I am finally scared of a White House administration. President Obama’s desired health care reform intends that a federal board (similar to the British model) – as in the Center for Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation in a current Democratic bill – decides whether your quality of life, regardless of your political party, merits government-controlled funds to keep you alive.
To sidestep the merits of the proposed death panels for a moment, isn’t there just a small disconnect in this reasoning? On the one hand, if there are these federal boards determining if the government will pay for such and such care at the end of someone’s life that’s one thing. If government were not involved in health care at all, however, then the government would not have these boards, but also the people who needed the care would still not have that government money – right? This is not to argue for or against anything. It’s just to say that it’s odd to both oppose government spending on health care but also oppose government “rationing” which is at least ostensibly one way for the government to spend less on health care. It just doesn’t quite add up.
And either way this does not amount to forced euthanasia.