Yes Governor Palin Has A Point On Health Care Reform Fears.

I noticed that VOX NOVA has a post up that on the does not look too kindly at Governor Palin's comments. See Abusing the Public Square.

I along with Law Prof Ann Althouse via Did Sarah Palin say Obama's "death panel" might kill her baby? and especially Legal Insurrection via An Inconvenient Truth About The "Death Panel" respectfully dissent from that viewpoint.

These are not scare tactics. Even the top people of the Washington Post Op-Ed page are saying hey there is a problem here. See their Saturday Op ed Undue Influence The House Bill Skews End-of-Life Counsel As he states:

Section 1233, however, addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones. Supporters protest that they’re just trying to facilitate choice — even if patients opt for expensive life-prolonging care. I think they protest too much: If it’s all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to “bend the curve” on health-care costs?

Good point.

When you combine this with the very concerning appointed nationwide medical board whose proposals will be very hard to overturn ,See Washington Post' Columnist Broder's piece Our New Medical Judges?, and combine that with a growing Right to Die movement and alarming demographics where the young folks might not like paying for the old folks and well- A recipe for disaster.

The new medicare panel with such sweeping powers is what makes this all concerning. Mickey Kaus a supporter of Health Care Reform points out the problem in his on sly way:

......The Independent Medicare Advisory Commission, or IMAC, isn't (yet) as undemocratic as, say, the Fed: As drafted, IMAC's recommendations could be blocked by either the President or the Congress (two-house veto required). But they'd have to accept or reject the package of reforms as a whole, in the manner of the famous base-closing commission. ...

Hmm. Why isn't a base-closing style commission the solution to every one of our problems?

After all, it's logical that the problems our peculiar system of government--featuring a Congress that gives powerful voice to regional and local interests--hasn't yet solved will be precisely the problems that our peculiar system of government is almost incapable of solving. Otherwise they would have been solved already! The solution is a quick suprise switch to a different system of government, featuring powerful judge-like bureaucrats subject only to a broad legislative veto. Trouble imposing energy caps? Base-close it! An Independent Carbon Advisory Commission! If the Midwest objects, let them try to overturn it. Heh, heh. ... Tax code riddled with loopholes? An independent Loophole Closing Commission, empowered to recommend any changes in the tax code as long as they don't result in the collection of less revenue. Immigration? A Comprehensive Regularization Commission, empowered ... well, you get the picture. Always be Base-Closing.

It's not crazy. The Constitution created an unwieldy system--requiring that every law pass two houses and get approved by the President--that we long ago concluded was incapable of generating the quantity of binding laws a modern society needs. The response was the creation of the administrative state--the "unelected fourth branch of government" that writes enforceable rules subject to nobody's veto (except the lawyers and the courts). At least the base-closing solution grounds the outcome in the consent of elected officials..........

Where does the Catholic principal of subsidiarity fit into that!!!!