Friday, August 14, 2009

Burn patterns

As I said over at Grim’s, I’m retiring from the Section 1233 field. I am apparently the only person on the face of the earth who is not a Leftist yet still thinks it’s a good idea for people to talk to their doctors about end of life issues and realizes many of the elderly may not be able to afford to do so.

There is now much rejoicing on the Right at signs that Congress may drop this provision from whatever version of health care reform is passed. If I believed in karma I would suspect that everyone currently celebrating would eventually end up in a situation where he is old and seriously ill and wants desperately to sit down with his family doctor for a half-hour to discuss his options but can’t afford to do so.

Ah, well, the burn patterns of political wildfires are always interesting to observe. If Section 1233 is dropped will that empower leading opponents of health care reform thereby giving them more standing among the everyday Americans who have rallied to the cause? Or will those everyday Americans who have been so adamantly opposed to health care reform for fear of the “euthanasia” provision content themselves with their perceived victory and lose their fervor?
Posted by Elise at 8/14/2009 07:25:00 PM Categories:

4 comments:

Grim said...

"If I believed in karma I would suspect that everyone currently celebrating would eventually end up in a situation where he is old and seriously ill and wants desperately to sit down with his family doctor for a half-hour to discuss his options but can’t afford to do so."

If we get to the point that "everyone" currently celebrating is in that particular fix, we really will need massive healthcare reform.

It's too early to celebrate, though. I regard the death of 1233 as a sacrifical lamb only; they tried to pull Mrs. Palin into fighting on that ground, because they thought she'd be easy to beat (everyone hates her, right?); and because they thought it'd be easier to defend than the part of the plan she was really talking about.

I'm impressed with how well she's been able to press the attack given her limited stature. She holds no office, and is making no public speeches I've seen -- just posting to Facebook or Myspace or whatever it is she uses. That's pretty impressive, but it also points to the fact that there's a lot of people out there who just agree: the government needs to stay out of the health care business.

Maybe karma will mean that everyone who feels that way loses their health care; but, if in fact the government would have damaged health care, as we believe it will, then maybe karma means we'll get better health care than ever. And a puppy.

August 14, 2009 at 9:20 PM
Elise said...

I have no quarrel with defeating HR3200 or any of the other massive government overhauls of the health care system. I've posted about my concerns regarding the effects on the supply of health care providers, innovation, and so on if something like HR3200 is passed. I would like to see some tinkering at the margins (insuring the uninsured for example) but not via the government becoming the "insurance company" for those people.

I also agree that Sarah Palin is doing an amazing job tapping into a groundswell of well-founded concerns about exactly how this particular government plans to address medical costs. However, I believe we do ourselves a disservice when we make end of life planning a scary thing. Or, in other words, I wish the sacrificial lamb had not been a little fuzzy critter I found innocuous at worst, lovable at best. I'd rather have thrown IMAC or Ezekiel Emanuel to the wolves first.

the government needs to stay out of the health care business

I have some problems with that statement because the government is already in the health care business: Medicare and Medicaid. We may want to get them out of that business but that's a whole other fight. As I said in an earlier post, I think there's a easily testable possible path to getting the government out of Medicaid. Medicare is far less clear to me simply because old people need more care which makes them a bad bet for any private insurance company that has to look at the bottom line.

As for that puppy possibility, what if I don't want a puppy? Could I get a kitten instead?

August 15, 2009 at 4:54 AM
Anonymous said...

End-of-life planning is always going to be a scary thing for me if the context is a government bureaucrat nosing around to see whether pulling the plug might save his program a few pennies. The government needs to butt out and let people talk to their doctors. My most minor concern in this area is that people might not be able to afford to talk to their doctors about a DNR unless the government were there to pay the consultation fee. People who want to talk about a DNR, talk about a DNR. Some people who avoid talking about it might benefit from a doctor or a family member gently and tactfully pressing the issue. I'm hard-pressed to believe they need anyone else in the room banging the drum on the subject.

-- Texan99

August 15, 2009 at 10:29 AM
Grim said...

End of life planning is going to be scary regardless of what you do with it. "So, how do you want to die? Would you like me to cut off your nutrition here, or not until there? When shall we deny you antibiotics?"

There's no happy way to have the conversation.

I still hope to live long enough to see my son grown and enjoy my grandchildren; but die soon enough that I can do it in some honorable way, like on horseback. I read a story a year or two ago about a man who had died in the saddle, at seventy-something, during a cattle roundup. Can we write that into my end of life plan?

August 15, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Post a Comment