Social Justice Catholics Should Be More Concerned About the "Death Panels" In Health Care

Vox Nova has a post Definitive Refutation of Death Panel Nonsense

I honestly can’t believe this post is needed (can you imagine “definitive refutation of why 9/11 was not an inside job’?), but since the media insist on handing the loudest megaphone to the craziest people, this is sadly the way the debate is being framed. People are suffering greatly for lack of adequate healthcare, and we get this idiocy.........

The poster ends this article and encounters what all bloggers have from time to time. A huge ending to proveyour point and then an unforunate news article the next day.

And then there is the case I’ve mentioned before, the case of Elizabeth Anscombe’s daughter who suffered a stroke at a tragically young age. The Americans wanted to pull the plug, but her mother took her home to “socialist” Britain, where she still lives.

How see from yesterdays's news ftom the UK Sentenced to death on the NHS
Patients with terminal illnesses are being made to die prematurely under an NHS scheme to help end their lives, leading doctors have warned.

Ouch. Regardless I think Catholic Social Justice Groups need to be taking these concerns more seriously instead of as just some obstacle to getting anything passed.

When Palin wrote her article she used the Death Panels to get a point across . That is to direct attention. The concern was not just the meeting the government that certain folks want patients to have with their doctor to talk about other options. But more to the point the huge new Medicare Board that could make sweeping policy changes that will be difficult for Congress too overturn That is where the debate has been for weeks.

Mickey Kaus is a supporter of comprehensive health care but repeatably has said he understands why Seniors are worried. Basically their worries come from the administration's own statement: Today Kaus says:

4) Two new things Obama should do in his speech that he probably won't: a) Offer a strong assurance of no rationing, under some reasonable and simple definition--strong enough assurance that it could be used as a weapon against future attempts at NHS-style cost-cutting. Suggested line: "Every treatment that I, as President, would get, you will be able to get under Medicare."** b) Answer the demands for hope by describing the world of wondrous medical cures that science will make available under his health plan (rather than implying that scientific progress is kind of annoying because it might cost the government money). ...

and

__________
**--A repeat recommendation. Based on a line from Michael Kinsley. ... I can't help but feel that the reason the President doesn't effectively rebut the "rationing" argument is that he kind of believes we have to move toward rationing. But couldn't he fake it? ... 12:38 A.M.

Elsewhere:
a) Isn't it pretty clear that these "changes that will help reduce the deficit" after ten years are the very changes that have scared seniors and others out of supporting Obama's health reform? I thought the plan was not to talk about them any more. ... b) Please tell me you're not going to veto a health care reform that is "deficit neutral over the next ten years" just because it doesn't also include those longer term defcit-cutting "game changers." You're not going to veto it--everyone knows this--but mightn't this be a good time to reassure us that you are not insane? ... 12:03 P.M.

Also see This is Plan B? . Which in part said:
) Did the administration think that Obama could run around talking obsessively about his plans to "bend the curve" of health costs (including in a nationally televised press conference), giving interviews to the New York Times about the need for a "very difficult democratic conversation" on restricting end-of-life care and the news would stay in Washington? Note: They've invented the telegraph......................

Specifically, a few "gut"-grabbing insurance horror stories aren't going to calm the "rationing" fears of those now covered by Medicare (who don't worry about their insurance, or didn't until Obama came along). The best defense is not always a good offense (cf. Dunkirk). In this case, what's required would seem to be more a dramatic repudiation of the administration's own cost-bending, treatment-discouraging rhetoric.
Obama can't fire himself, but he can fire the curve-bending wonks who convinced him that talking about end-of-life issues was a good way to sell universal care. He can find himself a health-care Petraeus. And he can ditch the closest thing to a "death panel" in the legislation--the IMAC board. The more traumatic and high-profile the intra-administration upheaval, the more space Obama buys to relaunch his plan as a rationing-free coverage extension.
That would be a Plan B. ...

Now note Mickey is not saying these fears are not irrational. His solution is lets just not talk about it or lets change the subject and sale approach!!!!! Or that Obama can pledge this will never happen (Big problem with this Obama will not be President forever.)

Kaus is not alone in the secular world raising these concerns. He needs to be joined by some more on the Catholic Side though

Update- One thing I think younger Health Care bill supporters are missing. Obama said in ten years we are going to have to have a difficult democratic discussion on end of life care. This discussion will be occuring while we are in the midst of a very painful discussion over funding social security. A debate we have put off for too long. If you are a group of citizens that main demographic is dying off and thus have less poltitical power then you would be concerned too. In a atmosphere where Euthanasia seems to be gaining ground it become frightening.