Health & Death Panels

Interesting commentary in the Wall Street Journal today (18 Aug) demonstrating care rationing by an “end of life panel.” A petitioner is addressing an uncooperative panel who have perfected their approach (appearing sensitive while making insensitive decisions) and seem to enjoy power over individuals considered inferior due to actual health issues or decisions made earlier in life intentional (smoking, eating) or otherwise.

I am not sanguine that any approach will allow for in person appeal After all, in order to have a realistic approach, information (morbidity factors, current and expected quality of life) will need to weighed in a scientific manner. The panels begin to meet in person, but case load soon requires virtual meetings and virtual votes. Favorable decisions seem to carry the day in early decision making. As cost implications begin to be impressed upon the panel, the percentage of favorable decisions begins a steady decline.

I am reminded of a scene from “The Incredibles” where the erstwhile hero (Bob Parr - Mr Incredible) after a series of unfortunate and humiliating events is forced to go underground and after a series of jobs is seen working at an insurance company. He is routinely berated by a diminutive overbearing boss at an unusually high percentage of insurance claims by Bob Parr’s clients being paid. The big bad insurance company’s one objective is to make money, usually at the expense of their clients.

Initially this seems to fit in with the kenyan’s desire for a public option, it misses the mark and would better describe a government approach where there is no appeal, and no free market for individuals to shop for health insurance. We are considered too stupid to know what we really need, and that is why we need particularly bright and intelligent people to run the health care (and our lives) for us. This tendency towards totalitarianism is particularly insidious in an environment of ever growing government and ever increasing ‘rights’ being read into a document by legislatures and the courts. Socialism (as in National Socialists of Germany after WWI - NAZIs in case you haven’t made the connection) used this very same approach and were ardent health food, anti-smoking, anti-fat in their approach and pushed it on the population as they were doing it for the best of the people and their country. Beginning to sound familiar?

Universal health care, while desirable, results in loss of freedom. Freedom to chose (or not to chose) the health care the individual desires, and to live with the consequences of that decision. Government intrusion into free markets always distorts the market place and results in increased costs, less care (rationed) and enslavement of the populace through taxation.