I've been following this health care reform debate closely this week because it applies directly to my life. I've been uninsured since May 1, 2009, when my previous employer's health care program closed down when the company claimed bankruptcy. So when Sarah Palin wrote on her Facebook page that the public option health plan would convene "death panels" to euthanize her son Trig and everybody's grandparent's, I couldn't believe what I was reading. First thought:
"It's outrageous that Palin would write something like this. There's no way this could be correct."
And I was right. I spent about 15 minutes to find the text that she referred to in her post, which you can see here: http://bit.ly/2w0DP
Look at Page 425 and read on through 432.
Even if you consider her main argument as a possibility: that doctors who counsel older patients will have a financial incentive to persuade them to sign "do-not-revive" orders, it is overstatement and gross hyperbole to use the term "death panel."
But consider this. Palin (and any Republican who uses this "death panel" argument), wants it both ways. The other most cited reason for opposition to the public option is the problem of providing too much care, not too little, because it is in the doctor's and hospitals' best interest to keep patients coming back. Doctors have a financial incentive to keep patients alive and in their care.
We've seen this in California. Patients persuaded to return for more services are the "cash cows" for doctors, clinics and hospitals. Doctors actually have an incentive to continue to treat people, often ordering more tests than are necessary for diagnosis, (for malpractice reasons as well). In any case, when was the last time you met a doctor who had an interest in saving the government's money?
