You Can Put Lipstick on a "Death Panel" , but It's Still a "Death Panel"

Senator and Doctor Tom Coburn of Oklahoma wrote a very good op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal where he outlines some of the problem associated with the Democrats' Senate "health care reform" bill. In particular, he outlines the problems that will occur with the cuts to Medicare that are being proposed:

For instance, the Reid bill (in sections 3403 and 2021) explicitly empowers Medicare to deny treatment based on cost. An Independent Medicare Advisory Board created by the bill—composed of permanent, unelected and, therefore, unaccountable members—will greatly expand the rationing practices that already occur in the program.

Hmm, a "Medicare Advisory Board"? It sounds like the Dems are trying to put lipstick on a "death panel". Yes, they do exist even now and as Governor Palin pointed out back in August:

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

It sounds like much hasn't changed in the past several months regarding the Democrats' plans for health care reform. As a side note, Governor Palin's "death panel" quote made the Yale's Top Ten quotes of 2009. Rationing of care goes against the two planks of bioethics: autonomy and beneficence. Autonomy is the concept that patients should have the power to make decisions regarding their own care. Beneficence is the concept that what is best for the patient is what is done. If Medicare cuts are made while the number of Medicare beneficiaries grows as it is now, inevitably, rationing would occur. This Medicare advisory board would make decisions that should be left to the patient and his or her doctor. Thus, the plank of autonomy would be ignored. Also, such boards would make decisions in the best interest of the government, not the patient. Thus, the plank of beneficence would be ignored.

Many argue that without the passage of this health care reform bill the uninsured would lack access to health care and would be denied their own autonomy and beneficence. However, that is not the case. As both Senator Coburn and Governor Palin point out, as a means to supposedly cutting costs, the government will utilize panels or boards to determine what treatments patients should receive. While Coburn address Medicare boards specifically, such board would likely be created for other means of health care coverage from the government.

Interestingly, there is one thing that liberals and conservatives ultimately agree on-- that health insurance should not be attached to employment. The ultimate health care reform goal of liberals is universal coverage provided by the government. The ultimate health care reform goal of conservatives is to provide a competitive free market health care through tax credits, increased competition through removal of state boundaries, health savings accounts and the like. Neither goal includes employer-provided insurance, but both supposedly provide health care coverage. One type of plan creates massive bureaucracies and controls every aspect of the system as a means of proving supposedly cost-effective health care, whereas the other plan removes government restrictions so that people can make health care decisions for themselves.

In Coburn's op-ed, he points out "death panels" in the UK which has a more socialized health care system:

Section 6301 of the Reid bill creates new comparative effectiveness research (CER) programs. CER panels have been used as rationing commissions in other countries such as the U.K., where 15,000 cancer patients die prematurely every year according to the National Cancer Intelligence Network. CER panels here could effectively dictate coverage options and ration care for plans that participate in the state insurance exchanges created by the bill.

How would a plan that includes similar programs and panels as this socialized system truly help provide care to people? As much as the Left tries to turn the health care debate into a moral and ethical argument, their plans, that would include panels and boards, ration care and ultimately ignore the bioethical planks of autonomy and beneficence. You can put lipstick on socialized health care reform, but that doesn't make it a good idea.