Cato expert: There are no "death panels"

One of the strategies for correcting misperceptions that I've proposed is to locate experts from the same side of the aisle who might be especially credible to the misinformed. An August 2009 article by Kate Snow at ABC News, for instance, emphasized that "even those who do not support the version of the health care reform bill now being discussed -- note that [the "death panel"] accusations are shocking, inflammatory and incorrect." However, while a few Republicans in Congress quietly admitted that "death panels" are a myth, the number of conservatives who have done so is relatively small.

With this context in mind, I was thrilled to discover that Cato's Michael Tanner had published a pamphlet (PDF) opposing the health care reform law that makes the intellectually honest distinction between future rationing (likely) and "death panels" (fictitious):

Clearly the trajectory of U.S. health care spending under this law is unsustainable. Therefore, it raises the inevitable question of whether it will lead to rationing down the road.

We should be clear, however. With a few minor exceptions governing Medicare reimbursements, the law would not directly ration care or allow the government to dictate how doctors practice medicine. There is no “death panel” as Sarah Palin once wrote about in her Facebook posting. Even so, by setting in place a structure of increased utilization and rising costs, the new law makes government rationing far more likely in the future.

As Tanner's argument illustrates, it's possible to oppose the law and to believe it will lead to rationing in the future without engaging in demagoguery about "death panels." If more conservatives were willing to make this distinction, maybe the myth wouldn't be so persistent.

Comments

[David in Cal]

It seems unfair to insist that Health Care reformers not engage in demagoguery when supporters are free to do so. According to the pamphlet linked by Brendan:

• The new law will fall significantly short of universal coverage. By 2019, roughly 21 million Americans will still be uninsured.
• The legislation will cost far more than advertised, more than $2.7 trillion over 10 years.
• The law will add $352 billion
to the national debt over that period.
• Most American workers and businesses will
see little or no change in their skyrocketing insurance costs,
• Millions of others, including younger and healthier workers and those who buy insurance on their own through the non-group market will see their premiums go up faster as a result of this legislation.
• The new law will increase taxes by more
than $669 billion between now and 2019.
• The burdens it places on business will
significantly reduce economic growth and
employment.
• While the law contains few direct provisions for rationing care, it nonetheless sets the stage for government rationing and interference with how doctors practice medicine.
• Millions of Americans who are happy with
their current health insurance will not be
able to keep it.

Every one of these points contradicts statements and promises made by our President and Democratic legislators. Why is their demagoguery not worthy of criticism?

[MartyB]

Brendan,

So the objection is really just to the term "Death Panels"?

OK, please suggest a more acceptable term for government rationing, even if "indirect" (see Tanner’s “directly” qualifier above) - that even you seem to agree is likely - that will be done by a panel of experts and is likely to eventually lead to someone being denied care that is life-saving.

Or is it the "likely" in the last part of this sentence that you are really objecting to? Do you feel that such an eventuality is really so beyond the realm of possibility that it should be labeled a "myth", i.e. not even worth discussing?

MartyB - perplexed…

[James Morrison]

It's looking more and more like the real cause for Republicans to celebrate is that health care costs won't really go down as Democrats contend and that millions of Americans will remain or become uninsured. That's the only defense for their demagoguery as far as I can tell.