The following is an excerpt from OpinionJournal.com’s “Best of the Web” written by the editor, James Taranto.
Bottom Stories of the Day
“PM [Prime Minister] Eats Biscuit, Twitters About It”–headline, Australian, Oct. 14
‘We’re Going to Let You Die’
David Espo of the Associated Press is certainly excited about what the Senate Finance Committee did yesterday:
Historic legislation to expand U.S. health care and control costs won its first Republican supporter Tuesday and cleared a key Senate hurdle, a double-barreled triumph that propelled President Barack Obama’s signature issue toward votes this fall in both houses of Congress.
Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute throws some cold water on the double-barreled hurdle-clearing of a signature-propellent, noting that lots of special interests–not just industry groups but unions, wealthy constituents of Democratic congressmen, and even coal miners–have reason to oppose this legislation. “Can President Obama and the congressional leadership satisfy [these] groups?” he asks. “My guess is, probably not, and this misguided effort at ‘reform’ will therefore die. Again.”
Let’s hope he’s right. Meanwhile, if you’re not part of a special interest but just a regular American who hopes one day to grow old (because it beats the alternative), NewsBusters.org has a timely reminder that proponents of “health-care reform” don’t necessarily sympathize with that aspiration. NewsBusters links to another Morgen Richmond YouTube clip, this one of a speech that Robert Reich, who served as President Clinton’s labor secretary, delivered on the subject in 2007:
I will actually give you a speech made up entirely–almost at the spur of the moment, of what a candidate for president would say if that candidate did not care about becoming president. In other words, this is what the truth is, and a candidate will never say, but what candidates should say if we were in a kind of democracy where citizens were honored in terms of their practice of citizenship, and they were educated in terms of what the issues were, and they could separate myth from reality in terms of what candidates would tell them:
“Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I’m so glad to see you, and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health-care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. [laughter] That’s true, and what I’m going to do is I am going to try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people. But that means you–particularly you young people, particularly you young, healthy people–you’re going to have to pay more. [applause] Thank you.
“And by the way, we are going to have to–if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive, so we’re going to let you die. [applause]
“Also, I’m going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government in terms of Medicare, Medicaid–we already have a lot of bargaining leverage–to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. But that means less innovation, and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market, which means you are probably not going to live that much longer than your parents. [applause] Thank you.”
As noted in our transcription, Reich’s Berkeley, Calif., audience applauded the idea of taxing the young, killing the old, and stifling lifesaving innovations. One suspects that these ideas would not be greeted as warmly in most other American locales, which is why elected politicians who are actually trying to sell such ideas cloak them in euphemisms about “universal care,” “reform,” “cost cutting” and so forth.
Liz Hunt of London’s Daily Telegraph reports on an even more chilling euphemism used in a country that long ago instituted “health-care reform”:
“Mrs ——- has breathing difficulties,” the night manager told her. “She needs oxygen. Shall we call an ambulance?”
“What do you mean?” my friend responded. “What’s the matter with her?”
“She needs to go to hospital. Do you want that? Or would you prefer that we make her comfortable?”
“Make her comfortable.” Here’s what that meant:
Befuddled by sleep, she didn’t immediately grasp what was being asked of her. Her grandmother is immobilised by a calcified knee joint, which is why she is in the home. She’s a little deaf and frail, but otherwise perky. She reads a newspaper every day (without glasses), and is a fan of the darling of daytime television, David Dickinson. Why wouldn’t she get medical treatment if she needed it?
Then, the chilling implication of the phone call filtered through–she was being asked whether her grandmother should be allowed to die.
“Call an ambulance now,” my friend demanded.
The person at the other end persisted. “Are you sure that’s what you want? For her to go to hospital.”
“Yes, absolutely. Get her to hospital.”
Three hours later, her grandmother was sitting up in A&E [the accident-and-emergency ward], smiling. She had a mild chest infection, was extremely dehydrated, but was responding to oxygen treatment.
As Hunt notes, “Withdrawal of fluids (and drugs) is one of the steps on the controversial palliative care programme known as the Liverpool Care Pathway, which has been adopted by 900 hospitals, hospices and care homes in England.”
Former Enron adviser [and NY Times Op-ed columnist] Paul Krugman disagrees: “In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We’ve all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false.” But is it possible that Reich is right and Krugman is wrong?
For more “Best of the Web” click here and look for the “Best of the Web Today” link in the middle column below “Today’s Columnists.
