A New York Times Columnist, Paul Krugman, touched the third rail of Obamacare Sunday, while on ABC's 'This Week' when he made a statement confirming the need for 'death panels' as a means of containing health care costs (see video). Krugman is not the first person who has advocated the use of 'death panels' and yet liberals excoriated Sarah Palin for pointing out that the Obamacare bill contains what many on the left have said needed to be done.
During the discussion, which was about the Deficit Commission's recent recommendations on cutting expenses, Krugman made his statement in response to when discussion would take place concerning the commission's recommendations. He stated, 'Some years down the pike, we're going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sale's taxes. Its going to be the; we're actually going to take Medicare under control and we're going to have to get some additional revenue from a VAT.'
Krugman's statement was not the first time he has suggested the use of death panels as a cost saver. He made a similar statement on 'This Week' earlier this year and the panel received his statement with laughing in affirmation that death panels would save money. The interesting thing is that he went on to say that economists that he talked to agreed that death panels would have a 'major cost saving.'
After the show, Krugman, whose byline on his blog is 'The conscience of a liberal', wrote on his blog an entry entitled 'Death Panels and Taxes' where he went into greater detail about how 'death panels and sales taxes' will and should be relied upon. He also points out this is not the first time he has said this. In an earlier opinon piece, he points out how those pushing to cut spending are meeting the efforts to control health care costs with the cries of 'death panels.'
Krugman is not the first liberal to call for death panels. Robert Reich, a very liberal former Labor Secretary under Bill Clinton who is now an economics adviser for Barack Obama, made a more bold statement concerning the same when he gave a speech on September 26th, 2007 at U.C. Berkley. In it he said, 'We're going to have to, if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive...so we're going to let you die.' His statement was frighteningly received with applause and cheers from the U.C. Berkley crowd of mostly students.
For those who think it would never come to this or that only limited applications of this thinking could apply, one only has to look at Europe as to what can happen when amoralists adopt death as a way to save money. Conditions used to justify killing of infants such as spina bifida, which many people live with and have productive lives, is legal in the Netherlands. Some, such as John Harris, a member of the official Human Genetics Commission and professor of bioethics at Manchester University in the UK, are even suggesting that because abortion is legal, what should stop the killing of a child just because they are on the other end of the birth canal.
How can some call health care a 'right,' then laugh about how using 'death panels' to eliminate a living person's right to live and receive their health care 'rights' to sustain their life in order to save money? The answer is simple, when liberals elevate state sanctioned privileges to that which our Creator has defined as rights, then real rights are no longer safe when money gets tight.
Finally, while people can debate the ways to reduce health care costs, the left should never again ever refer to anyone as making money 'on the backs of the poor' when what they are advocating is the literal 'stabbing in the backs of the poor' to save money. The bigger debate that needs to take place is how America sold it soul to evil can even think that a solution to saving money is to tell old people to just die.
If you want to hear more about why classical conservatism is the only right solution and why progressive liberalism is the wrong solution click on the subscribe button at the top of this page. Then share your perspective either way by commenting or asking questions below.
Dr. Michael Williams writes for both the national Conservative Examiner and the local Albuquerque Family Examiner columns. You can follow him on Twitter: @drmlwilliams. To learn more about him or to see a comprehensive list of his articles and other published works go to drmichaelwilliams.com.
Comments
So up is down and right is left in your world?
Krugman says Medicare should not pay for treatments and therapies that are not 'effective" - in other words, that DO NOT WORK.
That's exactly what every private health insurance company already is doing - and then some, often refusing even treatments that DO work.
But you would rather we waste scarece Medicare money on expensive treatments that we either know do not work or that have never shown any evidence that they do work?
This is "conservative" HOW????
How is it conservative? It is not and that is one of two points.
Government policy makers can't complain that insurance companies do it and use it as an excuse to take over health care, then try and hide the fact that they want to do the same thing after they forced everyone into the plan. The second point is that those who have gone down this road elsewhere started out with the same argument, then later used it in their own form of after the fact eugenics and geriatricide.
They didn't "use it as an excuse to take over health care" - you are deliberately mixing apples and tractor tires.
MEDICARE has always been a government program - and Medicare is what the discussion was about.
Your slippery slope argument is equally specious; by your logic, there should either be no health insurance of any kind or no requirements that insurance companies cover anything - because they all could lead to "eugenics."
I can't believe a doctor would write a column that so misrepresents Professor Krugman's point.. It has really become a question of triage because basic medical is denied leading to sickness and death and extraordinary care is provided to the very sick even though that care is worthless; ie worth less in effectiveness than the basic medical that is denied the relatively healthy.
On the other hand prolonging the life of the dying by extraordinary means is a real money maker, no question. It's called a total cashetomy;; which is a removal of all assets from the patient into the doctor's pocket.
I have a friend who's been knocked out for five months now and is slowly dying of throat cancer. Of course he didn't have decent health insurance so he didn't get early treatment that might have saved his life. The U of C is going to give a hell of a bill to the state of Illinois when he dies.
My taxes will pay for the worthless pound of cure but not the ounce of prevention.
Easy money and nice work if you can get it Doctor.
The Chinese Communists have been euthanizing baby girl children, the elderly, the ill and anyone who cannot pay into the Communist treasury. That has been going on since the Chinese Communists took over China.
Now, Paul Krugman and the rest of the liberal Communists wish to install the same policy in the United States and do it through the "DEATH COMMITTEES" created in the Obamacare legislation.
It is time to exterminate these mentally ill Communists in the Federal government.
Sarah Palin said that HCR contained provisions for Death Panels. Where does Paul Krugman confirm the fact that a Death Panel provision is contained in HCR?
There is no parallel to be drawn from Palin's comments and Krugman's comments. They are both opinions - neither are grounded in fact.
Krugman is a liberal - so what?
Palin is a conservative - so what?
They are both people and they both have an opinion. Neither wrote the HCR bill and I doubt either of them read it.
In conclusion, this headline and Krugman's comments have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Why did you write this article?
Paul Krugman should put is actions where his mouth is; self destruct for the betterment of his fellow man by reducing the population and save tax payers money going to support his health care under the Obamacare that only the mentally impaired support,
The author showed his general ignorance when he referred to rights that his 'creator' had defined. He must be hearing voices in his head that are telling him what his 'creator' is thinking! The only 'rights' are those that the constitution writers and political power-brokers have defined and the pack of political sheep were/are willing to fight for. A right is as 'inalienable' as the courts allow it to be.
P.S. What is the etymology of the words "inalienable" and "privilege?"
Amazing write-up! This could aid plenty of people find out more about this particular issue. Are you keen to integrate video clips coupled with these? It would absolutely help out. Your conclusion was spot on and thanks to you; I probably won’t have to describe everything to my pals. I can simply direct them here!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!