Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Obama adviser admits we need death panels
by Aaron Klein
A top Democrat strategist and donor who served as President Obama’s lead auto-industry adviser recently conceded that the rationing of heath services under Obamacare is “inevitable.”
Steven Rattner advocated that such rationing should target elderly patients, while stating, “We need death panels.”
Rattner serves on the board the New America Foundation, or NAF, a George Soros-funded think tank that was instrumental in supporting Obamacare in 2010. Soros’ son, financier Jonathan Soros, is also a member of the foundation’s board.
Rattner was the so-called “car czar,” the lead auto adviser to the Treasury Department under Obama.
Last month, Rattner penned an opinion piece in the New York Times titled “Beyond Obamacare” in which he proclaimed “We need death panels” and argued rationing must be instructed to sustain Obama’s health-care plan. His comments have been virtually ignored by traditional media as the president campaign’s for a second term.
“We need death panels,” began Rattner. “Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health-care resources more prudently – rationing, by its proper name – the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget.”
Read all about the idea of “Medical Murder” and find out what Barack Obama would do in a second term, in “Fool Me Twice.”
Continued Rattner: “But in the pantheon of toxic issues – the famous ‘third rail’ of American politics – none stands taller than overtly acknowledging that elderly Americans are not entitled to every conceivable medical procedure or pharmaceutical.”
Rattner lamented how Obama’s Affordable Care Act “regrettably includes severe restrictions on any reduction in Medicare services or increase in fees to beneficiaries.”
Rattner said the numbers don’t add up unless Obamacare utilizes rationing.
“If his Independent Payment Advisory Board comes up with savings, Congress must accept either them or vote for an equivalent package,” stated Rattner. “The problem is, the advisory board can’t propose reducing benefits (a k a rationing) or raising fees (another form of rationing), without which the spending target looms impossibly large.”
Rattner singled out elderly patients for benefit cuts.
He wrote: “No one wants to lose an aging parent. And with price out of the equation, it’s natural for patients and their families to try every treatment, regardless of expense or efficacy. But that imposes an enormous societal cost that few other nations have been willing to bear. Many countries whose health care systems are regularly extolled – including Canada, Australia and New Zealand – have systems for rationing care.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I wonder if this would be such a far reaching topic if there were no electron in the offing. The article does of course emphasis the difficulties in funding which have to be faced. It also emphasises to some extent the unspoken problem of “over servicing”. The work ups performed by physicians in order to avoid a legal action appear to contain a battery of tests to eliminate rather than confirm a diagnosis.
ReplyDeleteI have been given lists of tests routinely performed in order to diagnose a simple URTI (upper respiratory tract infection), a flash name for a common cold. The list included full blood work up, Urine examination, chest x-ray, in one case liver function tests and in another allergy testing. Common sense should tell us that the sniffles will get better in seven days if you seek treatment and in a week if you simply let nature take its course.
From the above simple example it is obvious that a fundamental change is required in the approach to holistic medicine in order to not only reduce costs but also to lessen the dependence of Americans on the system which encourages litigation for everything .
Anyone disagree?
Cheers from Aussie
From the article, "“Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health-care resources more prudently – rationing, by its proper name – the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget.”"
DeleteThis is basically what is being said by people like Ryan about social security and more vaguely, about medicaid. Livestrongest is notorious for posting in hysterics. Ask any nurse in America if there is waste and significant overtreatment and unnecessary treatment, and they will tell you that of course there is. In my short time as a nurse, I have seen massive over treatment that had nothing to do with cover your ass medicine. I have also seen lengthy treatments done that directly conflicted with a patients pre determined objectives.
What's great about reading your comments Aussie is that I frequently find a measure of common sense. When you agree with conservatives here, they applaud you. When you say something moderate, you can hear crickets chirp. Common sense solutions, IMO, are not really possible at this time in this country because we have an open statement of war to not work with each other. Republicans agree with plenty in Obama care and basically keep saying they will repeal it, and then reinstate big pieces of it. That, to me, is the height of petulance and ignorance. If this is our starting point, talking about various fixes is kind of a cart before the horse situation.
Unfortunately we cannot continue down the same road in regards to both Social Security and Medicare. Today we take money in excess of the taxes collected for the programs from the general fund to cover both programs. As more people retire and the costs climb, how will we fund the programs if they are not changed??
DeleteAnd by changed, we should be honest, we simply mean cut benefits. However, we can't be honest, at least we can't say what will happen when we cut the benefits.
DeleteWhy pay MORE for a system of rationing? Our system is working well as it is.
DeleteObamaCare was sold to the American public as a way to insure all Americans NOT to fix the huge impending Medicare/Medicaid problem.
MAX,
DeleteUnfortunately the politicians will decide in the palace of Washington from on high. Like the healthcare reform they will not take input from the people.
The healthcare plan should have been a bare bones plan with the ability to buy more services if desired. Why, so we could afford it. Instead we have the PPACA where free is free to some paid for by others. Where the taxes collected will fall woefully short, a fact not discussed anywhere today. Should be most interesting to hear the story of why they need to raise taxes or cut services in 2015.
But I still have the same question. What if you can't afford anything but the bare bones plan, and then you get cancer. Or, how bout a question that will be on the mind of any good conservative, what if you CAN afford more, but decide to not buy it so you can save money and then bank on the knowledge that the rest of the country won't just let you die.
DeleteI get your point, but was there even one Republican who was proposing what you are? The primary purpose of all legislation today is to protect profits of those with enough money to buy it. From Bush's drug bill to Obamacare, this is the end result.
live,
ReplyDeleteI saw that yesterday, wanted to post it, but still haven't been able to figure out how. This is a sidebar to this revealing story, but how does one start a blog on AP?
Jean
send your email to brandtbishop@gmail.com
DeleteI will invite you to be an author
Jean
ReplyDeleteWhen you have the answer to your question, please tell me. I too would like to get a subject started occasionally.
Cheers from Aussie
Not sure if it looks the same on every computer, but on my screen, there is a place to click on in the upper right hand corner that says, "New Post". It's at the very top of the page and I don't see it unless the page is scrolled all the way up.
DeleteHope that helps
send your email to brandtbishop@gmail.com
DeleteI will invite you to be an author
I believe that you must be specifically endowed with the New Post Privilege, something the blog's founder has not as yet authorized.
ReplyDelete