« | »

NYT: Why We Must Ration Health Care

Buried in the ‘Magazine’ section of New York Times:

Why We Must Ration Health Care

July 19, 2009


You have advanced kidney cancer. It will kill you, probably in the next year or two. A drug called Sutent slows the spread of the cancer and may give you an extra six months, but at a cost of $54,000. Is a few more months worth that much?

If you can afford it, you probably would pay that much, or more, to live longer, even if your quality of life wasn’t going to be good. But suppose it’s not you with the cancer but a stranger covered by your health-insurance fund. If the insurer provides this man — and everyone else like him — with Sutent, your premiums will increase. Do you still think the drug is a good value? Suppose the treatment cost a million dollars. Would it be worth it then? Ten million? Is there any limit to how much you would want your insurer to pay for a drug that adds six months to someone’s life? If there is any point at which you say, “No, an extra six months isn’t worth that much,” then you think that health care should be rationed.

In the current U.S. debate over health care reform, “rationing” has become a dirty word. Meeting last month with five governors, President Obama urged them to avoid using the term, apparently for fear of evoking the hostile response that sank the Clintons’ attempt to achieve reform. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed published at the end of last year with the headline “Obama Will Ration Your Health Care,” Sally Pipes, C.E.O. of the conservative Pacific Research Institute, described how in Britain the national health service does not pay for drugs that are regarded as not offering good value for money, and added, “Americans will not put up with such limits, nor will our elected representatives.” And the Democratic chair of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Max Baucus, told CNSNews in April, “There is no rationing of health care at all” in the proposed reform.

Remember the joke about the man who asks a woman if she would have sex with him for a million dollars? She reflects for a few moments and then answers that she would. “So,” he says, “would you have sex with me for $50?” Indignantly, she exclaims, “What kind of a woman do you think I am?” He replies: “We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling about the price.” The man’s response implies that if a woman will sell herself at any price, she is a prostitute. The way we regard rationing in health care seems to rest on a similar assumption, that it’s immoral to apply monetary considerations to saving lives — but is that stance tenable?

Health care is a scarce resource, and all scarce resources are rationed in one way or another. In the United States, most health care is privately financed, and so most rationing is by price: you get what you, or your employer, can afford to insure you for. But our current system of employer-financed health insurance exists only because the federal government encouraged it by making the premiums tax deductible. That is, in effect, a more than $200 billion government subsidy for health care. In the public sector, primarily Medicare, Medicaid and hospital emergency rooms, health care is rationed by long waits, high patient copayment requirements, low payments to doctors that discourage some from serving public patients and limits on payments to hospitals.

The case for explicit health care rationing in the United States starts with the difficulty of thinking of any other way in which we can continue to provide adequate health care to people on Medicaid and Medicare, let alone extend coverage to those who do not now have it. Health-insurance premiums have more than doubled in a decade, rising four times faster than wages. In May, Medicare’s trustees warned that the program’s biggest fund is heading for insolvency in just eight years. Health care now absorbs about one dollar in every six the nation spends, a figure that far exceeds the share spent by any other nation. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it is on track to double by 2035.

President Obama has said plainly that America’s health care system is broken. It is, he has said, by far the most significant driver of America’s long-term debt and deficits. It is hard to see how the nation as a whole can remain competitive if in 15 years we are spending nearly a third of what we earn on health care, while other industrialized nations are spending far less but achieving health outcomes as good as, or better than, ours.

Rationing health care means getting value for the billions we are spending by setting limits on which treatments should be paid for from the public purse. If we ration we won’t be writing blank checks to pharmaceutical companies for their patented drugs, nor paying for whatever procedures doctors choose to recommend. When public funds subsidize health care or provide it directly, it is crazy not to try to get value for money. The debate over health care reform in the United States should start from the premise that some form of health care rationing is both inescapable and desirable. Then we can ask, What is the best way to do it?

Will Americans allow their government, either directly or through an independent agency like NICE, to decide which treatments are sufficiently cost-effective to be provided at public expense and which are not? They might, under two conditions: first, that the option of private health insurance remains available, and second, that they are able to see, in their own pocket, the full cost of not rationing health care.

Rationing public health care limits free choice if private health insurance is prohibited. But many countries combine free national health insurance with optional private insurance. Australia, where I’ve spent most of my life and raised a family, is one. The U.S. could do something similar. This would mean extending Medicare to the entire population, irrespective of age, but without Medicare’s current policy that allows doctors wide latitude in prescribing treatments for eligible patients. Instead, Medicare for All, as we might call it, should refuse to pay where the cost per QALY is extremely high. (On the other hand, Medicare for All would not require more than a token copayment for drugs that are cost-effective.) The extension of Medicare could be financed by a small income-tax levy, for those who pay income tax — in Australia the levy is 1.5 percent of taxable income. (There’s an extra 1 percent surcharge for those with high incomes and no private insurance. Those who earn too little to pay income tax would be carried at no cost to themselves.) Those who want to be sure of receiving every treatment that their own privately chosen physicians recommend, regardless of cost, would be free to opt out of Medicare for All as long as they can demonstrate that they have sufficient private health insurance to avoid becoming a burden on the community if they fall ill. Alternatively, they might remain in Medicare for All but take out supplementary insurance for health care that Medicare for All does not cover. Every American will have a right to a good standard of health care, but no one will have a right to unrationed health care. Those who opt for unrationed health care will know exactly how much it costs them.

One final comment. It is common for opponents of health care rationing to point to Canada and Britain as examples of where we might end up if we get “socialized medicine.” On a blog on Fox News earlier this year, the conservative writer John Lott wrote, “Americans should ask Canadians and Brits — people who have long suffered from rationing — how happy they are with central government decisions on eliminating ‘unnecessary’ health care.” There is no particular reason that the United States should copy the British or Canadian forms of universal coverage, rather than one of the different arrangements that have developed in other industrialized nations, some of which may be better. But as it happens, last year the Gallup organization did ask Canadians and Brits, and people in many different countries, if they have confidence in “health care or medical systems” in their country. In Canada, 73 percent answered this question affirmatively. Coincidentally, an identical percentage of Britons gave the same answer. In the United States, despite spending much more, per person, on health care, the figure was only 56 percent.



Peter Singer is professor of bioethics at Princeton University. He is also laureate professor at the University of Melbourne, in Australia. His most recent book is “The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty.”

Here it comes.

In typical New York Times fashion, this article goes on forever.

But it is worth going to the link and reading the full tract.

It is great nightmare fuel.

By the way, in case Mr. Singer’s name doesn’t strike a bell, he is that famed bioethicist who believes in sex with animals and abortion, euthanasia and infanticide for humans.

Maybe Mr. Obama will make him his Health Care Czar.

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, July 15th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

50 Responses to “NYT: Why We Must Ration Health Care”

  1. bronzeprofessor says:

    Steve, how do you read all these NY Times articles without wanting to get very very drunk? You are a masochist or have incredible endurance. God bless you!

    • tranquil.night says:

      I agree. I don’t have the stomach for this one – I’ll accept precedent and be deferential to the other branches of S&L governance.

      Actually I have one comment. One resource that isn’t scarce is human potential, yet the NYT and allies are damn sure out to make it scarce through these very arguments and plans. Effing supremists are out to engineer the next master race, they aren’t even subtle about it anymore. Why oh why is it so easy for all of these fools to come out of the woodwork and spew their bile?

  2. proreason says:

    Every resource is scarce, particularly when the government is involved and mucks up the works.

    There is hardly a single thing you do in a day where you aren’t balancing time vs money vs energy vs pain vs pleasure vs whatever.

    For myself, I prefer to do the balancing.

    And I’ll fight to the death to prevent Obamy or his facist allies from being the ones who make those decisions for me and my family.

  3. pdsand says:

    I was going to say, that “reasoning” sounded familiar…

  4. David says:

    …so most rationing is by price: you get what you, or your employer, can afford to insure you for.

    What kind of idiotic logic can equate the “rationing” of consumers buying what they can pay for with blanket restrictions dictated by bureaucrats with no medical training!
    Apperantly brain injury is now a requirement for NY times Editorial publication.

    • neocon mom says:

      “Apperantly brain injury is now a requirement for NY times Editorial publication.”

      Come on, even a brain-injured person might still have a functioning moral compass and a soul, unlike this creep.

  5. jobeth says:


    My BP is skyrocketing right now!

  6. BillK says:

    One can hardly wait until whether a health care procedure is worth it or not depends on your position in society.

    So of course any treatment that extends the life of a Government or Union worker is Worth It.

    A treatment for say, a conservative banker? Sorry, they’re dead.

    For a look at how all of this works, see Medicare.

    They currently won’t pay for virtual colonoscopy because “if something is found, a followup would need to be scheduled to remove the polyps anyway.”

    But many, many people refuse to undergo a regular colonoscopy because of the discomfort and sedation involved.

    Medicare feels those people deserve to just die then.

    It’s also just a matter of time before they follow the “new” guidelines and refuse to cover prostate cancer treatment for anyone over 65, figuring they’ll “die of something else first anyway.”

  7. beautyofreason says:

    So trust in the government, become expendable once you are too old, too sick, or just too expensive.

    Yes, resources are scarce. But at least I can choose how to use my resources in my own interests. Some government cog in the wheel should never be able to determine the value of my life. Is it in the state’s interest to resuscitate me? Bah.

    In Canada they use socialized health care. And to force everyone to stick to it, they eliminated all forms of private insurance for over twenty years, reversing the ban in 2005. I suspect that liberals would eliminate or destroy private insurance if they could. After all, they view most large businesses with contempt. Yet the government will save them.

  8. jobeth says:

    First lie

    “Health care is a scarce resource, and all scarce resources are rationed in one way or another. ”

    It isn’t NOW…but would be under this rationing plan! And if some insurance plan is trying to ration due to costs they are just as wrong. That surely doesn’t make it OK for the Feds to do it up worse.

    That is exactly why you can’t find a good doctor who wastes his time with HMOs. Now multiply that by billions…and see what you get.

    Dead loved ones everywhere. And some government office or official making hay off someone’s death.

    • BillK says:

      The typical liberal argument is “Health care is rationed now by your insurance company! If they won’t pay for a procedure, you can’t have it done, so what’s the difference if your insurance company or the Government is making the decision?”

      The difference of course is insurance companies have appeal procedures and if those fail if you can come up with the money you can still have the procedure done.

      The Federal Government will instead have written in stone policies that cannot be appealed (though I readily admit so do insurance companies), and if private payments are made illegal it won’t matter what the procedure is – if the Federal plan won’t pay for it, the procedure (or medication) simply “won’t exist.”

    • neocon mom says:

      Jobeth I respectfully disagree with you on the scarcity issue. Both Thomas Sowell and George Will have pointed out in one way or another that the first rule of economics is scarcity, and that rationing takes place by one mechanism or another (the government being the least preferential way of rationing anything).

      And I’d venture to guess that in our free-market system, we educate the most and best doctors in the world. And there is still a shortage of doctors and particularly general surgeons (their liability insurance is prohibitive to making much money, especially relative to the time and money they must spend on training.)

      Which leads me to the point that if something is scarce, how can it also be a right?

      This “right” to receive healthcare will necessarily be traded for our right to live. That is why the cost of socialized medicine will always be too high for freedom loving, eugenics abhorring people like you and I.

      The madness is to see this guy accept the conservative argument that government-rationed healthcare is an inevitable consequence of socialized medicine and say “gosh, why would anyone have a problem with that? It’s actually a good thing!”

    • jobeth says:


      Perhaps I am looking at it from the point of view of someone having worked in the profession, but I have never seen a situation where health care cannot be provided on the spot when needed. To anyone.

      I understand there maybe areas of the country due to a low population where there may not be enough local physicians and/or hospitals.

      But anyone who needs care can get it. Its there. The problem comes when a third party begins to try to ration care due to costs. Right now we have insurance companies who are trying to do this. It began with the HMOs back in the 80s. Now you can rarely find a doctor who will take an HMO.

      Why…because parents were running their little runny nosed kids in for every sneeze or bump. That time was taken away from those who needed the slot. Plus HMO’s are notorious for mountains of paperwork and “proofs” needed to show why Patient X needs said treatment.

      Just wait to see what happens under “free” health care when everyone can run in for every pimple they get…multiply what I just said by millions

      Now you see PPOs trying to cut costs by making the patient (and doctors) WORK for the coverage they promised…I am working my way through that situation right now myself. My supplement is making me jump through hoops and see more physicians to get an appliance I need due to arthritis.

      Even the homeless will show up at ERs or clinics to get health care…some I might add, for care they don’t need. (Another story)

      But in the end I just don’t know anyone who has had to wait more than a week or two for any procedure. Possibly to see a specialist, but even then a few only weeks.

      You mentioned the fact that we are facing a doctor’s shortage due to malpractice issues.
      I agree with you here and as I happened to mention on another thread on S&L today there is an easy fix for that. Loser pays all court costs , plus a cap on “pain and suffering” awards (not the actual damages)

      You would see FAR fewer minor lawsuits that turn into large awards under that set up. Its all about money of course.

      Fewer lawsuits…less costly malpractice equals more bright and energetic young people entering into the profession.

      IF there is a scarcity of health care it’s artificial. Wrapped up in poor laws and regs that keep doctors out of the field.

      So as far as I can see we aren’t there yet. If we don’t do something to get on top of the malpractice issue we surely can have a scarcity even without Obalmy’s health care plans.

      Our health care needs fixing…but not by Obalmy and crowd. We need only to tweak the legal and malpractice laws and I would wager we would make one heck of a dent in our health care costs.

      After thought. One more thing that we need is that the patient be given an itemized bill of all costs hospitals and/or doctors bill the third parties for.
      We need to sign off on them so fraud and large mistakes can’t continue to run up the health care. This is another large problem playing into the mix.

    • proreason says:

      On rationing, there is a life rule that says that whatever it is expands to fill the time/funds/space available.

      So, half of us could easily absorb twice the medical care available.

      Jobeths’ point is that we don’t have a major shortage and can easily re-allocate, when necessary, to give critical care when needed.

      Both points are valid and both will create a firestorm if Universal Health Scare gets through.

      The evil chemical in the mix is “the law”. Here’s how it works today, and here’s how it will work disastrously worse in the future.

      Today: medical professionals are highly skilled workers with high-level judgement, and easily adjust to changing conditions, setting aside non critical care during emergencies and re-allocating to take care of the severely sick or injured (as Jobeth says). Except in times of massive destruction (plagues, hurricanes, etc), everyone can get the care that is needed.

      Tomorrow: health care will be dominated by the most inflexible structure in the world, “the law”. “The law” will dictate what care can be given, under what conditions, the priority, the order, forbid “discrimination”, and dictate a million other minute details as well. The alternative to following “the law”, will be jail or ruination. Moreover, everyone will have a “right” to health care, and the other person’s right to having his sniffles fixed is equivalent to your right to have your terminal cancer treated. Or even worse, “the law” will say that treating 20 sniffles is preferable to treating one cancer victim, because the cancer victim will probably die soon anyway. And the sniffles will easily expand to absorb the attention of every medical provider who could ever be trained, just like the papers on your desk take up every inch of it.

      This is why people die while waiting for medical care in all countries with government run health care. The medical providers can only adjust within the limits of “the Law”. Of course, you will always be able to call you attentive local congress person, and get the law changed. (and you think BCBS is tough to deal with).

      So people will die unnecessarilly. Lots of them. Millions of them.

    • jobeth says:

      “Or even worse, “the law” will say that treating 20 sniffles is preferable to treating one cancer victim, because the cancer victim will probably die soon anyway”

      On the money Pro. That’s what happened to my father in law. While my inlaws kept calling about his mini stokes and being told to come in in 2 or 3 weeks for an appointment with the doc…The sniffle crowd was being served.

      As I said before…he died shortly there after with a massive stroke.

      Oh well…he was 85 and of no use to society (strong as an ox mentally sharp and a had great sense of humor and well loved…but of no other use)

    • neocon mom says:

      Jobeth I think we are mostly in agreement. I agree with you that it is an outrageous lie that people don’t have access to care. And there is provision after provision already to pay for the healthcare of the elderly, the disabled, the poor, children and pregnant women.
      To fix healthcare costs I think we could agree:
      1. Put the consumer back into the mix–easily done with high-deductible insurance. People will shop around for the best deal
      2. Loser pays rule
      3. Put up an effective Mexico border barrier and enforce existing immigration law. Also citizenship is not automatically granted to the children of anyone who enters the country illegally.
      4. Health insurance vouchers for people with pre-existing conditions like type-I Diabetes or hemophilia, folks who live with illness who are not disabled and who can work for a living but may not be able to earn enough on their own to afford insurance. Even if you threw in other treatable but expensive illnesses, you’re talking about a relatively small number.

  9. BannedbytheTaliban says:

    Some how “Health Care is a limited right” just doesn’t have the same appeal.

  10. A Mad Pole says:

    In Poland they do not treat any patients over 75 with any cancer, only palliative care is provided in the government-run system, just enough to ease the pain and nothing more. If a government can decide that a 76-year old with a cancer is not eligible for the full therapy, what will stop them from deciding one day that a 23-year old with a broken bone does not deserve treatment either, only painkillers?

    Is this where the U.S is headed. Sad, very sad.

    • neocon mom says:

      My 92-year old father in law would not have survived lymphoma; he was diagnosed and successfully treated about 7 years ago.

      Sickening the way the older generation is just thrown away, as if they have nothing to offer anymore.

    • proreason says:

      Millions will die.

      Many of them readers of this web-site.

      And you thought redistribution only meant money, not your life.

  11. Rusty Shackleford says:

    From Wikipedia:

    “Singer’s parents were Viennese Jews who escaped the German annexation of Austria and fled to Australia in 1938. They settled in Melbourne, where Singer was born. His grandparents were less fortunate: his paternal grandparents were taken by the Nazis to Łódź, and were never heard from again; his maternal grandfather died in Theresienstadt.”

    I’m just reaching here but I think Singer’s views wouldn’t have floated in his parent’s house. His views on rationing healthcare are straight out of the Nazi manifesto.

    To wit, I find it amazing that so many Jews are such fanatics about socialism. Now before you go saying I’m anti-Semitic…that’s not the case. It’s just that from 1933 to now…and to an even greater extent, in the overall history of mankind, Jews have had every version of oppression laid unto them imaginable yet here in this modern, post-racial world….I guess it’s testimony to some form of enlightenment to which I am not privy. That being, “How can you, as a descendant of Judaism, with all that’s happened, with all the death, murder, wanton destruction and desire for the eradication of your very existence, submit to being so open-minded as to say that, in effect, the Nazis were right?”

    Oh, if but I had a time machine. I should like to take him back to the camps, the railheads where his grandparents were pushed into cattlecars; Where his very heritage was in the process of sterilization.

    Thus, you see the true victim of intellectualism. So far above the world in philosophical pronouncement that he does not realize his own folly. It’s the same as the liberals telling us that “radical muslims are people too” while they watch a beheading on youtube.

    This guy is, as far as I’m concerned, a certifiable nutjob.

    • jobeth says:

      Rusty, I went to that same page a while ago.

      you wrote
      “That being, “How can you, as a descendant of Judaism, with all that’s happened, with all the death, murder, wanton destruction and desire for the eradication of your very existence, submit to being so open-minded as to say that, in effect, the Nazis were right?”

      This same thought crossed my mind too.

    • bronzeprofessor says:

      Rusty, I look at the Jewish political perspective as something very multipolar. If you read Haaretz and Jerusalem Post, both Israeli papers, you’ll get very different takes on it. Jews in Israel, in a recent poll, only support Obama at a rate of SIX PERCENT! That’s righ: .06 or 6%. Yet in the USA, Obama received 78% of the Jewish vote. Jews and Jewish Americans are one of the more politically broad discourse communities, such a wide range of viewpoints.

      I have often wondered, as well, why so many vehement leftist pro-Palestinian voices in the USA are Jewish Americans. Many such Jewish Americans tell me they support the Palestinians because they equate modern Israel with the Nazi state and they equate Palestinians with the abandoned, vulnerable position occupied by Jews in Europe in the past. Other Jews, of course, call the latter group of Jews self-hating fruitcakes.

      The only way as a goyim to get involved in Jewish political questions is simply to throw out any qualms about being anti-Semitic. There’s nothing you can say about Israel or Jewish history that some Jew somewhere hasn’t said already.

      So I guess I’m not surprised that Singer is Jewish but supports health care rationing that looks uncomfortably fascistic. Maybe he thinks that the “Nazi” position today is to deny health care.

  12. 12 Gauge Rage says:

    The proposed health care plan has no humanity in it whatsoever. It’s nothing more than the government deciding who gets to live or die. It all boils down to the pro-abortionists managing our health. And every pro-abortionist I’ve ever met felt your life in this world was based upon what quality of life you had to the benefit of mankind. They never valued a life any less as being sacred. Nor fitting to be allowed to live.

    My question, based upon the whole quality of life issue is simply this: How will this new health care plan treat our returning wounded and maimed veterans? Will the government decide that the rehab isn’t worth the expense and in essence tell our boys ‘too bad, it sucks to be you?’ Or what about a parent whose child has been in a lengthy coma and prays for their eventual recovery? Will the government say sorry, it’s time to pull the plug, we have people waiting for that bed?

    The what if? scenarios of callousness is endless. I don’t want big government telling me which of my family and friends deserve or don’t deserve health care because of the expense. Especially if I have the means to pay for the care out of my own pocket.

    Basically I want the government to butt the hell out of my personal life and let me make my own decisions. whether they be good or bad.

    Sorry, I didn’t mean to rant for so long but this whole expansion of big oppressive government is really starting to tick me off.

    • 12, you make some great points there, don’t feel sorry for it. Those are all great questions and it will basically come down to the government will take any right that we have in care away from us and will decide who gets what. If I want to keep my wife alive through tubes and a machine, it doesn’t matter because the government is going to do whatever they want no matter what I say, because it is not going to be worth the money to them. I would go into huge amounts of debt if I were to know that my wife could stay alive and eventually recover, but with the government, I don’t have that choice. Once it gets to a certain amount for the medical costs, they are going to cut her off. It is really sad, actually, but even more sad that people don’t see this coming.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Remember the movie “COMA”?

  13. neocon mom says:

    “To wit, I find it amazing that so many Jews are such fanatics about socialism.”

    Correct as evidenced in the amount of the Jewish vote that lil’ red Bamster received.

  14. 12 Gauge Rage says:

    neocon mom,

    Not all Jews practice their faith. The Jews that I’ve met who adhere to the beliefs of Judaism are of a different mindset and are appalled that a fellow Jew would even entertain such destructive ideals. The Jews who advocate greater power through socialism are for the most part secular Jews and care not one bit about the tenets of their faith. But they’ll scream foul if you oppose them and say that you’re against them because they’re Jewish.

    Today’s secular socialist driven Jews are the Pharisees and Sadducees of our times. So where is our Carpenter of Nazareth who will boldly oppose them with great authority?

    • neocon mom says:

      “Today’s secular socialist driven Jews are the Pharisees and Sadducees of our times. So where is our Carpenter of Nazareth who will boldly oppose them with great authority?”

      Well put. But if the Messiah performing miracles and conquering death in your midst, centuries of persecution and a holocaust won’t change your mind, what will? I happen to think the Carpenter and His followers do still boldly oppose them. And I’ve heard of this Hockey Mom from Alaska….

  15. Liberals Demise says:

    I’ll vote for it when “THEY” take the same unhealthy trip forced upon the lab rats we Americans have become………and not until!!
    Hows about it Teddy…….you wanna get your brain cut on by a OBGYN?
    (talk about karma)

  16. pdsand says:

    How is a private insurance plan funded fully by the employer and employee supposed to survive competition against a taxpayer subsidized plan? A plan that can legally pay whatever it chooses to pay? And that can become insolvent like Medicare and still continue to operate for years? The very idea that the government plan will offer “healthy competition” is ridiculous. If they start a public plan it will necessarily be the end of all private plans. The only people who won’t have to join are those already fabulously wealthy enough to pay cash.

    • proreason says:

      “How is a private insurance plan funded fully by the employer and employee supposed to survive competition against a taxpayer subsidized plan?”

      There are only two possiblities for suggesting such a proposal would merely serve as “healthy competition”.

      a. The person making the proposal doesn’t understand that no private concern could possibly compete for the reasons you clearly state….and hence, is a moron.

      b. The person making the proposal understands that the proposal is ridiculous….and hence, is a liar.

      I think it’s the latter, although with the Moron’s unique mental disease, it could be both.

    • BillK says:

      It’s already widely known that most every company will simply stop offering health insurance and will instead just pay the Federal “fine” for not offering health insurance, dumping their employees into the public plan.

      Then, given that the insurance companies will be charged to pay for the public plan, there’s no way they could make the numbers add up.

      That’s why Ford will eventually fall as well – how can they compete with Government Motors?

  17. bill says:

    Isn’t ration and let die just the other side of abort the undesirables?

    And who knew Eugenics would be what the USA was going to become. Science czar Holdren had spoken.

  18. Colonel1961 says:

    Before the absurdity of health insurance we were health care consumers. Now, we are health care gluttons – feeding at the trough, regardless of cost or consequence. Before health insurance, we were aware of health choices – both economically and physically. Now, we demand instant satisfaction – and don’t you dare raise our premiums or make a profit.

    Terminate health insurance, return a free market-oriented approach to medicine and get on with our lives…

    (Haven’t read all the comments – apologize if I’ve repeated some other thoughts/posts…)

  19. BillK says:

    Once the public plan is the de facto universal plan (save of course for Union thugs and members of Congress), then we will see innovation fall to zero.

    New drug research? A waste of money if the Government won’t pay for the medications that result.

    New procedures? Why bother if the Government won’t pay for them?

    New therapies? Ditto.

    Prostate cancer research? Nah, defund it (only old people who are going to die of something else first anyway get that.)

    Alzheimer’s research? Well once they get too altered, those people can’t vote anyway, so might as well cut that – and think of the Social Security savings once they die early!

    In fact, I expect health care spending will be allocated rationed on a bell-curve basis.

    Little to no money for infants (hey, you can just have another child, and having kids is environmentally irresponsible anyway) and the elderly (too expensive for the time they have left.)

    Perhaps even a nice China-like program where no health care costs will be covered for any more than one child!

    Can the Government “death centers” from Soylent Green where anyone can go to choose to die be far behind?

    (Just think of the savings if all those terminally ill choose to off themselves at the time of diagnosis! That could pay for children’s immunizations!)

    • jobeth says:

      “Just think of the savings if all those terminally ill choose to off themselves at the time of diagnosis!”

      Bet they find the $$ to provide the drugs/bullets to do the job.

      Remember Dr Death, the assisted suicide doc? Maybe we should all buy stock int the suicide machine company.

    • neocon mom says:

      A woman in England already made headlines for having an abortion then getting sterilized in order to reduce her carbon footprint. I forget when and where I saw the story precisely but I can remember some of the comments left by readers applauding her for caring so darn much for the environment.

      And eventually the eco-conscious terminally ill (what constitutes terminally ill will be expanded) will hasten their demise in order to donate their bodies as fuel to biomass plants. Won’t that ease the pain of their death on their loved ones as well as the carbon footprint? It gives a whole new meaning to “going green”!

    • BillK says:

      Of course, as in Soylent Green the idea is not to get just the terminally ill to end their lives; if you make life miserable enough many people will, reducing costs even further.

      The greenies have wanted this all along, as they’ve long said the “sustainable” population of the world is a mere fraction of the number alive today.

  20. U NO HOO says:

    If we won’t spend “anything” to save a life then life isn’t worth “anything.”

    But, we already know that from the “Let the Botched Abortion Victim Die in the Linen Closet Law.”

  21. GetBackJack says:

    Get Larry Sinclair’s book How I Knew Who I Blew


    He’s not only an impostor fraud interloper ….

    • canary says:

      I’ve been hearing about that book coming out, and seen clips of interviews surrounding it. Don’t think Obama’s followers will even care. Cocaine goes hand in hand with abnormal sexual acts and prostitution. And his friends, roommates, and criminals he hung with. Obama wrote that his wife was not happy while he was a Senator, because he took a lot trips away from home for several days at a time. He said she was distant and cold toward him, complained that he didn’t help at home or raising the girls enough. He defends himself, in that he didn’t expect her to have dinner ready when he got home. But, when those majic beans started growing money, she finally became happy.

  22. Chuckk says:

    Like it or not, government provided health care is inevitable. Why? Because the majority of people think they will be getting something for nothing. And because our ever vigilant watch dog media never questions this assumption.

    • canary says:

      I don’t think it’s inevitable. Obama has spent too much money. He’ll give it a major run, for show, if it doesn’t pass he will point the finger at someone else.
      Good health care is something everyone wants, and it’s only normal for more prosperous people to get the best. But, any move Obama makes in the direction of capping medical proffesionals pay, is going to cause a major shortage in doctor’s in the future. And those that will be willing are doctor’s who have bad history.

      I watched Glen for a few minutes. He had a display that Republicans put together of the sytem Obama wants. It was terrible. All these hoops and things we’d have to go through. Agencies names all over the board.

      Minorities have their own special offices in the boxes. The guest said the worst box that said it would be the worst phase was where they determine if you get the procedure. I had to shut it off. It was so depressing. I learned over the years that things the military did were bad. The worst being not giving anesthesia. Even recently, I told a doctor about a procedure that was one without even a local, and he said it was insane. And I want to cry because so much unnecessary pain patients went through. We had doctor’s that were officers just doing their time (military pays, then you serve for so long) and they didn’t have to worry about lawsuits, and alot of gineau pigging and disrespect for people. I hated doctors until my son was born, and got my faith back a little. But, I’ve seen it all, and even if you have money and insurance, I see too many things going wrong. Some hospitals are working like mass assemblie lines. And so many nurses I know, talk about nurses taking patients pain medicine and sedatives, is really esculating. And no doubt Acorn will have their hands in Obama’s health care. I am depressed. Period.

      Plus, there may come a doctor shortage, when Obama takes 60-70 percent of what they’ll make. Figure on lot’s of doctor’s that can’t speak English. Que?

    • BillK says:

      The graphical representation of the House’s health care proposal can be found here:


    • proreason says:

      Not inevitable unless everyone with a brain buys into the libwit propaganda.

    • Chuckk says:

      Sorry. I hit SUBMIT twice.

    • Chuckk says:

      Not everyone has to buy into it. Only 50% + 1. We are well beyond that figure already.

    • proreason says:

      They want you to believe it’s all inevitable Chuck.

      It’s not.

      The unreliable polls say that more than 50% of the people in the country like their current health care and are suspicious of a government takeover, and since the bias of every poll is always liberal, there is probably a substantial force against Universal Health Scare.

      But if people with brains don’t speak up, then it will pass, and life will never be the same again.

      In fact, your life will probably be shorter than it otherwise would have been.

      So on this one, the worst thing you can do is to proclaim it is inevitable.

  23. wardmama4 says:

    My youngest son would not be alive today – if not for free (yes I said FREE) care provided by people who wanted to expand (yes, expand) and Innovate (yes, that is innovation) their field to the point that now – quality of the life saved is the issue – not saving that life. I thank God every day that the ER doctor called Shriners Burns Institute in Galveston TX – and that for decades (mid-60s for the Burn hospitals of which there are 4 – Boston, Cincinnati, Galveston & Sacramento) – all at NO cost to the patients.

    Think about that – the most expensive injury/treatment there is in the World – at no cost to the patients – here in America, right now – regardless of reason, color, income, gender – NOW. . .And oh btw, did I mention St. Judes that treats children cancers at NO cost – and also the other 18 Shriners hospitals that treat orthopedic conditions – also at NO cost? Thank you to the Shriners hospitals and of course to their fund raising arm – the Shrines (Kareem and Syrian to be exact, in our case).

    What a bunch of vile, evil, lying, hypocritical, disgusting, dangerous inhumane, heartless creatures (because they sure aren’t HUMAN anymore) the 111th Congress has become.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »