Maynard explains why being right isn’t the point
Here’s a clip from this Bloomberg article. I absolutely agree with the point Obama is making.
President Barack Obama said his grandmother’s hip-replacement surgery during the final weeks of her life made him wonder whether expensive procedures for the terminally ill reflect a “sustainable model” for health care.
The president’s grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, had a hip replaced after she was diagnosed with cancer, Obama said in an interview with the New York Times magazine that was published today. Dunham, who lived in Honolulu, died at the age of 86 on Nov. 2, 2008, two days before her grandson’s election victory.
Obama said “you just get into some very difficult moral issues” when considering whether “to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill.”
“That’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues,” he said in the April 14 interview. “The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health-care bill out here.“
If I were in Terri Schiavo’s situation, I’d want my caretakers to let me die. I’ve given instructions to the relevant parties.
A friend of mine faced a family situation where a mother (in her 80’s) might benefit from taking a daughter’s kidney (in her 50’s). I opined that to do that would be a huge mistake…the mother did not have long to live in any case, and if there was a hereditary aspect to the problem (which seemed to be the case), the daughter might eventually suffer for want of the kidney. This is the sort of sacrifice a parent makes for a child who has its life ahead; not vice versa.
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I’m cold and inhuman. But my words do not carry the weight of authority, other than with respect to my own body. I have nothing to offer but thoughts; take them or leave them.
The terrifying thing about what our government is trying to do is that, if Obama got his way (his stated goal is a single-payer system with the phasing out of private insurance), his thoughts would have the force of law. These are deeply personal questions being contemplated; questions to be pondered with family and spiritual advisors and God. The problem with Mr. Obama isn’t that he’s necessarily wrong; it’s that he has no damn business in this arena. He’s not just pontificating here; he’s forming public policy. The man has no sense of boundaries.
I would be omitting a vital detail if I didn’t acknowledge that, yes, finances are also a factor in making these life-and-death decisions. Yes, in a world of finite resources, some people die for lack of means, while others have an overabundance which they squander. This is an ugly aspect of reality that we must wrestle with, and we are morally obligated to seek to improve the world.
I understand why some advocates of national health care believe they are leveling the playing field and eliminating unfairness. But, for all its failings, I’ll take my chances with the complexities of the demand-driven free market, rather than allow the president to decide whether or not I’m entitled to health care.
Maybe I’m being selfish here. I’ve got a personal reason to resist the change. Politically speaking, I’m very weak. I’m not rich, not a member of a “protected class”, not associated with any group that has political “pull”. Certainly not an ally of the people who are crafting these rules, and thus not to be looked upon with favor in the new day. I’m confounded by bureaucracies and intimidated by crowds. In the current system, I’ve got a fighting chance. But the new order will put me last on line.
Nancy Pelosi says I carry a swastika; Harry Reid today described me as “evil-monger”. That’s the word, not from a few fanatics, but from the top party leadership. And now you begin to see why I’m afraid. Tell me honestly: If you controlled the distribution of health care, would you give as much care to the “evil” people as the “good” ones? I certainly wouldn’t! I’d kill the evil people! Am I displaying a horrible character flaw in admitting this? Before you call me names, again remember that I have no power, nor do I aspire to power. I control no resources, save for limited control over my own environment and my own body. That’s all I have, and it’s all I want.
Whether you stand with the left or with the right, you can co-exist with me. We can live with each other, not because I’m right or wrong, but because I’m powerless. It doesn’t matter what I say or do, because it doesn’t affect your life. I may think you’re a fool, but this doesn’t mean I have to be your enemy.
By bullying his way into our lives and declaring dissenters to be enemies, Obama has divided America. It’s ironic that, having condemned the incursion into Iraq as a “war of choice”, Mr. Obama has decided to launch his own war of choice against America and against me. I could have lived with Obama, but Obama cannot live with me. And so we go to war with each other, and that’s a damn shame.
In the name of “helping” us, our government crowds into our most private and intimate decisions. On these points, I yield only to God. When anyone else barges in, even the president of the United States, I must and will fight to the death.
It makes all the sense in the world to give the young precedence over almost every scarce resource. Personally I believe we are here not for our own silly lives but to do whatever small part we can to advance human kind. We try to improve things for the next generation so the human potential can be maximized. The essential difference between a free society and totalitarian states is that the totalitarians claim to act for the common good but destroy the human spirit. Free people are the innovators and inventors.
There is an economic foundation to the comparative value of lives dilemma, but it is ultimately a moral issue. I haven’t seen any surveys but it’s my gut feeling that most old people agree the young should take precedence if a choice of medical resources has to be made. Insurance companies are certainly not impartial in the matter. These decisions are being made already. I would rather keep it in the private sector where there is more flexibility and the opportunity to influence decision making. It is completely unacceptable for the government to have this life-or-death power because inevitably there will be a political component.
If government pays the medical bills then we should extend the comparative worth analysis beyond the sick. We pay taxpayer money to keep child rapists and serial killers alive in prison for the rest of their lives. Decades. I believe grandma deserves a new hearing aid for a few more years of better quality life more than a murderer deserves three meals a day for the next 50 years. Would Obama agree with that?
There is no single entity with greater power than the government. The government can put you in prison, take away all your worldly goods and even your life through due process. Due process is not government fiat. The more power we grant the government over us, the less we are able to control the government.
There are serious flaws in the healthcare system. All systems are flawed. There is no reason to get the government involved here. Nothing Obama has said justifies government intrusion. Certainly not to keep the private insurers honest. That is a slander. If healthcare costs are unnecessarily high and squeezing out waste and inefficiencies will bring the costs down as much as Obama says, let the government grant some money to healthcare providers to install the vaunted electronic record keeping.
We don’t need a major overhaul of the healthcare system. Government must never get this power.
If we focus on economic questions…You notice that nothing is being said about tort reform. Aside from the direct cost of lawsuits (which raise costs for all and make people like John Edwards very, very rich), there are countless expensive decisions made out of fear of lawsuits. Maybe you’ll get an expensive CAT scan because there’s .01% chance it will turn up useful information; the doctor ordered it not because it was medically necessary, but because he doesn’t want to risk getting sued. This is a BIG part of the problem, but politicians do nothing because the trial lawyers are one of the most potent political forces on the scene, and among the biggest donors. So Obama doesn’t go after trial lawyers; instead he AGAIN throws his grandmother, now deceased, under the bus.
Maynard you’ve done it again! Bravo!
This one sentence sums it up for me: “The man has no sense of boundaries.” When I read that line I realized what has been causing me such a guttural sense of dread and uneasiness whenever Obama speaks. He in his infinite Hubris believes he is so smart and wonderful that he deserves all that power and control. If Obama & the Liberals were really putting this healthcare system together out of true deep concern for the welfare of every US citizen and were willing to subject themselves to it like the rest of us at least I could respect that they stand on the courage of their convictions. Alas they have already shown us that they don’t want to be included in this nationalized health care system so I have to call “BS” on them; it is yet another means of centralizing their own power and control. At least that part of the Obama Administration is becoming truly transparent!
I suggest Pat S and Maynard take a course in Sociology and play the game of moral relativism.
Ya’ll get in a boat and someone has to be thrown out of the boat or your boat will sink.
You will be given directions of who is in the boat. There is a gay guy and a grandmother and a young shapely woman etc.
You have to keep throwing someone away or you all will sink.
Kind of like the Survival TV show but with more purpose.
Who will form the NEW WORLD left on the boat?
It is a fun game and may give you some interesting clues as to your Intrapersonal IQ. That is the IQ of what you know about yourself.
(-:
I’m suspicious that our president is not telling us the whole story when he references Grandma and her hip surgery. Grandma was a widow with no living children. She apparently suffered from dementia and had terminal cancer. The president and his half sister would be the next of kin and likely (hmmm wouldn’t you think) have her power of attorney for health care. In the real world of health care, if Grandma had fractured her hip and had terminal cancer – the orthopedic surgeon, in association with several other subspecialists caring for her – oncologist, critical care/internal medicine et al, had an obligation to explain all options, risks, and benefits of surgery. If she suffered from dementia, it would be left up to the next-of-kin or legal power of attorney for healthcare to DECIDE whether surgery should be done. In the real world – given this scenario, it is HIGHLY likely most families would opt for comfort care. A hip arthroplasty would be quite an ordeal to suffer given the circumstances. Who signed the consent form for Grandma to have surgery? This wasn’t some decision made by a group of doctors in a rush in the middle of the night to get the biggest bang out of Grandma’s buck, wherever it was coming from. You can bet there was a gaggle of experts of all kinds involved in this decision making process, physicians, nurses, therapists, social services, chaplaincy services, probably an ethics panel, not to mention the lawyers lined up on both sides for legal counsel. This was the president-elect’s beloved grandmother – likely he had FULL authority AND resources to make an informed and compassionate decision. He is posthumously throwing grandma under the bus if he implies that the resources she consumed at the end of her life were delivered because of some greedy health care system. WE DO need reform in health care – but we cannot relinquish the responsibility to make informed decisions for ourselves and those who trust us. Solutions may include more education on ethics and end of life decisions for health care workers so that they can provide all options to patients and their families to make their own decisions. Tort reform needed – at a minimum, loser pays. Frivolous lawsuits are a huge boondoggle in this equation. Reform insurance regulations – allow for a BIGGER pool of insurers NOT a single-payor plan. Competition, innovation, and yes, appropriate compensation are necessary ingredients to keep the best and brightest in this pond….and to keep the rest of us from drowning because the life guard is busy, doesn’t know how to swim very well, or the limited life preservers have been doled out for the day!
after my grandfather’s death-before which he was propped up on and kept alive by machines which we all recognized as being contrary to his wishes- my grandmother made out a new will to make sure this didn’t happen to her- she added specifics about when she was not to be revived- the no heroic measures etc.
i had been estranged from my family for quite some time when she ended up basically dying in an ambulance after a heart attack. even though one of her sons was with her and told the attendants it was against her will to be revived, they ignored him and she ended up basically being a dead vehicle , lungs forced full of air like inert balloons, for pumping money out of medicare by the random hospital they brought her to. perhaps because of my distance from my family and my grandmother, i was the one with the ‘ cold heart’ who said to the first doctor i saw- “what the F’ do you think you’re doing?!” my mother had to pull me off one little snot intern who refused to answer to why they insisted on violating her living will. maybe it was easier for me to go on the attack- the angry stray black sheep- but that people think they can violate the express wishes of another human to control their physical being outraged me beyond being able to control myself. she took control-she was specific and they still opted to do whatever they wanted. it steams me to this day. however, my waving of her will in their smug faces had the desired effect-she was removed from the machines and allowed what we all wanted for her -peace. people are raised to just do what doctors say out of respect one supposes- but if you try opening your mouth it may annoy them but legally they have to comply. they can’t treat you against your expressed will.
we all recognize that doctors and hospitals can act like this. we all have probably had run ins with insurance companies- that doesn’t mean we want the damn government making these decisions instead. hell, i’ve had vets who think they’re going to reanimate a 20 year old cat with a grave heart condition because clearly they could make a lot of money doing it. that’s why i’ve searched out a vet with whom i have a relationship of trust built of sensibility and mutual respect. the government which can’t even run a free lunch with any restraint or sense has no business anywhere near personal life and death decisions or running interference between us and our chosen care givers. period. it’s the very core of our rights as humans- if the government can’t dictate how we speak, write, worship, choose to support ourselves, what paper we read they sure as hell can’t tell us how to apply medical treatment to ourselves. or that we have to pay for and use western medical techniques or manufactured drugs with no choice even if it violates our beliefs. fining people for not ceding the right of control over their bodies strikes me as the most fascist concept since the nazi campaign to first sterilize than to euthanize the’ feebleminded’, ‘ genetically compromised’ and mentally ill- operation t-4. obama’s little doctor drone ezekiel emanuel sounds like he was lifted right out of hitler’s panties- the new face of t-4 america.
no, you f’ing can’t!!
Tammy, there is nothing wrong with discussing costs, even under the circumstances you describe.
But the key thing that you and most conservatives understand is this – it is a decision that should be made with your family and with your doctor. Not some insurance company and for Heaven’s sake NOT THE GOV’T!
And the other thing that is so important for us to point out is this: WE are not against REFORM. It’s the type of REFORM, and the way it is being shoved down our throats, the way were are being called Nazis, racists and “evilmongers” by our elected officials b/c we disagree with them.
Health Care is like Immigration – it’s complicated and it needs to be taken seriously, and must be looked at rationally and it should take time to change any of it. We can’t just wave a magic wand and make it all okay. It should be reformed piecemeal b/c not all problems are interrelated.
That is what we need to start repeating so that people on the fence realize where we are coming from.
And the GOP needs to get out there and SPEAK UP! If they have a plan they need to call a press conference, run ads on TV (not just the Web, dummies!). We can’t do all the leg work for them. We don’t have all the answers either. All we know is that we don’t want to be told what do by the gov’t when it comes to our healthcare.
The kind of moral calculus above is intrinsic in every living creature. For animals, the math is automatic; it’s all about survival. Rabbits will sacrifice themselves to the fox to save their brood. Mice, on the other hand, will eat their young if there is a perceived threat. Right and wrong do not even factor in with rabbits and mice.
Humans are different.
We have a brain that is built to decide. We have to do the math ourselves, and boy, is it messy.
Right, wrong; selfish, unselfish; moral or not, we have no choice but to decide. And that means guilt, suffering, regret, mistakes, a trip to Venezuela… all the things that make us different from rabbits and mice. This gift (or curse) to make decisions defines us as a species and individually unique. In short, it’s how we roll.
The proposed health care legislation is a broad assault on the very human act of choosing. The visceral reaction is both simultaneously widespread and personal because it contradicts our nature as humans.
Confused legislators believe, as they should as legislators, it’s about policy, money and fairness. We on the other hand know intuitively, somewhere deep in our bones as humans (especially as American humans), the right to choose for ourselves is far more important than the right to health care that is chosen by someone else. Even if it is messy.
Just saying…. ask Grandma what SHE wants, don’t worry, she’ll tell ya!
I think the modern understanding of “rights” has been grossly skewed from the Founders’ views nowadays whether one is conservative or liberal. People on both the left and the right these days seem to think that if we acknowledge a human right, that somehow automatically means the gov’t has to guarantee that the full enjoyment of said right is fulfilled. You, Tammy, do not seem to be among the confused, so perhaps you can delve into this on your show and clarify it for people on both sides.
The Constitution is a guarantee of negative rights. For example, I have a right to own a gun but that doesn’t mean the government has to provide me with a gun. By the same token, I have a right to health care, but that doesn’t mean the government has to provide me with health care.
Liberals see the Constitution as a guarantee of positive rights (although they strangely don’t apply it to the 2nd Amendment). Conservatives nowadays have had the entitlement stuff so often repeated as a mantra that many of them have forgotten what basic rights are. I’ve seen it too often. Conservatives will jump all over you for saying “health care is a right” because in their minds they have a knee-jerk reaction and think it means “entitlement” from government.
Please let conservatives know, it’s okay to say that health care is a right. Saying that it is a right doesn’t have to imply automatically that government fulfills it. Like my right to own a gun, I have a right to health care. It doesn’t mean the gov’t has to pay for my guns or my health care.
It is dangerous for people to forget what “rights” are. Natural Rights imply a moral obligation on the part of individuals, not government, to reach out to his fellow man and help out. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water as we fight liberal entitlements. We all have a moral responsibility to care for the weak and the suffering. ……..as individuals, faith groups, through voluntary civic activity, etc.
One more point on the right to health care: if even ONE person is harmed in his person by gov’t intrusion into health care, the law enabling that intrustion is unConstitutional…….because Americans have a right to care. So it is ironic that liberal arguments for nationalized health care are based on the fact that we have a right to health care. If we have a right to health care (and we do) then this means that the government can’t say “yay or nay” either way on it. In other words, “hands off”.
Don’t be afraid to say “health care is a right”. DO BE AFRAID to embrace the liberal ideology that a “right”automatically implies that it must be provided by Daddy Government.
Maynard,
What you and your fellow angry mobsters (myself included) are railing against is an oligarchic centralized State that is top down not bottom up, which is the antithesis of our founding democratic principles of a government “of the people, by the people, for the people”. As Wilkins Micawber would say, “in short”, a chosen few doing the choosing. And I must say that I am glad your voice rings out so clearly above the din as you and Tammy battle ever onward so that our blessed freedoms in “this nation, under God…shall not perish from the earth”.
I would like to propose a delema for the “Death Panel”:
We have a man we’ll call George. He entered the country illegally, and now finds himself in an awful predicament. He has limited mobility, and while he is capable of feeding himself, he will never contribute to society, or be a “productive citizen”. He appears to enjoy watching TV. He is unable to read. Coversation is limited and often unintelligible. The cost of his care is about $54,000 per year, more in some years than others depending on complications. He will, with proper care live to be 75-80 years old. Considering the cost of his care at the rate of inflation for the industry, he will consume a staggering $16,740,000 of taxes during his remaining life. Would the Death Panel “pull the plug” on this man? Think about this a minute.
Now let me tell you about George. He was convicted this year at the tender age of 22 of multiple rapes and two murders of his victems. He plead guilty in exchange for a sentence of life without possibility of parole. Had he got the death penalty he would limit our tax liability to $8,100,000, since it takes 25-30 years to exhaust all appeals. He is housed in a medium security prison in California with “all-in” costs of $54,000 per year that include food, medical care, capital, laundry service, cable TV, and “supervision”.
Once we go down the road of determining the “value” of one person over another, there will be no turning back. My mom is 85. She has diabetes, but manages it well. She broke her ankle last year, and it required an operation plus a long stint in rehab, plus more care because my dad, at 84, was not capable of moving her around. Would she be cut off in the face of an operation? Would they say “just aputate the foot” because it would be cheaper than a delicate operation and expensive after care? How about her “value”? Both of her brothers volunteered for service in WWII. One came back in a straight-jacket. She wanted to help too and anwered a call to go to Washington D.C. to fill needed secretarial positions. She says she spent the war typing. She worked in G-2, and typed secret orders, and helped handcuff officers to breifcases before they were sent on thier way. She was investigated and watched by the FBI and Secret service all through her time at the pentagon. She thinks it was “nice” that they were so concerned for her. Is “present value” the only criteria for these decisions? My dad died this past March. He died the way Obama would have wanted it. He had a heart problem that escalated into a general infection. He told them “no heroics”, and signed the papers. He died three days later. He was in Patton’s third army, and had a hard war. He said he wanted to drive a tank until he saw some of them blown up, so he signed up for the anti-tank corps. “I thought I’d have a better chance in the open, than sitting in a tin box full of gasoline and bombs” he said. He was awarded the Bronze Star for valor. After helping to liberate concentration camps he was sent to Japan for “mopping-up” operations. He saw more horror than I could imagine. He rarely spoke of it. Where does he fit in the Relative Value equation? Had he wanted to hang out on a machine for a while, would he be denied?
I have a calendar from Despair.com. This month the picture is of a chewed up stub of a pencil. Under it it says: RETIREMENT — “Because you’ve given so much of yourself to the company that you don’t have anything left we can use.” Substitute “Company” with “Country”, and you have the end of life provision of the healthcare bill.
Lets see if in say ???? 25 years Bella Pelosi needs a 100K surgery Id love to be the one to tell her, “well Ms. Botox, your too old, time for you to meet Logans Run, this is Dr. Kreddy Kruger he will be doing your surgery………