Thanks to the following PUMAs for keeping me up to date on the "Health Care Bill:"
Woman State quoting Taranto at the WSJ: "If She's Dim and He's Brilliant, How Did He Lose?"
PUMA for Life linking to Tammy Bruce: "If Some Chick in an Igloo Didn't Have a Laptop..."
HILLBUZZ linking to C4P: "Don't Give The Leftists Ammunition."
Free Me Now linking to the Washington Times: "Palin Target Renounces Care Rationing."
Ok. Let me come clean on this. I am all for end of life counseling!!! Every five years is not too often. BUT.... and this is BIG... end of life counseling should not be linked in any way with cost containment considerations. Therefore, it cannot and should not *ever* become a service offered by Medicare, or Medicaid, or for-profit Insurance Companies.
To link "End of Life Care" with cost containment, in that way, is beyond the pale of ethical health care practice. It's a conflict of interest with unimaginable consequences. For both Physicians and their patients.
My dear Liberal leaning friends, I am sorry... but the mere presence of a provision that would allow Medicare to pay for "end of life counseling," and to dictate how often it should be offered, *is* a red flag. It should signal, to any thinking non-partisan, a serious potential for other weaknesses in the Health Care Bill that is currently being *rushed* through Congress.
Think about it.
SYD
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Thank you so much for this unbelievably cogent analysis. For some reason, liberals cannot accept that this amounts to "death panels"; conservatives cannot accept that insurance companies also amount to death panels.
ReplyDeleteAnd what did you think of that condescending piece in the NYT implying that these concerns are based on an urban myth on par with the stolen-kidney story?