Writing at the intersection of motherhood, feminism and my Latinidad

01 March 2011

Sarah Palin was right! Evidence of death panels in Chicago

Palin just got the location incorrect. Rather than death panels being a part of health care reform, death panels are alive and well in current insurance policies:

In the days after a football injury left Eisenhower High School running back Rasul "Rocky" Clark paralyzed from the neck down, he was showered with attention from medical professionals and assured by school officials that he would be well taken care of, he said.

For nearly a decade Clark enjoyed superb medical care — nurses in his home around the clock, access to pain medicines and prescriptions and a storeroom of supplies.

Now the $5 million insurance policy that once covered Clark's medical care has reached its lifetime maximum and come to an end — and along with it, many of the benefits he once enjoyed. Those benefits may have kept him healthy enough to surpass the life expectancy for most quadriplegics, his mother and primary physician said.

"I was told I'd be taken care of all of my life," Clark, 27, said from his bed in his modest house in south suburban Robbins. "That was one thing that brought me comfort. I knew I'd be OK.

"Now it seems like I'm being penalized for living too long. That's how I see it."
I'm sure that the lifetime cap was set by a team of actuaries who figured out the average or maybe even the best case scenario for someone who becomes a quadripledic. Only that medical care has advanced enough to allow this young man to live for much longer than expected.

Yes, he's being punished for living too long.
Yes, the insurance company's decision is a death sentence.
But no, I don't see Sarah Palin jetting out to rally with this young man and his tired mom. She won't be fighting for his life. Nor can I imagine any of the Republicans who went on and on about death panels or swear they are pro-life.

But I sure would love to be proven wrong. Come on Sarah, prove me wrong!

BTW - If anyone knows of a site where people can donate to Clark's care, please leave it in the comments. Thanks!

5 comments:

Rather, it points to what is likely to happen when there is limited money to go around in ANY health insurance program.

If you read the fine print of the health care bill, you will see that a great deal of latitude and decision-making is given to non-elected officials when it comes to making such decisions.

Well, we recently passed a health care bill we cannot afford, on top of bailouts that have sunk us further into the hole. What miracle rabbit are we going to pull out of a hat to avoid the same sort of scenario with a public health plan?

One sensible solution is to reduce our need for health care in the first place. Find cures and educate people so they can make better lifestyle choices. But the National Cancer Institute, whose employee was a member of the research team that found that women who have had abortions have increased risks of breast cancer, tried to deny it for like 9 months. What's up with that? People who are SUPPOSED to have our back are in bed with others for money (now that oral contraceptives and abortion are linked with increased cancer risk, Susan G. Komen for the cure seems to think that giving money to purveyors of abortion and contraceptives is a better idea than researching cures for breast cancer and finding what it is about abortion and oral contraceptives are involved, and trying to fix it. (Has it ever occurred to you why money-making non-profits never seem to find cures, but end up perpetuating themselves indefinitely?)

As usual, follow the money to find your answers.

Oh Pippi...take your abortion = cancer fairy tale outta here.

This may offend your world view, but these are facts. Besides, I didn't say that abortion + cancer, only that research shows a significantly higher risk of cancer when a woman has had an abortion. The level of significance varies in the different studies around the world, but all are significant enough to report. Space is limited on these boards, I had to delete a lot.

As for death panels, the fine print is in place.

We have some vocal backers for the idea, like Bill Gates, openly in favor of death panels.

The idea of euthanasia, made popular in Nazi Germany (and which, incidentally, was the inspiration for Planned Parenthood to help reduce the black population as much as it was about reproductive freedom for women), is alive and well on both sides of the Atlantic, and wherever health care is socialized, it becomes an optional means of budget balancing.

The Netherlands has had a lot of press about their steps toward legalizing euthanasia of many people, including children.

Canada and a family have been in a dispute over the value of the life of a child, Baby Joseph.

http://www.stthomastimesjournal.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2995393

Canada's socialized medicine program has also canceled surgeries for many months in one of its provinces, due to budget problems. Too bad so sad for those who needed surgery to stay alive.

If we pursue socialized medicine, especially as we are doing with gigantic debt to start with, both the budget and the rapidly changing view of the value of human life will inevitably lead to rationing of human life. All the arrows point in that direction.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/01/06/EDGOQAL6VE1.DTL

Only 840 euthanized without their consent in The Netherlands. Not bad, huh?