Home / Establishment / Death Panels: Greasing the Skids in the Media
Print Friendly and PDF

Death Panels: Greasing the Skids in the Media

Written by Gary North on June 8, 2012

There will be death panels. When the government takes over medical finding, there must be triage. Panels will decide: (1) Who cannot be saved; (2) who don’t need to be saved; (3) who is left over. That is what battlefield medicine has decided ever since World War I. Battlefield medicine is government medicine.

All the “shock and horror” that liberal Democrats feigned when this issue was raised about Obamacare was just a smoke screen.

The once influential but now peripheral news magazines, Time and Newsweek, have done cover stories on euthanasia: killing granny. The Newsweek story is forthright: “The Case for Killing Granny.” It was written by Professor Evan Thomas of Princeton, who used to be the editor of Newsweek. The Time story was written by veteran Washington reporter Joe Klein: “How to Die.”

Both stories begin with the story of the author’s parents. The strategy here is to personalize the issue. Then they move from the personal (individual responsibility) to the general (bureaucratic responsibility). It’s all about the famous bottom line. Prof. Thomas writes:

Compared with other Western countries, the United States has more health care—but, generally speaking, not better health care. There is no way we can get control of costs, which have grown by nearly 50 percent in the past decade, without finding a way to stop overtreating patients. In his address to Congress, President Obama spoke airily about reducing inefficiency, but he slid past the hard choices that will have to be made to stop health care from devouring ever-larger slices of the economy and tax dollar. A significant portion of the savings will have to come from the money we spend on seniors at the end of life because, as Willie Sutton explained about why he robbed banks, that’s where the money is.

The death panels are coming. They have to come. The government has to have rules for spending money. The rules must determine who wins and who loses. There is no possible escape from this responsibility. If the government pays for any service, it must do so within written rules.

Liberals know this, but they at first pretended that it would not apply to Obamacare. Of course it will apply to Obamacare, if the program survives the Supreme Court’s case. It applies to Medicare, too.  Medicare operates under the laws of the United States government. It is not legally allowed to spend taxpayers’ money on anything not authorized by the law, which means rule books.

Spending money on old people must come under rules. These rules must cover when it’s time to pull the plug.

This can be delayed for political reasons. Now the Establishment has begun to prepare the public for the inevitable.

It’s not that Time and Newsweek have much influence any longer. A generation ago, they did. Today, they are weather vanes. They let us know what the unofficial Party Line is for Establishment thinking.

To read the Newsweek story, click the link.

Continue Reading on www.thedailybeast.com

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

24 thoughts on “Death Panels: Greasing the Skids in the Media

  1. samnjoeysgrama says:

    Not Death panels. That implies actual human beings you could appeal to. I think we will have manuals and rule books, the classic SOP dodge. "Sorry, can't save your two year old. It isn't cost effective. See, it's right here in the book.". Who wrote the book? Who can I appeal to? " Well, these are the rules; see, right here in black and white. Sorry.". We will be hearing "sorry" a lot, I fear.

  2. Brenda Miller says:

    The gov. has been putting a dollar amount on all of us for sometime. Check into Quality Adjusted Life Year. Check into how QALY works with comparative effectiveness research. The Affordable Care Act just makes this law and makes lots of money available for the researchers. England makes no bones about using QALY.


  3. Dr Emanuel, Rahm's brother and others are now also openly talking about post-birth abortion, in other words killing new borns with problems that will not allow them to become productive citizens. And we wonder how young women think they can get away with killing a new born, that they could have legally aborted right up until it was born? When the government now advocates killing new born babies, how can you then convince a young woman, often a teenager, that killing her new born is then a "crime?" The absurdity of these rules cheapening the sacredness of life are so profound, it again proves that in these times, it is not a struggle between the left and the right, it is a struggle of good vrs evil, with the viewpoints of evil seeming to prevail during this current administration, who openly place no value on human life that can no longer provide income to the government – much like the system that was commonplace in Nazi Germany, which led to the murders of millions of people. Eugenics strikes its ugly head again.

  4. Implicit in decision to treat is implication of when not to treat. an enormous amount of medical capital is spent in the last few weeks of life when for many any real possibility of recovery and restoration to functioning let alone heath is not feasible. That our physicians afraid of lawsuit are compelled to administer aggressive treatment against their best medical judgement is outrageous. I am not certain that the desires of family under intense emotional pressure should be the sole determinant. Palliation and comfort care always but invasive useless treatment is at some point a form of cruelty.
    professor thomas' comments were sensitive and form a core of legitimate discussion points in this crisis. title of newsweek article is unfortunate. Nothing which occurred with his mother's care can reasonably be considered "killing" her. silly

  5. I'm afraid the government believe it owns its citizens.

  6. We have always known it…Sarah was right and we can only hope the Supreme Court believes it too……..

  7. smogdew says:

    American's lives, to the US Gov't. and medicine are the equivalent to an amoeba's.

  8. We've already seen how this works.

    When Chrysler was being revamped under cast iron White House control through its unconstitutional "czar," 270 Chrysler dealerships lost their franchises. "Coincidentally" 269 nine of these dealerships belonged to Republicans.

    So now we know. To be sure that the death panel doesn't do you in, you have to meet as many of the following criteria as possible:

    Be unable to speak or understand English
    Be black.
    Be Democrat
    Be a leftwinger
    Be related to a third world muslim dictator in Africa
    Be a "out" homosexual (preferably "married" to another homosexual)


    You must have bombed at least one police station in your life, with noncivilian casualties. There is no limit on the number of bombings — no matter how many bombings you've done, you will get extra credit for each one. There is no cut off.

    Since the decision to close dealerships was based solely on politics (that's obvious) than economics, the decision to off old people is going to be based on politics and not on medicine. Bill Ayres is already in trouble. He can only meet three of these requirements.

  9. edencity says:

    http://godparentsforeldsters.blogspot.com/ is one help. Some churches have godparents (sponsors) for youngsters, this is for eldsters–both are/will be in need of help. Some churches claim that the whole church vows to help the baptized. How's that working for those you will find when you search 'Nursing Home Abuse'?

  10. ihatesycophants says:

    For those NOT paying attention (and that includes most fascists-er-conservatives as well as the author) there are ALREADY death panels in the insurance industry. They have the authority to override medical opinions without having had to waste their time in medical school. They literally have the power to decide who dies, who lives and how well they do so. For some reason reasonable people fail to understand, Republicons and the Republicretins stupid enough to vote for them are o.k. with this.

    This crap about "government death panels" is no more and no less than that. Crap. Dreck. Offal. Bilge.

  11. ihatesycophants says:

    Wow. An amazing similarity between this post and the contents of a colostomy bag. Impressive.

  12. ihatesycophants says:

    And we don't even rate THAT high to the USCOC.

  13. ihatesycophants says:

    Then they'll have to duke it out with the USCOC who ALREADY owns us.

  14. ihatesycophants says:

    Where do you GET this stuff? Does the world you live in have a paisley sky because it certainly bears NO resemblance to what's happening on THIS planet.

  15. ihatesycophants says:

    QALY or the current medical industry equivalent already exists and has for a very, VERY loooong time. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deliberately not paying attention or, in other words, LYING to themselves.
    current insures make no bones about using QALY. After all, there are stockholders and executives to overpay.

  16. ihatesycophants says:

    We've BEEN hearing, " Too bad. We've determined that your prescription/operation/ (or whatever) is too expensive/not covered/ (or whatever). This has been the case for DECADES. Why no outcry for THAT?

  17. ihatesycophants says:

    For those NOT paying attention (and that includes most fascists-er-conservatives as well as the author) there are ALREADY death panels in the insurance industry. They have the authority to override medical opinions without having had to waste their time in medical school. They literally have the power to decide who dies, who lives and how well they do so. For some reason reasonable people fail to understand, Republicons and the Republicretins stupid enough to vote for them are o.k. with this. Perhaps one of them would be so kind as to explain it to me. Please be specific.

  18. Refusing to raise disabled children goes back to ancient times. Instead: if you and your friends want to raise disabled children with your own funds then knock yourself out. If you want to pay girl a large sum of money so she doesn't abort the baby and you'll raise the baby, at your own expense, then knock yourself out. If you feel every human life is sacred then do it with your own private time and money and no one else's.

  19. Good point – government life panels are just as wrong as government death panels. There should be no double standard.

  20. Indubitably, if you can't personally pay for your medical expenses then you're on someone's death panel. In a private society a death panel would consist either of a family, friend or a charity.

  21. Charlie says:

    How's this for a thought, how about all governments get out of health care.
    While we're at it how about our federal government get back to doing what it was set up to do protect the union. Our fed. gov. is/has stepped way out of what it was set up to do. How about defunding illegals, defunding the giving of our money to foreign countries, defunding the U.N. , defunding rate of inflation pay raises for government workers( this one might put them into reality), defunding programs that pay for women to have baby after baby after baby if the female and male had to pay then maybe they would not breed like wild creatures, defunding( ok bottom line) all except what our federal government was set up to do in the constitution.
    Just a thought…………………………..

  22. ihatesycophants says:

    The current situation with private-insurers' death panels has nothing to do with the insured's ability to pay. Where did you even GET that idea?

  23. manuel a says:

    theres too many car lot anyway they act like everyone could afford to pay outrageous prices for a new car ya right on top of that i know they have sold some of the same cars overand over cause someone couldnt make thier payments . so im glad they closed some of those car lots some of the cars out there are more than a house what gives on that one no sweat off me thats for sure

  24. Rod Oglesby says:

    Good article.