LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
2010 Webby Award Winner for Best Political Blog
 
February 17, 2012
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Most Read

Comes the Revolution

The Imperial Way: American Decline in Perspective, Part 2

What's Really at Stake in 2012

Apple's China Comes Home to Haunt Us

This Gay Man Represented the President

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
 * NEW! * Comes the Revolution
 * NEW! * Pay Close Attention to China

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture

Digs
Financial Meltdown 101

Truthdig Bazaar
The Coldest Winter

The Coldest Winter

By David Halberstam
$35.00

In Search of the Blues

In Search of the Blues

By Marybeth Hamilton

more items

 
Reports

When Rationing May Be Rational

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   

Posted on May 7, 2009

By Ellen Goodman

I was not surprised by the president’s story. Health care reform is not just a matter of spreadsheets and patient charts. It’s a repository of the personal narratives we carry around in our family hard drives.

This time, the story he told was about end-of-life costs and caring. It was about Madelyn Dunham, the grandmother who had died just a day too soon to see him become president. You see, the woman called Toot was terminally ill with cancer when she fell, broke her hip and then agreed to a hip replacement. The surgery was “successful” but two weeks later, as the president said, “You know, things fell apart.”

Obama told a New York Times reporter that he would have paid for the operation himself if necessary, but then he asked aloud whether society should be expected to pay for such treatment of any other terminally ill parent or grandparent. Was this a “sustainable model?” asked the presidential grandson, adding, “So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues.”

I was struck by this because I remembered Obama’s announcement of Dunham’s death in November: “She died peacefully in her sleep with my sister at her side.” What a different image of dying that evoked than the one that describes a fall, an emergency, surgery, the tumbling decisions that his family, like so many others, faced.

But I was also struck by the way the president framed Toot’s treatment as one of the “difficult moral issues” surrounding health care costs. Indeed, folks on the right saw this story as Obama’s warning about rationing ahead. But aren’t there places at the end of life where ethics and economics, compassion and cost, dovetail rather than conflict?

Advertisement

There are “difficult moral issues” ahead. But is this one of them? Is a health care system that offers “everything” to everyone—hip replacements to terminally ill patients—morally superior? Or suspect? Can’t we decide when more is not more?

I won’t second-guess decisions in those last weeks of Toot’s life any more than I would second-guess my own family’s decisions as the avalanche of choices rolled toward us in my mother’s last months. But I do think that what our system may need is not more intervention but more conversation.

Especially on the delicate subject of dying.

Today more than one-fourth of Medicare dollars are spent in the last year of life. Most people want to die “peacefully” at home but 80 percent die in hospitals. So, much of our money goes to the kind of death we don’t want.

It’s true that the financial incentives of our medical system are geared toward intervention, but so are the emotional incentives. Doctors are in the business of fixing, trained to write “hope” on the prescription pad. These professionals are often uncomfortable amateurs in the business of talking about their “failure”: death.

As for the rest of us, how many families actually have “the talk,” something as dreaded as “the talk” about sex? How many tiptoe around the questions that surround death, parents not wanting to upset children, children not wanting to upset parents? As if we were not in it together.

I have known experts who could speak in public on this subject but not to their mothers. No one is immune from denial—not even the anthropologist Margaret Mead, who preached the need for an open conversation about death. When her time came, and her daughter came to talk, Mead said she wasn’t dying, she had too much left to do.

In the wake of the Terri Schiavo case, the “living will” became a common document. On Web sites now, “The Five Wishes” are downloaded as family talking points that go beyond “pulling the plug.” But denial is still the default position. And maybe the destructive position.

It turns out that end-of-life discussions between doctors and patients do not produce fear and depression. Recent research shows these conversations result in less aggressive treatment, lower stress, a better quality of life for dying patients and comfort for those who will mourn them.

If this is rationing, I call it rational.

Madelyn Dunham died “peacefully.” But the “difficult moral issue” embedded in this story is actually a simple one: More expensive care is not always better care. Doing everything can be the wrong thing. The end of life is one place where ethics and economics can still be braided into a single strand of humanity.

Ellen Goodman’s e-mail address is ellengoodman(at)globe.com.
   
    © 2009, Washington Post Writers Group


Comments

Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

By NYCartist, May 11, 2009 at 1:22 pm Link to this comment

I forgot to say that Not Dead Yet also covers situations described in comments about denying care.
A couple of recent striking situations.  http://www.notdeadyet.org

Report this

By NYCartist, May 11, 2009 at 10:59 am Link to this comment

The perspective of this article/column offends me.  How many people in this country get that expensive care? 

As a person who is disabled by severe illness, I have been aware of the movement to push “assisted suicide”.

The basis of the article is a false one.  If you want some good analysis, see Stephen Drake’s blog NotDeadYet.  http://www.notdeadyet.org Really good analyses. Some time ago, Stephen Drake was on DemocracyNow. http://www.democracynow.org

Report this

By foggyjones, May 10, 2009 at 12:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

SUNDAY   317 PM/CST   DFW/USA

REF: Louise

I completely agree with you assessment of Sen. Max Baucus,(Z-nazi from Montana)regarding drugs, banksters and MIC. His friends completely oppose One-Payer Health Care. While it is regretful that greater American public continues to be ripped and shredded by these f’ing sharks, there really is no choice but to fight back.

Unless you are one of them, wealthy or brain dead, you had better contact these SOBs. Ultimately, if this government even survives, with all the drawbacks, One-Payer is our single option if you study the numbers, not the mainstream news media.

Forget about the delusion of the two-party system, that is just a cover for the cabal that has us tight in their grip. Max Baucus is just one more shark circling around their prey.

That is right, there are just as many predators amongst the Dems as the Repugs. Think of that the next time you see Pelosi’s toothy smile the next time she in on TV, or Rahm Emanuel, Lloyd Blandfein, Joe Biden, etc. etc. Wise up and rise up!

It is later than you think. You need to know what is happening but beware of mainstream media. Lying faces, they’ll stab you in the back.

Report this

By Louise, May 9, 2009 at 3:06 pm Link to this comment

Why was the recent “hearing for health care reform” held by the FINANCE COMMITTEE? Senator Max Baucus (D, Montana) heads up that committee. The top campaign contribution to Baucus in 2007-2008 was $72,200 from employees of Schering-Plough Corporation, which develops, manufactures, and sells pharmaceuticals worldwide. In 2006 he received $224,852 from Insurance giants AIG and New York Life, and “to big to fail” banks like JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs. A quick review of the subject and it begins to appear Baucus has manipulated himself into a position of “leading the action” to “reform” our broken health care system. Why Baucus, why the Finance Committee? Well, Baucus, as Chairman of the Finance Committee, has jurisdiction over the major public health insurance programs! There’s a clue. Insurance!
From the Baucus Web Page: 

“Although the United States spends twice as much on health care as any other country, we clearly don’t have twice as much health care.”

So what solution would Baucus propose? Judging from who sat at the table at the Baucus hearing, MORE control and PROFIT to CORPORATE Insurance and Drug producers, since they were the ONLY ones at the table!
More from the Baucus site:

“So how do we fix our health care system?  I see five broad principles of reform.- I have begun a series of hearings to explore each principle in greater depth. By having an open and honest dialogue, I am confident that we can build momentum, find consensus, and bring about reform.”

(Fails to mention those who advocate single payer were excluded from the “open and honest” dialogue.)

“Universal Coverage: - must build on the current system - involve a public and private sector mix.” (Keep the current profiteers happy, and republicans who see everything that doesn’t make a profit as socialism.)

“Sharing the Burden: - allow individuals and businesses alike to take advantage of their collective purchasing power and save in administrative costs.” (Keep the profiteers happy, since the ultimate goal is “purchasing” insurance and drugs.)

“Controlling Costs: - slow the rate of growth of health care costs.” (We need to get sick less, while still paying the same for insurance and drugs.)

“Prevention: - avoid the high costs of treating an illness that has been allowed to progress.” (An obvious solution would be forced insurance to be determined and controlled by the Insurance Corporations.)

“Shared Responsibility: - reduce the number of the uninsured by building on existing programs, - protect and strengthen these programs as we work towards broader reform.” (OK. Forget everything else I typed, this says it all - “we must protect and strengthen these [existing] programs”!)

This is not about Socialism, this is about death and suffering for Capitalist profit! Social Security works because in spite of their efforts to take control, we have never allowed Corporate Capitalism to take control! Medicare and Medicaid have major problems, because since day one we have allowed Corporate Capitalism to sit at the head of the table! It’s so obvious the only thing that surprises me is that so-called conservatives can’t see the connection!

Baucus is most certainly not about any kind of Socialism! Baucus is ALL about preserving the “free” capitalist market and their right to gain. Even if it means channeling taxpayer money into their coffers. Even if it means at the expense of America’s need for fair and decent health care. Nothing he proposes will really change anything! Not so long as Insurance and Drug Corporations are considered the main players! When it comes to providing fair and decent health care, they are frauds! As are the members of the Baucus finance committee who pretended the other day to care! It’s all about money! And we better make darn good and sure they know, that WE know, that they don’t care about us ... only the MONEY!

So, lets stop yelling at each other and start yelling at THEM!

Report this
Volma's avatar

By Volma, May 8, 2009 at 10:49 pm Link to this comment

ChrisBieber, Do you get paid to write this propaganda ignorant, fear based garbage???? I hope you do, because if your hobby is to spread ignorant propaganda to the liberally bent public who read Truthdig articles, you are wasting your time…Oh you have me so shaking in my boots, just waiting for the chains of socialism and social medicine to rattle!!!!My God, if you do not get, see, or hear what has been going on around you for years under the guise of freedom, and capitalism, you must be deaf dumb and blind….Or just another uneducated, fearful drone who believes what ever their Masters of evil and greed, want them to believe…Capitalism in the US is so very very corrupt, dishonest, inhumane, it has been killing and murdering it’s own people in the name of freedom and the American way….I want to live in a country that has human values, that takes care of all, that is not about making a profit…Social Capitalism or anything that gets this country out from under the greedy evil money and power hoarders who will do anything, and I mean anything for money and power is a step up from the nightmare we are living…It’s not to say that socialism and communism can not have leaders who are evil, greedy, and power hungry too.. We need to keep a true check and balance system to keep these twisted Capitalist psycho’s out of power within our own government…We need to see that all American’s have health care, food and shelter…All American’s then should work on seeing to it that we help the rest of the world, by helping them get needed health care and food and shelter, instead of killing, taking over their resources, their land water oil and people..  We have become the enemy, the Evil Empire, because we are either too brainwashed, stupid and greedy to care, or we are too fearful and timid to take a stand…The Democrats are no different than the Republican’s, the Yes We Can, was a lie, using American’s with hope and lies…We should all be “Mad as Hell” and Not Take This Anymore…This seems to be the time and place to make a stand for truth freedom and love of our earth and the entire human race…

Report this

By ChrisBieber, May 8, 2009 at 6:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Outraged….at the historical facts/precedence/LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS of what I wrote????????

if so than attempt to address them…not cut and paste emotive subjective opinions…..

btw….your acceptance of the status quo of government involvement in medicine(and the litany of managing of our lives)ie socialism, is quite evident..and sad.

bbtw…didnt we fight AGAINST Fascism….in WW2…and Communism in Korea and Vietnam???? so why are you/US accepting/advocating it now???

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, May 8, 2009 at 6:27 pm Link to this comment

Re: ChrisBieber,

Why did the Senate Finance Committee hold a roundtable discussion on health care reform and exclude an advocate for single payer, all the insurance companies were there.

“After Flowers, Senator Stabenow comes on to give a perfect representation of an evasive, dishonest, sleazy senator, claiming not to know why single-payer advocates have been excluded, condescendingly encouraging them to keep shouting even though her gang won’t listen, and pretending that “lots of folks” in her state want to keep the insurance they have—as if trading it for completely comprehensive and completely free coverage (paid in taxes by businesses) would constitute some sort of a loss, would have a down side. Schultz dismisses the senator and lays out his position:

“Does Senator Baucus have his head screwed on wrong, or what? Does he not know that the majority of Americans want single-payer? Now I don’t care what the conservatives want when it comes to healthcare. They had their chance, and look where we are right now.”

This is the will of the majority of Americans versus the antidemocratic corporate agenda of Senator Max Baucus. Schultz makes that crystal clear. Of course, the Senate (and usually the House too) normally act contrary to the will of the majority of Americans, but it is very useful to have that pointed out once in a while, even if pointed out in a manner that suggests it’s a rarity.

http://pdamerica.org/articles/news/2009-05-08-10-27-36-news.php

Ms. Flowers is a doctor who was arrested for speaking out for Single-Payer Healthcare.

On May 5, eight healthcare advocates, including three physicians, stood up to Senator Max Baucus and the Senate Finance Subcommittee during a “public” roundtable discussion with a simple question: Will you allow an advocate for a single payer national health plan to have a seat at the table? The answer was a loud, “Get more police!” And the advocates were hauled off to jail.”

Video of the protest:
http://pdamerica.org/articles/news/2009-05-06-13-14-56-news.php

“I hear from [patients] every single day about their woes … who can’t afford their co-pays,” Paris said in an earlier interview. “It’s fragmented care and inadequate care when all I can do is prescribe medication when they need” a full medical regimen with help of other specialists. As a psychiatrist, she said, she treats patients whose financial stress is causing mental and physical problems.

Over the past eight years, Marylanders have seen their health insurance premiums increase by 64.1 percent while wages during that period only grew by 21.4 percent, according to a statement by Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md., 5th). Without reform, the health insurance premiums of Maryland families would increase from 4.7 percent of their income to 9.1 percent by 2016, Hoyer’s data shows.

The federal government estimates that more than 45 million Americans were uninsured in 2008. In Maryland the number of uninsured has grown to 769,007 — 13.8 percent of the state’s population, according to Hoyer’s statement. About $56 billion in uncompensated care for the uninsured is absorbed annually by the health system, driving up the cost of insurance for everyone, Hoyer said.”

http://www.somdnews.com/stories/05082009/entetop163119_32200.shtml

If you BELIEVE what you are claiming in your post, you have been misdirected.  That is Insurance Company PROPAGANDA.

Report this

By ChrisBieber, May 8, 2009 at 5:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

When the Government(where o where does the Constitution allow this??) openly/totally takes over medicine…AND insurance….AND the bank system….THEN you will see real ie FORCED rationing….

Socialism results in that….

The State allowing care to be given..OR TAKEN AWAY….health care (and life care) will be like a drivers liscense…a “right’ GIVEN to you by the State…. and since theyIt will be powerful(legally and financially) enought to “grant” or ALLOW health/life care…then for whatever reason theyIt, being poweful enough,  will DENY care….or life itself….for whatever reason..usually with a false financial “concern”...with government employee doctors disavowing the Hippocratic Oath and following thier pocketbooks…and FedGov rules and edicts.

How horrible of a socialist nightmare future it will be….

socialism won the day a long time ago…the FedGov’s nose in the tent of everything..and the people accepted the socialist trap/arguments… and now demand it as a “right”

.....it is coming fully into the tent..of our lives.

Thanks for helping giving/install on us more laws, more regimentation and more bills ie socialism.  Hope you get to “enjoy” it…good AND hard like us poor people…but then….you probably dont have to experience the “emjoyment” of Ministry of Health “care” like the rest of us…..

Report this
Volma's avatar

By Volma, May 8, 2009 at 12:20 pm Link to this comment

Hulk 2008 has nailed the subject…Rationing medical care has been going on for decades, and it’s all decided by the insurance companies, all about money…This article is worthless, superficial and maybe even full of some type of propaganda for the health care industry…Really Truthdig, how deep, insightful, progressive is this little gem of an article? It’s garbage, I can watch or read stuff like this on the Fox News Network, it’s on the same level of thoughtless, ignorant, propaganda No News…

Report this
Hulk2008's avatar

By Hulk2008, May 8, 2009 at 7:33 am Link to this comment

The TRUTH is that RATIONING ALREADY EXISTS - IN PRIVATE INSURANCE AND MEDICARE.

Anyone who has experienced the death of a close family member or who has cared for a child during hospital stays knows this to be true:  The insurance company decides how many days the patient is allowed to remain in the hospital and what tests are allowed and what treatments are permitted .... not the doctors or nurses or family members. 
  I have personally had to negotiate with insurance clerks over the phone while my child was in excrutiating post-surgical pain, just to get one more day in the hospital at the recommendation of the surgeon. Even the surgeon could not speak to those clerks. 
    My elderly father broke his collarbone (which a local hospital misdiagnosed) so he developed pneumonia.  The attending physician (a total stranger) tagged Dad as “do not resuscitate”, repeatedly sent him to a rehab site because of “medicare rules”, and stated that “a hospital is not a retirement home”.  The rehab site repeatedly sent Dad back within hours of his arrival because he could NOT breathe or swallow on his own and had high fevers. Due to insurance rules, Dad’s family physician did not have privileges at that hospital and the hospital refused to transfer him to one that did.  After several weeks of transfers Dad passed away - literally gasping for his last desperate breath. The hospital administration sent us a letter stating that “the physicians are not our employees” and “the hospital provided your family member excellent care”. 
    My spouse has her very-high cholesterol treated with several drugs.  Annually her physician tests for the efficacy of those drugs and the potential damage to her liver and kidneys - and annually the insurance company refuses to pay for the testing on the grounds that “a person with low cholesterol doesn’t need testing”.  I suppose if the drugs were not working the testing would be paid for since her cholesterol would skyrocket again. 
  The insurance companies gather specific physicians and hospitals into isolated “networks” - and exclude those who will not or cannot make contractual arrangements with them.  The insurance companies set the rates, who gets treatment, and who does not - and boosts rates for “out of network” treatments.  Hospitals shift the costs of uninsured patients to those who are insured. 
    The Fed allows a worker to set aside from wages a pure guess in Section 125 about what expenses might be incurred during the coming year - guessing what the insurance companies won’t cover.  The only benefit is that an accurate guess allows reduction of taxes - a bad guess causes the wages to be lost forever or to run out of money. 

THIS IS RATIONING.  It’s arcane, it’s costly, it does nothing to reduce future costs, it does not reward providers who produce better outcomes, and it punishes providers who try newer treatments not yet approved by insurance company clerks.  Moreover, coverage is determined by the specific employer contract with the insurance company - not the efficacy of specific treatment plans. 

The rationing argument is a ruse - a fear tactic - straight from the talking points of Republican Frank Lutz.

Report this

By progwoman, May 8, 2009 at 3:48 am Link to this comment

Make no mistake, we are already rationing health care.We force people to choose between taking their medication and paying their housing or food costs. We leave healthy young people to fend for themselves when the rates for insurance are so steep that they can’t afford them on their beginning wages. We allow insurance companies to set COBRA rates so high that laid off workers must walk away from the insurance they once had. In some states we are denying or reducing care to cancer patients who can no longer work.

But when it comes to care for premature babies so tiny that their lives will be burdened by endless physical complications, we know no bounds, while failing to provide a system of prenatal care that would have fended off many of these early births. And, of course, we offer a wide range of questionable services to the dying; Mrs. Dunham might have experienced seeing her grandson elected had she not “elected” to have hip surgery.

I think President Obama is the right man to set the stage for this discussion. He’s had plenty of experience in his own family, beginning with his mother, and he’s no fundamentalist either in religion or economics.

Report this

By Louise, May 7, 2009 at 1:30 pm Link to this comment

“More expensive care is not always better care. Doing everything can be the wrong thing. The end of life is one place where ethics and economics can still be braided into a single strand of humanity.”

Amen to that!

Maybe we need to focus on the reality of a working parent being unable to find a doctor who will set their broken bones because the Insurance is for a different hospital. And the possibility that because of the accident, they may lose their job, and therefore their insurance anyway. Just before they lose everything else they’ve worked so hard for.

Maybe we need to talk about the REAL problem in our health care system. The Insurance and Drug industry.

Drugs to keep suffering patients alive long after all hope of recovery is gone. And the Insurance companies who profit from the misguided notion that we need to buy to pay for that eventuality. We have been sold a bill of goods. A notion that we should all feel good all the time, and pain and death are somehow unnatural. So we watch a beloved parent suffer through the agony of being kept alive, long after life is gone. Being drugged and experimented on. Losing their hair and bodily functions.

Shrinking into an unrecognisable thing. Trying hard to remember what they were, when they were someone, before “treatment” turned them into something, someone we don’t recognize. The body and mind, fried by chemicals and radiation, lives on in fear. Not of dying, but of being kept alive.

And listening to their last whispered words. “If I had known two years ago what I know now I never would have gone to see a doctor,” we watch the bills mount up, even after a lifetime of spending thousands on so-called health insurance.

The perfect scam. Everyone gets sick or hurt at least once in their life-times, and against that eventuality Insurance rakes in billions! And now we have the perfect disease, the epidemic of perpetuating life in senior citizens, long after nature has called them home. Providing endless opportunity for experimenting on new treatments, new drugs. Keep the patient alive a little longer, the better for business if the business happens to be “health”.

Report this

Add Your Comment

Posts by unregistered readers are moderated. Posts by members
are published immediately. Why wait? Register today!






                        Number of characters remaining: 4000

Are you a human? Retype the word you see here.

     

Please read and abide by our comment policy.
By submitting this comment, you agree to this site's terms and conditions.

Newsletter

Get Truthdig in your inbox


 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2012 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.