Washington Post: Obama set to push back in town hall meetings. It's not the headline on the actual article, but it is on the Post's home page. It automatically puts me on edge as being confrontational, which I have little doubt that the President will be. Don't. Like. It. Being condescending and telling people they're stupid is not a way to win support for your program, Mr. President.
Washington Post: Health reform's side effects. And the law of unintended consequences ... The writer points out that while "death panel" and "rationing" of medical services may not be the intention of those writing the legislation, they may certainly seem that way to recipients when the whole thing is passed and put into action.
As a specific thing, I agree with her point about creating a living will and making "end of life care" decisions while you're younger and not in the heat of the moment. Of course your perspective may change between now and then, and the ultimate decision may be different than what's in a living will. But at least you'd have a base to work from at the moment of truth, instead of starting from scratch in figuring out what the possibilities and options even are.
Washington Post: Behind the rage, a cold reality. Finally. A supporter of government health care acknowledging, and not in a sarcastic way, that much of the opposition to the proposals currently in Congress is due to sincere confusion and concern, and not manufactured by lobbyists. Right now, that's what makes me the most angry about this whole thing - the outright dismissal of all questions and concerns as being stupid and fake by those who are supposed to be in charge. I'm particularly incensed about the Administration participating and encouraging this behavior - so much for Obama's commitment to be the President for all Americans rather than only his supporters. That is indeed a cold reality for a lot of people, and I'd wager Obama will be on the receiving end of an icy response when his next election rolls around based on how this all shakes out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 opinions:
I've been reading all your health care posts and like another of your readers (maybe Abby?), I am concerned about what happens to children, the disabled, the poverty-stricken if we really try to take government out of the picture. One of my very conservative friends says charity care, which I don't think is a terrible idea or completely off-base, but just doesn't allay my fears. Will the people who need it most really know that charity care is available, where, etc.? I don't presume to say exactly what your stance is about this, but this continues to be one of my consistent problems with those who argue for significantly less gov't intervention.
One of the things I found most interesting about Robinson's piece is that he actually mentions the unreasonable amount of money spent on end-of-life care. No one really discusses this, but I think it is a critical issue--the amount of money we spend to prolong life for 3 months, 6 months, a year...sometimes even when that life is not even meaningful to the people themselves anymore. Now I'm not arguing for euthanasia and I have watched 2 people close to me face the end of their lives and I certainly didn't want to hasten their deaths, but I still think this is an important issue that we don't want to face as a society. Just because a possible remedy or prolonging is available, does that mean it is wrong not to use it? Does it make us callous toward life and death if we decide that it isn't worth the cost/investment?
Post a Comment