"Yes, But"

Apparently Kevin you’ve missed the point of the ENTIRE HEALTHCARE DEBATE. You said, “Up until two minutes ago, politicians and pundits across the political spectrum universally believed that advance care counseling was an entirely sane and uncontroversial practice”. So what changed two minutes ago? ObamaCare. There is a huge difference between having a private conservation about advanced care counseling with your doctor, paid by your health insurance or god forbid out of pocket, and having that same conversation paid by the Federal government.

That is what is at issue here. Medicare is already running $35,000,000,000,000 in unfunded liabilities. Add to that 15, 30, 40 million people the Public Option will cover and it HAS to result in scarcity. IT HAS TO. And so it is a completely reasonable to assume that government will be motivated to reduce costs where they can- or face bankrupting the country. And with 60% of Medicare being spent on the last 6 months of life it is even more reasonable to assume that advance care counseling will include a push, a nudge towards the exit.

You can not give assurances that end of life counseling won’t include a hasty retreat to the grave. Under a government run program (see Maine, Massachusetts and other states that offer universal care and are going bust) we simply won’t be able to afford a long, slow exit. And half the people in this country are just god-damn independent enough not to want some government agency telling them when to turn off the lights.

As long as the rest of the Nutroots don’t get this, they can’t address the issue seriously. Which makes their side losers in this important debate.

And to Secular Animist- Hey, grow up already.

The problem with Krauthammer's argument is pretty clear in this passage:

"To offer government reimbursement to any doctor who gives end-of-life counseling -- whether or not the patient asked for it -- is to create an incentive for such a chat. [...] Do you think the doctor will go on and on about the fantastic new million-dollar high-tech gizmo that can prolong the patient's otherwise hopeless condition for another six months? Or do you think he's going to talk about -- as the bill specifically spells out -- hospice care and palliative care and other ways of letting go of life?"

Really? For the sake of argument, let's assume that doctors are coming at this issue with an eye toward nothing but profit, as Krauthammer seems to fear. Which of the two scenarios that Krauthammer depicts is going to be more profitable for doctors -- the counseling session that they can have with a given patient once every five years (or at the end of that patient's life), or the procedures they can order with "the fantastic new million-dollar high-tech gizmo that can prolong the patient's otherwise hopeless condition for another six months"? Unless the government is thinking about some awfully handsome reimbursements for those counseling sessions, Krauthammer doesn't have to worry his pretty little head.

Not that I disagree an iota, but the tone of this post seems to imply that Mr. K (and Mr. Will, et alii) sometimes engage in some other activity than intellectual dishonesty. This is their bread an butter, and one could (and someone no doubt does) raise a similar point against every one of their columns.