into it. Well, we’re in it, we’ve ‘modernized’ to the European model.

Funny, but I can’t see rationed medical care as an ‘improvement’ over even the 1920s.

Liam on April 7, 2010 at 1:54 PM

The entire medical R&D sector is not going to simply disappear. To believe it would simply vanish is delusional.

ernesto on April 7, 2010 at 1:45 PM

To believe it will amount to much of anything without a financial incentive is stupid.

Aviator on April 7, 2010 at 1:55 PM

Innovation will not die. We still have a very well funded and dynamic sports medicine industry, along with innovations in battlefield medicine. Such gloom and doom is rather baseless.

ernesto on April 7, 2010 at 1:38 PM

Who is funding it?
People with $$ who want to make more $$.
And if you take profit out of the equation, then there is no incentive to do it.
Vaccines are not profitable for various reasons, which is why only like a handful of companies in the world really make them.
If you tell me that through all my time & hard work that I will not turn a profit & probably experience great loss, why in the world would this spur anyone onward?
What a thick senseless skull you have there.

Badger40 on April 7, 2010 at 1:56 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3