The "Death Panel" Finally, a breakthrough idea by the Democrats

Let me first say that I have no interest in endorsing the Democratic led healthcare reform bill or any part thereof. Any time the government starts using words like "fairness," I get nervous.

Merely, I would like to analyze a part of the bill as a real breakthrough for the Democratic party.

Allow me to also provide the disclaimer: Much like our congressmen, I have not had the time to read or the mental capacity to understand the specific language of the bill. Therefore, I am drawing my analysis on what I believe to be the least partisan commentators on the issue and ignoring the "phrase bombs" that are thrown from both sides. In light of that, consider this a hypothetical opinion.

Now that's out of the way...

What a breakthrough!

People, the Democrats are in favor of saving government money, obtained through taxation, in spite of the potential sympathy and humanity involved.

So, a person has a terminal illness and the government is willing to provide "end of life counseling" to decide the best path towards their 'outcome.' This path seems to be designed at reducing treatment costs which can skyrocket in the final weeks of one's life and also reduce the stress on the patient.

Many have become frightened by this prospect, because it can potentially lead to having the government ration care to those in the most severe conditions, essentially writing them off by saying their odds of survival are not worth the cost of care. This situation has been realized in Great Britain and has resulted in many patients seeking care outside the system.

Thus, the flaws of a single payer system...

However, we do not have a single payer system,(yet) and we are still able to purchase health insurance or pay for treatments privately. Thus, as free citizens, our decisions and financial capacity to execute those decisions will determine the quality of our family's healthcare.

Those currently not covered under insurance (anywhere from 8 to 46 Million) are the primary beneficiaries of the new legislation and will then be at the government's mercy to disperse revenue collected by taxation towards their healthcare.

Based on the Constitution, we have the right to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" along with all those rights enumerated in the "Bill of Rights" and subsequent amendments.

None of those rights suggests that the government must provide housing, food, utilities, education, or healthcare to its citizens, as all of these items require the time and resources of others.

The only 'right' that we have which requires a part of someone else's time is the right to a trial by jury.

The government provides these failsafe benefits because we have collectively voted that our country is better, more productive, safe, etc. if we have these lowest common denominators in place.

Just as one is not likely to live in the most finely appointed mansion on Section 8, one should not expect to have an unlimited healthcare budget being paid for with tax dollars.

Basic economics lesson:

1. Healthcare, like housing, food, education, etc. is a scarce resource with a limited number of doctors, nurses, and facilities.

2. Scarce resources have value.

3. Items with value are generally rationed by the ability of a consumer to pay. (Again, houses, cars, etc.)

4. Thus, healthcare is currently rationed by the ability of a consumer to pay either through insurance coverage, private funds, or government subsidy.

So, we have the ability to live in better housing than government projects or Section 8 if we pay for it. We can go out to eat and spend more money on food than food stamps if we pay for it ourselves. We can send our children to private schools for a better education if we pay the tuition.

With this in mind, we should also be able to get preferred healthcare or treatment if we rely on our own insurance and funds to pay.

Again, the proposed bills scare some because of the potential loss of control of their own destiny and care through government rationing of this scarce resource by some other means than one's ability to pay.

If we can put that fear aside and hypothetically assume that our current insurance and payment options will not change, that means that only those who rely on the government for care will be subject to 'value minded treatments' and "end of life counseling."

Anyone have a problem with your tax dollars being distributed as efficiently as possible for someone else's healthcare?

Those are tough decisions that the government has a lot of difficulty in making. "Nobody wants to be the bad guy."

That is what makes this such a breakthrough for the Democrats!

I am sure that many facts of this legislation are left out of my opinion, and perhaps, some others are misrepresented. Still, this is about the concept, and that is something we should examine more closely.