Second Thoughts About Death Panels

 

When the Tea Party advocates used those scary words “death panel” as relates to Obamacare, the left went nuts, denying they existed.

If I remember right, on some forum, I defended the need for a panel to decide at some level whether money was going to be spent on particular medical procedures for particular people. I believe I pointed out that insurance companies have been doing so for years.

When other people’s money is being spent for your health care, whether from insurance premiums or taxes, economic realities have to be taken into account. Insurance companies do it with panels, and also by placing a cap on the total amount they will allot. If you have hundreds of thousands of dollars of your own money and want to spend it to keep aunt Martha alive for 60 more days in intensive care, go ahead, but when other people’s money is being spent, expect economics to play a role in medical decisions.

However, with the recent IRS scandal, the incompetent roll out of Obamacare and the VA health care scandal, maybe I ought to be a little more sympathetic to the Tea Party in this matter. I do not trust the government to remain apolitical or even wise in these matters.

Dr. Zeke Emanuel, one of the architects of Obamacare, made the news this week (Sept. 22, 2014) by publishing an article in the September issue of “The Atlantic” in which he declared 75 years was long enough for a person to live.

“Here is a simple truth that many of us seem to resist: Living too long is also a loss,” he wrote. “It renders many of us, if not disabled, then faltering and declining, a state that may not be worse than death but is nonetheless deprived.”

Emmanuel went on “Morning Joe” to explain his idea, saying that it all boils down to “the meaning and purpose of your life.”

When the issue of death panels was brought up, Emmanuel said he has been against euthanasia for 25 years, but he supported the idea of a person halting their medical care once they got to a certain age. “The question isn’t living longer. The question is high-quality life. This is what most people want.” So apparently, the question is not just one of economics but one of economics based on “high-quality life.” And, who is going to determine that?

Many years ago, when I was active in the pro-life movement, we talked about abortion as the slippery slope that would lead to infanticide and eventually euthanasia. The pro-choice people accused us of being alarmist and assured us that would not happen. Yet, people who follow the news know we have slipped way down that slope: consider partial birth abortions and assisted suicide, or do the names Dr. Kermit Gosnell or Dr. Jack Kevorkian mean anything to you? I guess I don’t want people who think like Emmanuel making life and death decisions on my behalf.

I have been a breath away from death and did not find it particularly disturbing. As such, I see no need for extra ordinary means to be taken to keep death away from my door, but I would like to know that decision will be made by me rather than a bureaucrat steeped in government regulations and policy manuals or swayed by personal prejudices, say a Lois Learner. There are too many variables at play in determining “high-quality” life to be determined in that way. Today I may volunteer to not seek medical help, but tomorrow, after the idea becomes acceptable, I will be told to end it.

    I’m not sure when we should give up on life, but I remember a friend telling me once that all life should be respected because it is the rarest thing in the universe. No, he was not a Christian, not at the time. In fact, he had placed his faith squarely in science and technology. But, his statement has had an influence on how I think about life, even as to how I view the squishing of insects, fishing, hunting or cutting down trees.

Maybe opposition to those “death panels” wasn’t such a bad idea after all.

The elite revisited

            With the election results that would determine whether Scotland could leave the United Kingdom hot off the press, one article caught my attention. The premise of the pundit was that we were seeing an attempt by the common folk to shed themselves of the failed governance of the elite. He went on to conclude that that is what we are seeing throughout the Western World, even in our own country, with the rise of movements like the Tea Party.

            This analysis reminded me of an article I read a few months ago concerning a shift in Google’s hiring policies:

 

Google has spent years analyzing who succeeds at the company, which has moved away from a focus on GPAs, brand name schools, and interview brain teasers.  

In a conversation with The New York Times’ Tom Friedman, Google’s head of people operations, Laszlo Bock, detailed what the company looks for. And increasingly, it’s not about credentials.

Google looks for the ability to step back and embrace other people’s ideas when they’re better. “It’s ‘intellectual humility.’ Without humility, you are unable to learn,” Bock says. “Successful bright people rarely experience failure, and so they don’t learn how to learn from that failure.”

Those people have an unfortunate reaction, Bock says:

“They, instead, commit the fundamental attribution error, which is if something good happens, it’s because I’m a genius. If something bad happens, it’s because someone’s an idiot or I didn’t get the resources or the market moved. … What we’ve seen is that the people who are the most successful here, who we want to hire, will have a fierce position. They’ll argue like hell. They’ll be zealots about their point of view. But then you say, ‘here’s a new fact,’ and they’ll go, ‘Oh, well, that changes things; you’re right.’”

Talent exists in so many places that hiring managers who rely on a few schools are using it as a crutch and missing out. Bock says:

“When you look at people who don’t go to school and make their way in the world, those are exceptional human beings. And we should do everything we can to find those people.”

The above motivated me to revisit and resurrect my column of a few years back on why commoners don’t like or trust our elite rulers.

 The Elite

                In his column published in The Sun July 26, 2010, Richard Cohen bemoans the fact that politicians have to dumb down their message and credentials in order to get elected.  He claimed they have to hide their academic degrees from prestigious universities and avoid their erudite vocabularies and play down their intellectual abilities.  He seems puzzled as to why we commoners don’t appreciate these elitists.

            When writing for The  Sun, for the most part, I have avoided politics, but I can’t resist taking this opportunity to enlighten Mr. Cohen.  To begin with, his column reflected the condescending attitude of so many elitists.  We commoners may not be the smartest people on the planet, but there are some things that insult our common sense.  Intuitively, we know it does not take a 2,000 page bill, unread by those who voted on it, to reform health care or our financial institutions.  In both instances, we were told it must be passed so we can know what is in it. Such actions tell us it is not intellectual aplomb that rules in our capital but rather political savvy and gamesmanship.

            Secondly,  those who are elite, erudite, and graduates of prestigious universities often promote an ideology unacceptable to us common folk.  They eschew the label liberal and prefer to call themselves progressives.  Either way, the ideology goes way back.

The late Malcolm Muggeridge, tells about his experience with progressives back in the 1920’s.  He had grown up with a socialist father, and Beatrice Webb, the famous British socialists, was his aunt, fore runners of modern progressives.

            As a young reporter, he moved his family to Moscow, Russia, where he intended to live out the rest of his life and contribute to the development of the great, people’s utopian experiment known as Soviet communism.  He was quickly disillusioned with this progressive ideology. Even as the failures of the experiment became obvious, there continued to be regular visits by American elitists, mostly college professors and government bureaucrats, to Russia to get a glimpse of this wonderful experiment.

            Muggeridge reports in his autobiography that these elitist so badly wanted this experiment to be a success that they would believe just about anything they were told, and so, he would try and see how far he could stretch their credulity.  It was common for the visitors to ask why there were so many lines of poor peasants at stores and government offices.  Muggeridge would explain that these people were so committed to the grand  experiment that they would work themselves from morning to night to make it happen.  The only way the government could insure that the people would get some rest was to engineer these long waits.  Yes, many of the elitists bought it, according to Muggeridge.

            As an ideology, progressivism has been around long enough that it has developed its own unthinking fundamentalists.  The latest iteration of this ideology is being expressed by politicians like Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi.  It makes no difference that their progressivism has been tried and found wanting around the world in a number of venues, these current progressive fundamentalists are going to try it anyway.

            Those of us who live in what the elites dub fly over country, who graduated from common state universities, or didn’t even get that far, see political games being played with our borders, our taxes, our health care, our investments, our jobs and our energy.  We look at the messes in our country and around the world, and we realize that these things are the results of policies of the erudite, elitists who graduated from prestigious universities, and we become suspicious of those who govern.  We just want straight talk and solutions.

            Mr. Cohen might ask himself why an intellectual heavy weight like Bill Buckley would rather, “entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.”  Why didn’t Buckley, an erudite, intellectual elite, graduate of Yale University, trust people with his qualifications to run the government?  What did he know that we don’t?

            One of my college professors and a lifelong friend and novelist, the late Robert O. Bowen, once explained to me that a true intellectual is a person who observes life going on around him, thinks carefully about what he observes, and learns from it – nothing said about books.

So, Mr. Cohen, those of us who are suspicious of the elite, the erudite, and those with credentials from prestigious universities, are people who can learn from the past, something the progressives you want us to embrace don’t seem to do.