Palin Offers Real Healthcare Solutions

In the Wall Street Journal on Sept. 8, Gov. Sarah Palin discussed workable solutions to America's health care problems. She confronts her Marxist opponent, Barack Obama, and basically kicks him to the curb.

By SARAH PALIN

Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked that Americans "talk with one another, and not over one another" as our health-care debate moves forward.
I couldn't agree more. Let's engage the other side's arguments, and let's allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats' health-care proposals should become governing law.

Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that "no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds." Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us.

We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit.

How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree.

Common sense tells us that the government's attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats' proposals "will provide more stability and security to every American."

With all due respect, Americans are used to this kind of sweeping promise from Washington. And we know from long experience that it's a promise Washington can't keep.

Let's talk about specifics. In his Times op-ed, the president argues that the Democrats' proposals "will finally bring skyrocketing health-care costs under control" by "cutting . . . waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies . . . ."

First, ask yourself whether the government that brought us such "waste and inefficiency" and "unwarranted subsidies" in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right. The nonpartistan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn't think so: Its director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that "in the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount."

Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He's asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of "normal political channels," should guide decisions regarding that "huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . ."

Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats' proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans.

Working through "normal political channels," they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats' proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we've come to expect from this administration.

Speaking of government overreaching, how will the Democrats' proposals affect the deficit? The CBO estimates that the current House proposal not only won't reduce the deficit but will actually increase it by $239 billion over 10 years. Only in Washington could a plan that adds hundreds of billions to the deficit be hailed as a cost-cutting measure.

The economic effects won't be limited to abstract deficit numbers; they'll reach the wallets of everyday Americans. Should the Democrats' proposals expand health-care coverage while failing to curb health-care inflation rates, smaller paychecks will result. A new study for Watson Wyatt Worldwide by Steven Nyce and Syl Schieber concludes that if the government expands health-care coverage while health-care inflation continues to rise "the higher costs would drive disposable wages downward across most of the earnings spectrum, although the declines would be steepest for lower-earning workers." Lower wages are the last thing Americans need in these difficult economic times.

Finally, President Obama argues in his op-ed that Democrats' proposals "will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable." Of course consumer protection sounds like a good idea. And it's true that insurance companies can be unaccountable and unresponsive institutions—much like the federal government. That similarity makes this shift in focus seem like nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention away from the details of the Democrats' proposals—proposals that will increase our deficit, decrease our paychecks, and increase the power of unaccountable government technocrats.

Instead of poll-driven "solutions," let's talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute's Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let's give Americans control over their own health care.

Democrats have never seriously considered such ideas, instead rushing through their own controversial proposals. After all, they don't need Republicans to sign on: Democrats control the House, the Senate and the presidency. But if passed, the Democrats' proposals will significantly alter a large sector of our economy. They will not improve our health care. They will not save us money. And, despite what the president says, they will not "provide more stability and security to every American."

We often hear such overblown promises from Washington. With first principles in mind and with the facts in hand, tell them that this time we're not buying it.

Ms. Palin, Sen. John McCain's running mate in the 2008 presidential election, was governor of Alaska from December 2006 to July 2009.

Death Panels Exist in Oregon

Is Barack Obama just getting older -- or is he starting to look like Dr. Jack Kevorkian, also known as "Dr. Death?"

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin sounded the alarm about the death panels implicit in ObamaCare, with its emphasis on refusals to pay for lifesaving care for the elderly. (Thanks to Anne in Texas for the following.

Despite all of the denials, death panels already exist in Oregon. Here's how they work:

A woman's doctor recommends she get medical treatment. The state-run healthcare system says no and refers her to an assisted suicide specialist. The bureaucrat in charge of what amounts to a real death panel admits that the money could be better spent elsewhere, so the patient is going to have to die. It is an inevitable fact of life that the more the government outlays to keep you alive, the more your life becomes subject to a cost/benefit analysis...

Here's the video proving death panels are, in fact, real...

http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2009/08/20/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-death-panel-theres-no-such-thing-as-a-death-panel-theres-no-such-thing-as-a-death-panel/

Palin Winning "Death Panel" Debate

My friend "WB" sent the following: "The Death Panel already exists! It was passed in the Stimulus Bill. Here is a link to American Thinker and their article on this subject":

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/death_panel_is_not_in_the_bill.html

Also, take note of the following: See the USNews report on Palin's victory on "death panel": http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2009/8/13/score-one-for-sarah-palin-on-the-healthcare-reform-death-panels.html

The following is my take on the public relations elements of the "death panel" debate:

From a public relations standpoint -- and yeah, I have been in that business since the mid-1970s -- the most important thing you can do is to put your opponents on the defensive. (We sometimes make the mistake of allowing ourselves to be put in a defensive posture.) One goal of Sarah's "death panel" concept is to get people like Obama and Specter (and Paul Begala and other drones) saying, "No, we don't have death panels in the legislation."

Keep them mentioning the phrase "death panel" -- and then hit them hard with statements like, "Gee, won't that be the practical effect of the mandated end-of-life counselling sessions?" Or, "won't that be the practical effect of making massive cuts in Medicare?" Or, "Gee, what about Obama's key adviser, Ezekiel Emanuel, who says a teenager's life is worth a lot more than that of a senior citizen?"

Keep them sputtering and blustering about the death panels. In short, keep asking them loaded questions -- keep passing them hand grenades. Bring up the "Jane Sturm" episode, where Obama was making the case that a healthy 100-year-old woman shouldn't have received a pacemaker -- the woman is now a health 105 year old. Bring up Obama's grandmother, whom he said shouldn't have received a hip replacement. That is, tie them knots, and beat them senseless.

Palin Blocks Obama's "Death Panel"

Breaking News: Sarah Palin is back on Twitter, and you can sign up as a follower. Her new handle is: SarahPalinUSA.

Bulletin: Gov. Sarah Palin has won a fierce battle to eliminate Barack Obama's "death panel"provision in the House Energy and Commerce Committee legislation. The so-called "end-of-life" counseling mandates will be eliminated. Read the full story at Pamela Geller 's Atlas Shrugs. (Click link below.) Read the previous column on why the characterization of Obama's panel as one dedicated to death was a good one.

Palin Wins! Death Panels/End of Life Provision to Go

Barack Obama, Meet Dr. Kevorkian

Barack Obama, Say Hi to Dr. Jack Kevorkian. (President Death meets Dr. Death.)

The "Obama Health Care" plan really doesn't exist. What we have is HR 3200. Since Obama has not read a word of it, he's not real good on answering questions about it.

Is there really a death panel, as Sarah Palin charged? Yes, there is, but it will be renamed something like "Life begins at 90 panel."

Actually, it's name is The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Its goal is to turn medical care from Mayo Clinic Model into the Dollar General model. Little secret: it's NOT about effectiveness. It's about reducing costs . . . and doing so at all costs.

In fact, the bill says its goal is "to slow the development of new medications and technologies in order to reduce costs." In other words, no more of those pesky (and expensive) new meds that will cure mom's breast cancer or dad's heart arrhythmia.

And then -- don't tell Barack! -- we will have a gentleman or gentlelady who will serve (with a bureaucracy in the tens of thousands) as The National Coordinator for Health Information and Technology. Sounds great, right?His (Her? Its/) job will be to "monitor treatments being delivered to make sure doctors and hospitals are strictly [key word] following government guidelines that are deemed appropriate." Notice the use of the passive voice ("are deemed"), which are always signs that bureaucrats are work, evading responsibility as they go.

What will happen to doctors and hospitals doing cutting-edge work to keep patients alive? As you might guess, those "no adhering to guidelines will face penalties," which will include hefty fines . . . and even prison terms, particularly handed out to conservative doctors who hate the Obama Plan.

Question: what about those doctors (including mine) and hospitals (some in my area) that are doing a tremendous job healing patients and saving lives? Will they be used as examples for other docs and hospitals? Surely you jest. My betting is that they will be the ones facing fines and jail times. They probably aren't following the already cockamamie government regulations and "guidelines."

Sarah Palin is being attacked in the White House, as well as on ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, the Disney Channel, and CNN for describing ObamaCare as exactly what it is: an exercise in the proposition that when you can make sure people are safely dead, they don't "incur" any addional health costs. Can't argue with that. Do you really want to argue with the notion that an Obama who favors "live birth abortion" (i.e., infanticide) won't back a form of "eldercare" that includes euthanasia?

Admittedly, the death panel won't fully crank up until, say, the third term of Barack Obama, by then known as "President-for-Life." By then, we'll all be too numb to notice. Every home in America will have a super-size photo of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel.