1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/10642/yes-virginia-there-will-be-death-panels/

Yes, Virginia, there will be death panels

September 10, 2009 by

Death panels? Of course there will be death panels when the deal is done. Not in iterations one or two, when legal alternatives exists. But in the end, under total state control, death panels will exist — they must exist.

A death panel implies an agency that functions as the final arbiter of life and death. Such a panel can only exist where no legal alternatives are available. In the first go-around, some agency (or agencies) will have the power and mission to limit care under certain conditions — even the state must accept a world of scarcity. However, folks will still have market alternatives. These alternatives will not be free — they never are. But they will exist, nonetheless.

Of course, once state control is complete, the agency will function as a death panel, or a life panel — depending on your viewpoint, of course.

The agency will likely have a doublespeak name, something like the People’s Health Agency. The agency will be deemed a provider of healthcare, not a denier of the same. So, for some, the agency will not be a death panel. But for many, this agency will limit lifesaving care. It will have to. For these folks, the agency will not provide. And with no alternative available, the agency’s decision will be final, and it will be fatal.

The talk of death panels just around the corner is overblown rhetoric. But those very same panels are over the horizon, on the path sought by many.

My short term fear is not death panels per se. My fear is the collective’s fleeting memory of liberty. Just as folks today cannot imagine my state without an income tax (though the tax is only 37 years old), folks tomorrow will soon forget that the market can supply healthcare. And that means I will watch my children move one step closer to total state control of their healthcare — their lives. And that scares me.

Note: Today we have a model for a death panel: the FDA. This organization keeps lifesaving drugs from the market — all in the name of health and safety. The belief that the state will not crack a few eggs to benefit the collective omelet is utter nonsense.

{ 86 comments }

Soylent Green September 12, 2009 at 4:42 pm

@Donna

As a Canadian, here’s my advice. Give it up. You’re wasting your breath. Just admit that all us Canucks, the Europeans, etc, are wrong.

The Republicans (via Sarah Palin) have framed the argument as “death panels”. The Democrats missed the opportunity to frame the discussion as “greedy profit-seeking Corporations”.

The Mises folks will never agree with you. Until it is their insurance that gets cancelled for some “pre-existing condition”. Of course, they can take comfort in the fact that the decision was made by a compassionate, nameless Insurance employee just trying to make his month-end quota and bonus. Capitalism rocks !!!

In fact, it rocks so much, that the US government is willing to give trillion$ to the too-big-to-fail Corporations because thats Capitalism. Government healthcare is pure, unmitigated Communism. As a Canadian, I better dust off my picture of Lenin that I have hanging over the mantle…

Now I’m going to go drink a gallon of Maple syrup, eat a pound of back bacon, crack open some beer, and go snowmobiling.

mpolzkill September 12, 2009 at 4:42 pm

Donna,

“And what do you think you’re doing when ins rates skyrocket because they insist there is an increase in claims; yet you have never made a claim more than an annual physical?”

That’s not the definition of slavery; one can drop them. Though in America the big insurance companies TRY to force you to stay with them through the byzantine set of regulations they help write. It is a corporate/government partnership in America and the corporations are the junior partners. The “free market” is the fall guy for the ensuing mess and the State plays the white hats. Come on, Donna, you can understand this, right?

“I have never paid 100s of dollars a month.”

What’s your sales tax rate, Donna?

“higher profit leads to innovation. I need to call you on that.”

That’s more than a little disingenuous, Donna, second guessing the business decisions of the firms that create so many of the drugs your countrymen need. I’m not any kind of expert on this, but I do believe that American drug companies and medical equipment companies lead the world. I’m looking at the top 50 drug companies in the world right here. 10 of the top 18 are American. How many Canadian firms do you think are in the top 50? (Pfizer alone is 45 times the size in revenues AND money spent on R&D as the smallest non-American companies on the list)

Earlier, Russ was cogently speaking of how so many welfare states are made possible in great part by their not having to pay for their own defense. Similar kind of thing here, I believe.

Russ September 12, 2009 at 4:48 pm

Donna M wrote:

“We’ll just have to agree to disagree. I’m not attempting to change your mind, nor are you attempting to change mine..I think. :)”

Yes, Virginia, I am trying to change your mind. :-P

You say “I’m all for a capitalist system”, but really, when it comes right down to it, you’re not. You’re for capitalism, as long as you don’t have to pay too much. But if the real costs of your family’s health care are “too much”, then you prefer socialism. That is, you prefer to use the government to force others to pay for your family’s health care. That’s not capitalism, and that’s not freedom. That’s what I like to call “compassion fascism”.

People in the US tend to think “It can’t happen here” (“it” being fascism, if you’re not familiar with the Sinclair Lewis book). But they’re wrong. It not only can happen here, it already is. What two words better describe Obama’s policies than “National Socialism”?

Russ September 12, 2009 at 5:01 pm

Soylent Green wrote:

In fact, it rocks so much, that the US government is willing to give trillion$ to the too-big-to-fail Corporations because thats Capitalism.”

Ummm, no, that’s corporativism, and most of us here are against that, too.

“Now I’m going to go drink a gallon of Maple syrup, eat a pound of back bacon, crack open some beer, and go snowmobiling.”

I just hope the Beer Store isn’t closed yet. And don’t forget the nude strippers at the “Windsor Ballet”. Rock on, eh.

mpolzkill September 12, 2009 at 5:11 pm

Soylent Green,

You’ve got it all figured out, you’re doing great, why all the concern for what Palin and the Dems do? I swear, you care about that battle more than I do. What gives?

What a strange mix the end of your post is, of accepting (for us) and mocking (for yourself) the false, binary political spectrum that is propagated. America is just about as “capitalist” as you are “communist”. Russ has it, our countries are two flavours of fascist, and yours is just a satellite, with most of the rest (hence the world’s great and unhealthy concern about American politics).

Donna M September 12, 2009 at 5:18 pm

“What’s your sales tax rate, Donna?”

Right now I believe provincial and federal combined is 13%. Now, I have a relative in the US who a few years ago told me he paid $500/mth for health ins.

Based on a sales tax of 13%, that would mean I would need to spend over $4,200 per month on taxable items for the govt to take $500 from me.

My total Fed tax taken off my pay cheque is $800/mth. Most of the healthcare costs come from my income tax, which probably comes to about one third of my taxes.

And remember, that $500 my relative paid was after taxes. So he really paid a heck of a lot more than me and he only bought basic coverage for him and his wife.

Russ September 12, 2009 at 5:31 pm

Donna,

Let’s assume, for sake of discussion, that your relative in the States is paying the market price for his health care coverage, and you are paying less for equal coverage. That would mean that other Canadians are paying for part of the market price of your family’s health care coverage. What gives the Canadian gov’t the right to make those others pay for your coverage?

Donna M September 12, 2009 at 5:36 pm

Russ, don’t you think your premiums are going to pay for others’? Honestly?

Again you’re acting as if we all are our own island. We are not. Whether the service is supplied by the govt or a private institution, we are all thrown into a pool and help pay for the other guy’s hospital stay.

Russ September 12, 2009 at 5:55 pm

Donna M wrote:

“Russ, don’t you think your premiums are going to pay for others’? Honestly?

Again you’re acting as if we all are our own island. We are not. Whether the service is supplied by the govt or a private institution, we are all thrown into a pool and help pay for the other guy’s hospital stay.”

Sure, that’s how insurance works. The difference is, insurance companies cannot force people to sign up for their services; governments can. If you don’t like your insurance provider, you can drop it and get a new one. Apart from moving to another country, you can’t opt out of paying your taxes.

And you’ve artfully dodged my question, so here it goes again, in slightly different terms. What gives the Canadian gov’t the right to *force* others pay for your coverage?

Tina Brewer September 12, 2009 at 6:37 pm

It seems like some of the posters here are losing sight of just how difficult it is for most people, uneducated in economics, and having been raised in the myth-factories that are public schools, really to GET the difference between “capitalism/free markets”, and the corporatism which reigns in this country. Its an obvious distinction to those who have studied these issues at length, but not to others.

Also, it comes off as a bit disingenuous to protest that
“oh we aren’t FOR the status quo, which is evil and fascist…” when in fact nobody ever hears from the free marketeers except when a commie comes along and tries to make things even more socialistic…then they come flying out of the woodwork to protest “…but we just CANT have THAT!”

Russ September 12, 2009 at 7:31 pm

Tina Brewer wrote:

“With this pervasive underlying motivation so widespread, socialism will always win, unless the advocates of free markets can successfully convince people that markets are a BETTER way of achieving this elusive “fairness”, which they most certainly are NOT. They are a better way of maintaining liberty and improving everyone’s lot. But markets maintain relative inequality, the basic bogeyman.”

I agree and disagree. We have to point out that most people will be better off in a free market than under socialism, even though some will be better off than others. Imagine a world where everybody gets the same health care, rich or poor… but that health care is the same that a wealthy man would have received in 1850! Yikes! That’s what equality will achieve; a world where everybody, rich and poor, could die of an infection that could be cured today with a simple anti-biotic (as one of the Rothschilds did, IIRC). The only hope is to convince people that they will be, long term, *better off* under a free market, not to convince them that they will be *more equal*. People always seem to assume that “more equal” means that everyone will be lifted up to the level of the richest. It never seems to occur to most that it could also mean that everyone will be lowered to the lowest common denominator, after the parasites kill the host.

“Also, it comes off as a bit disingenuous to protest that “oh we aren’t FOR the status quo, which is evil and fascist…” when in fact nobody ever hears from the free marketeers except when a commie comes along and tries to make things even more socialistic…then they come flying out of the woodwork to protest “…but we just CANT have THAT!”"

I think that comment is more appropriately directed to the neo-con Rush Limbaugh / Sean Hannity / Michael Medved types, not libertarians. For all their faults (and they are legion) the people here and at LewRockwell.com quite consistently bashed W. in his day every bit at much as they bash Obama now.

K Ackermann September 12, 2009 at 7:48 pm

Tina, you are absolutely correct. The problem is “Free Market” and “Capitalism” are wedded to Wall Street, and, really, the worst corporatist offenders always seem to hold up one of the terms when threatened.

Those terms also provide the cop-out politicians need. When failed institutions were using TARP money to pay bonuses, they screamed sanctity of contracts. The pols said that’s right, we can’t break contracts.

If they read them, they could have. There is always some fine print item that could have been used to show why the contract could have been invalidated. If they were profitable, nobody would care. However, to use public funds to pay a bonuses at failed companies is an affront to the institution of capitalism.

Wall St would be well served to keep the area where it feeds nice and neat if they want to claim they don’t need oversight.

newson September 12, 2009 at 9:19 pm

to tina brewer:
you’re right about the allure of egalitarianism in furthering socialism. but i think you’re quite wrong in suggesting that socialism actually reduces inequality.

compare the living-standards gap between party and non-party members in cuba or the former ussr and i think you’ll find it’s just as wide, or wider than under the hampered-markets of the west. it’s just that everyone, even the rich, is poorer under socialism.

newson September 12, 2009 at 9:30 pm

russ is right for focusing on the moral aspect. those who can stomach an home-invasion to pay for one’s child’s medicals should have no qualms about socialized medicine. on the other hand, people with more children will probably be comfortable raiding one-child families; their need is greater.

Russ September 12, 2009 at 10:09 pm

newson wrote:

“russ is right for focusing on the moral aspect.”

Thank you. But I must confess that part of my reason for doing so is that I’m not sufficiently informed on the medical systems in other countries to make utilitarian arguments that they would accept. I’ve heard the stories about ten month waits for maternity ward rooms, just as you probably have, but I don’t know if they’re true or typical.

At any rate, your “home invasion” analogy is a good one. If you support the use of government force to coerce people into paying into a medical system they don’t want to pay into, why isn’t directly holding a gun to a person’s head and taking their money to pay for your medical care also morally acceptable? The only answers I can think of are 1) most people don’t think of it this way, and 2) it’s easier to look the other way, morally speaking, if the government does the dirty work for you.

mpolzkill September 12, 2009 at 10:26 pm

Donna,

One can’t put dollars and cents on it like this.

- – - – - – - – - – - -

Tina,

I can’t figure out your angle.

- – - – - – - – - – - –

Ackerman’s inanities never cease. “Wall Street” NEVER claims they need no oversight. They ARE the oversight.

- – - – - – - – - – - –

I would very much like to hear from Russ a partial list of our legion faults. I hope they are just the standard ones known to the ancients that all humans are susceptible to. Or perhaps the major source of our faults is due to our not being open to the “lessons of 9/11″ and like events? Very curious. I hope a proper forum opens soon so that I can learn the gist of what Russ learned after that awful day.

Russ September 12, 2009 at 10:43 pm

mpolzkill wrote:

“I would very much like to hear from Russ a partial list of our legion faults. I hope they are just the standard ones known to the ancients that all humans are susceptible to.”

Well, yes, hubris is one of the classics. *grin* I’m not sure about Utopian wishful thinking, or contrarianism for its own sake.

Of course, I also have my own share of flaws. As Nathan Fillion in “Serenity” said when informed that his sin was pride, “Actually, I’m a fan of all seven.”

newson September 12, 2009 at 11:10 pm

to russ,
the problem with utilitarian arguments in complex systems like health-care is that the medical ponzi-scheme works quite well for the early-comers. the failures take a while to become apparent, and are borne by a different demographic.

plus, most of the rationing is done by doctors without any explicit policy; patients aren’t often aware of all the alternatives that they’re missing out on.

Russ September 12, 2009 at 11:20 pm

newson wrote:

“the problem with utilitarian arguments in complex systems like health-care is that the medical ponzi-scheme works quite well for the early-comers. the failures take a while to become apparent, and are borne by a different demographic.”

Quite true. And the “different demographic” could be the children or grandchildren of the people who benefit. So a variation on your home invasion scenario could be, would it be acceptable to take a time machine to the future, and rob your grand-children in order to pay for your medical costs? Because that is essentially what people are doing, even though they may not realize it.

Tina Brewer September 13, 2009 at 1:09 am

@mpolzkill; I’ve blathered on so much here that I am not sure which “angle” you don’t get, so I’ll just take a stab at it: I am basically of the belief, unlike many libertarians, that life would be a great deal riskier, and generally more demanding, if we were all as free as we are constantly arguing we should be. I am okay with this. I think it would be good for people, long term. Maybe I am wrong, but I often get the feeling that libertarians can tend to underestimate the relative degree of chaos which can result from more freedom. We are so used to the static, slow, safe type of life that all of the regulation, oversight, bureaucracy generates, and we correctly long for a freer, more DIRECT experience of cause/effect, action/consequence, but do we REALLY want it? Its like the East Germans when the wall finally came down…it was this great celebration of freedom “Yeah! We are free!”…and how long was it before a certain segment of the population wanted nothing more than a return to total socialism…just give me back the security of knowing that I don’t have to do anything much, and everything I see and consume will be cruddy and pathetic, but at least its always there AND I DON”T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT!!

@newson: I didn’t mean to imply that I think that socialism actually ACHIEVES equality; its just that the emotional/political appeal of socialism is all wrapped up in its constant promises of an egalitarian or at least MORE egalitarian society.

@ russ: when I made the comment about libertarian protests coming off as disingenuous, I meant this from a PR angle. People who are new to the libertarian position, having been essentially robbed of the opportunity even to have been exposed to it for most of their lives by schools and MSM, need to be helped to begin to understand the finer distinctions we have been referring to. Like another poster quite correctly said, the Republicans THINK they are defending market economics and freedom, but what they are really defending is a monstrous hybrid. If we ever even APPEAR to be on the same side as those defending this monster, we will be condemned and lumped together in people’s minds. When I said “nobody ever hears from libertarians until some commie comes along…” I was referring to the totally unfortunate fact that the political right in this country cynically uses libertarian ideas when it suits their vicious politically driven purposes, only to discard those same ideas the instant it finds itself in power. This unholy matrimony is also cynically utilized by libertarians, who can sometimes fall into the habit of appearing all too happy to have their ideas championed by whatever fascistic dirtbag says pretty words about wanting a small government. Ultimately, this bond will have to be broken in people’s minds, or we’re getting nowhere. We need to have a constant and consistent presence on issues where we are never ever caught defending the status quo against change in the wrong direction, when what we really should be advocating is RADICAL CHANGE in the opposite direction.

Donna M September 13, 2009 at 7:46 am

Russ wrote:

“And you’ve artfully dodged my question, so here it goes again, in slightly different terms. What gives the Canadian gov’t the right to *force* others pay for your coverage?”

I’m not dodging. FYI, Canadians gave the govt a mandate years ago to implement universal health care.

Russ, you have your own social programmes, like welfare, unemployment ins, Medicare, food stamps (which btw, Canada does not have). Your taxes are being used to pay for supporting people though you think you would never use the services yourself.

Newson wrote:

“plus, most of the rationing is done by doctors without any explicit policy; patients aren’t often aware of all the alternatives that they’re missing out on.”

I don’t know where you got that info. It sort of reminds me of the day a couple of wks ago I was listening to talk radio. A caller said a US colleague was here for the first time on business.

They were walking along the street and passed a couple of medical clinics. The US visitor asked where the line ups were to see a doctor. The caller said, there never is any. To which the US visitor stated that is what he is told on US tv commercials about our healthcare.

There is a medical clinic I visit if it’s the weekend, as my GP doesn’t work Sat or Sun. I have never had to wait more than a half hr to see a doctor.

The longest I ever had to wait to see a doc in a clinic was an hour, and that was when I worked downtown where the population explodes from 9-5.

Russ wrote:

“Imagine a world where everybody gets the same health care, rich or poor… but that health care is the same that a wealthy man would have received in 1850! Yikes! That’s what equality will achieve; a world where everybody, rich and poor, could die of an infection that could be cured today with a simple anti-biotic”

Boy! That right there is just crazy. It’s almost on the level of “Let them eat cake.”

So, if there’s a horrible car accident and one man is poor, the other rich, yet both have the same injury. Does the rich guy get the benefit of having a chance of living and poor fella just bleeds out?

Fallon September 13, 2009 at 10:37 am

Tina Brewer writes:

“Maybe I am wrong, but I often get the feeling that libertarians can tend to underestimate the relative degree of chaos which can result from more freedom. We are so used to the static, slow, safe type of life that all of the regulation, oversight, bureaucracy generates, and we correctly long for a freer, more DIRECT experience of cause/effect, action/consequence, but do we REALLY want it?”

Libertarians more often overestimate the amount of freedom they might have in a society based on property and voluntary exchange. Granted, nothing will change unless the majority of the populace is anti-state and pro-market. That said, market based relations bring about more checks and balances on people’s behavior than government fiat. There may or may not be more opportunity to do what you like up front but, structurally, the likelihood of being made to account for your deeds is higher. Possible actions are chosen in an environment that incentivizes accountability- the way that only property can. Nobody would have the kind of privilege that government brings.

Society would be much more complex than it is now and hence much stronger too. The division of labor could increase without state interference. Albeit there are no guarantees.

Those that make bad choices that hurt other people will more likely be responded to in a just fashion. Those that make bad choices that hurt themselves will most likely have better opportunity to be helped by their fellow man since people will generally have more to give due to the rationalization of commerce and the individualization of conscience.

But there is no utopian future. The state exists due to the self-fulfilling mindset of the vast majority. It could come back no matter what the future holds.

But have no doubts about it: the state is chaos. No matter how many constitutional limits or democratic mechanisms are placed on it, all state forms can never resolve the problem of “Who will guard the guards?” (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?). It is the privilege of government power, along with the inability of government planners to act economically (calculation) that allows us to know ex ante that relative chaos and oppression are the inevitable results of state.

I have enjoyed all the back and forths btw!

Fallon September 13, 2009 at 10:53 am

Donna,

What gives the *right* for Canadians to mandate ‘universal health care’?

Tina Brewer September 13, 2009 at 11:18 am

@Fallon

I just LOVE these two phrases of yours : “an environment that incentivizes accountability” (hurray for that) and “the individualization of conscience” . I think you are right in what you say. Maybe the “incentivizes accountability” thing is what I am getting at when I describe an environment that is “a great deal riskier and more demanding”. I also think it very insightful what you wrote about libertarians OVERestimating the amount of freedom they might enjoy. I think this is a better analysis than mine. Its probably true that the freer environment is really the more naturally limited environment…which is so healthy. Incidentally, this piece is always what I feel is so frustratingly missing from the defense of “free markets” now appearing in the MSM. The fixation on using the term “freedom” can tend to underplay freedom’s natural complement, responsibility.

Lionheart September 13, 2009 at 11:22 am

Sorry, but I’ll go with the public option; much better subject to the will of the majority than subject to the will of the top 5% of people making absurd amounts of money, who aren’t in the least bit interested in covering illnesses or provide adequate health insurance.
I do NOT want my health at stake with those greedy bastards making the call.

mpolzkill September 13, 2009 at 11:41 am

Lionheart,

By all means, the greedy bastards of the bottom 51% should make the call.

mpolzkill September 13, 2009 at 11:57 am

Tina,

Yes, you told me what I wanted to know. Fallon’s response, posted while I was typing, was brilliant and he has taken all my thunder and rendered my response a puny, rambling thing by comparison, damn him! I’m posting it anyway, but over here:

http://blog.mises.org/archives/010643.asp

Not a perfect fit but definitely closer there to the topic we’ve drifted into.

Fallon September 13, 2009 at 12:30 pm

Hmmmm. Should my name come before or after Ludwig’s in the newly renamed Institute?

Thanks for the the feedback, Tina and Mpolzkill.

Russ September 13, 2009 at 1:44 pm

Donna M wrote:

“I’m not dodging. FYI, Canadians gave the govt a mandate years ago to implement universal health care.”

So, if the government acts on behalf of *some* Canadians (I’m assuming this wasn’t unanimously agreed on), then the government must be exercising rights that *some* people, individually, have. Right? So, where do these individuals get the right to force other individuals into this program? Do you think that you, individually, have the right to force others to pay for your needs? Or am I wrong here, and somehow the right to do this magically appears through the democratic process?

“Russ, you have your own social programmes, like welfare, unemployment ins, Medicare, food stamps (which btw, Canada does not have). Your taxes are being used to pay for supporting people though you think you would never use the services yourself.”

I’m painfully aware of all this, and I am against *ALL* redistribution programs.

“So, if there’s a horrible car accident and one man is poor, the other rich, yet both have the same injury. Does the rich guy get the benefit of having a chance of living and poor fella just bleeds out?”

Instead of thinking about the “rights” of the poor guy to medical care, try thinking about the *obligations* on others that all supposed rights necessarily involve. Do other people have the *obligation* to provide or pay for health care for the poor guy? I say, NO! Do you and others like you have the right, through the democratic process, to force these obligations on others? Again, I say, NO!

What it comes down to for me is, that no matter how many safety nets and how much Nerf padding we have in this world, we’re all going to die sometime. We will all be equal in the grave. Until then, I would rather have the freedom to enjoy my life, and live it for me and mine, not for everybody else in the world. I’m willing to pay my fair share for those functions of government that cannot be supplied without a government, like military defense, law enforcement, etc. (unlike some anarchists here, I believe that government is necessary). But other than that, I do not think that I should be considered an X% slave to everyone else, working against my will X% of the time to supply the needs of others who, quite frankly, I don’t care about.

mpolzkill September 13, 2009 at 1:46 pm

Fallon, haha, good stuff. Thanks back at ya.

Russ September 13, 2009 at 2:32 pm

Lionheart wrote:

“I do NOT want my health at stake with those greedy bastards making the call.”

I would rather have my health care in the hands of “those greedy bastards” than in the hands of people too intellectually benighted to be able to pay for health care on their own.

FTG September 14, 2009 at 2:13 am

Lionheart,

Sorry, but I’ll go with the public option; much better subject to the will of the majority than subject to the will of the top 5% of people making absurd amounts of money,

Notwithstanding your really creepy decision to submit to the “will of the majority”, I have to tell you that one does not simply decide to “go” with ANY public option – it is merely imposed upon you and me. Unless you can figure out an entirely different set of ethics that nobody has heard about, you will have to explain to everybody how can it be moral or ethical to make everybody pay for the medical bills of everybody else.

The second thing here is that you present a false dilemma by establishing either a public option or placing your fate in the hands of CEO’s as the only possible alternatives. This is nothing more than a simplistic caricature of what really is happening in the US.

I do NOT want my health at stake with those greedy bastards making the call.

No, what you don’t want is having these “greedy bastards” decide not to use their money to pay your medical bills – you can always opt to pay your medical bills yourself. Under a public “option” (which has proven NOT to be an option in many places, but a mandate), you could not buy the medical services yourself because these are supposed to be offered for “free” by the State, regardless of availability or urgency. I would not be so cavalier about placing MY life in the hands of bureaucrats who would care infinitely less about my life than the people making “absurd” amounts of money (whatever that’s supposed to mean). I am willing to take my chances with somebody that wants to make money (which can only be achieved by pleasing the customer), rather than being left at the mercy of impersonal and obtuse bureaucrats.

Government Sucks April 15, 2010 at 7:26 am

Death Panels already exist in Canada’s Socialized health care. They exist in the form of long waiting lists, rationed care and psychosomatic allegations.

You are not fully examined, fully treated and you die waiting in Canada and you have no say.

The no role and the waiting role, that’s how Canada’s government kills it’s citizens, it’s even worse in Quebec.

Not only are they taxed 25% higher than us on average to pay for their crippling health care system, now they will have to pay a premium each year when they will file their taxes in order to contribute more to the failing system.

Government Sucks April 15, 2010 at 7:31 am

“Note: Today we have a model for a death panel: the FDA. This organization keeps lifesaving drugs from the market — all in the name of health and safety. The belief that the state will not crack a few eggs to benefit the collective omelet is utter nonsense.”

And the FDA does so purely on a regulatory and ideological basis. The FDA has no vested financial interest in the development or refusal of a drug so all the drugs it refuses, it does not do so to cut costs.

So imagine when cost will be a factor.

What’s ironic is that a lot of eggheads who voted for this monstruosity will reap the reward they deserve and get cracked by the very system they voted for.

Government Sucks April 15, 2010 at 7:34 am

“the will of the top 5% of people making absurd amounts of money”

Who are you to judge that their earnings are absurd ? Civilization is not possible if you don’t respect private property rights, free market capitalism and individual freedoms.

It’s your utter contempt of private property that is absurd.

So you think that peace and prosperity is absurd ? You would rather an all out class warfare ?

Mark December 14, 2010 at 9:59 am

Being someone with a congenital heart condition who has had to go on Disability after years of working until my health was deminished, I am concerned about death panals. I have a grandmother who is 95 and an Uncle who stroked in 1990 and hasn’t been able to work, but volunteers for handicap organization. I can easily foresee that one day these relatives and myself will be before a People’s Health Agency panal (as I agree they will never simply say “Death Panal”).

I would also like to note that it is unreasonable to compare the United States to Europe or Canada. We have a MUCH larger population and giving “free healthcare” to all citizens will be too costly to keep everyone alive. I am certain that the very old, the disabled, and unwanted children (not simply unborn babies) will be destroyed for the good of the country.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: