Would a government takeover of healthcare, or would it not, result in unelected government bureaucrats deciding who gets treatment and who doesn't?
That's a loaded question. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question)
Rant 1)
It is not a "government takeover". If you've been paying attention to US politics over the last couple decades, you'd know by now that Republicans attach that label to EVERYTHING the government does when someone else is driving. Next to "think of the children" and 9/11, it's their favorite battle cry. Their alternative is to block everything accross the board, digging us further and further into this mess, and then blame everything on the Democrats. But anyway...
I'll assume you're referring to the proposed public health insurance plan in particular? You realize that private insurance companies won't suddenly cease to exist, right? The only thing it will do is open up competition again. Or have you not noticed the nation-wide monopolies held by UnitedHealth Group and WellPoint? These two conglomerates control well over half of the US healthcare market. In 15 states, one insurer controls over 60% of the market.
Max Baucus (a Democrat, but a scumbag nonetheless) is the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. He is described as "the leading opponent of the public option". He has taken about $4 million from the health sector and has over two dozen ex-staffers currently working as lobbyists for insurance companies (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Baucus#Conflict_of_interest_charges). His Senior Counsel is Elizabeth ("Liz") Fowler. She is the former Vice President of Public Policy and External Affairs at WellPoint.
I'll say that again in case I wasn't perfectly clear. The leader of opposition to the public option has personally taken $4 million from the healthcare industry and is taking direct advice from the former VP of PR at WellPoint, a monopolistic health insurance conglomerate. That is fucking disgusting.
Now watch this segment from respected journalist Bill Moyers and tell me you aren't pissed off:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pg7xhTyOtAk
Now read this, all of it (not just my quotes, please):
http://www.counterpunch.org/monkerud01142010.html
According to SEC filings, the major health insurers increased their profits over 400 percent from 2000 to 2008. Overall, profits rose from $2.4 billion in 2000 to $13 billion in 2007. CEOs were paid accordingly; their pay reaching 468 times that of the average American worker, with money left over to lobby against reforms.
According to the National Institute on Money in State Politics, the health care industry paid almost $400 million to politicians in state governments in the past six years. The Center for Responsible Politics discovered the industry spent over $1 billion in the past two years to oppose real reform. As the debate progressed, important consumer protection provisions were whittled away.
The latest outrage is that now they have the balls to inflate their rates in California by 39% in the face of record profits and relatively low health cost inflation. That's not a number trick to make headlines. Starting March 1, 800,000 people in California will have to pay $1.39 to every dollar they pay now. The only reason given so far for the price hike is to benefit shareholders. What. The. Fuck.
http://rawstory.com/2010/02/blue-cross-hikes-calif-individual-rates-39-percent-obama-admin-demands-justification/
The last thing these insurance monopolies want is a non-profit organization trying to drive down the cost of healthcare. They have poured billions into lobbying and propaganda to scare the shit out of retards like you with bullshit buzzwords. And you're eating it up with a fucking spoon. Though I'll admit I've gone a bit off topic, so... moving on.
Rant 2)
Concerning your problem with "unelected government bureaucrats deciding who gets treatment and who doesn't": How would that be worse than the unelected insurance monopolist bureaucrats deciding who gets treatment and who doesn't? Because that's how it is now. And their only goal is to make a profit.
Here's an interesting read for you from your beloved New York Times. "Why We Must Ration Health Care". I'll wait while you read it. All five pages of it, please:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html
Healthcare is a very limited resource and rationing has been debated since the dawn of medicine. It is simply not possible to treat everyone for everything every time. At some point, you have to make a decision. It sucks, but that's the reality of it.
Your insurance company is CONSTANTLY making these decisions. But they don't care about ethics. Whether or not they pay for your treatment depends on whether or not it is a sound business decision. It doesn't even matter if you've been good on your payments; they can refuse to help you if the stakes get too high. If they help you at all, it is only because they think you'll pay it off with interest.
On the other end of the scale, hospitals are usually on backorder for organs and have organ transplant boards that decide where their limited stock goes. They have to look at their waiting list and decide if the 24 year old meth addict or the 86 year old gets the only available heart they have.
A non-profit public health insurance plan will need to make those same choices. We have to draw the line somewhere or we will bankrupt ourselves before we can blink. The best course of action is to be fiscally responsible. To fuel innovation and drive prices down through competition, which will allow more people to be treated in the long run.
Rant 3)
The "death panel" bit is bullshit propaganda. Read the bills yourself, or at least the parts being debated. They say nothing of the sort.
The passages in question are in the House Bill H.R.3200 ("America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009"). You can read it here:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text
Alternatively, here's the 2454-page PDF:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=EQNMJ10V
(The site I got it from was slow as balls, over an hour for 4 MB, so I mirrored it to MU.)
If you're not used to legalese, be prepared for a headache, but as these things go it isn't too bad. Just be careful of the numbering structure and the references to other paragraphs. The bogus claims cite Section 1233 "Advance Care Planning Consultation", specifically paragraph 5.
Reading it, however, you'll find the gist of it to be that the government will pay the costs involved in allowing you to sit down with your doctor to take the time to establish and maintain a living will. This deals with subjects like resuscitation, breathing machines, vegetative states, etc. Ever heard of a "DNR" order? That's what this is about.
If anything, YOU are your own "death panel". No one else. You sit down with a doctor of your choosing and he can explain what all your options are. You then write down what you want to happen in given situations, should you not be capable of making sound decisions at the time, and then you both sign it. In such a situation, medical staff will do everything they can for you, unless you specify you do not want something done.
Involuntary euthanasia has nothing to do with it. Period. The "death panel" bit is 100% bullshit.
=======================================================
The "independent group that can give you guidance" is going to be an unelected government euthanasia board, of course.
Now, hopefully with a new perspective, take a look at your quoted interview. Read again the questions leading up to the passage you quote. To me, it sounds like Obama has said nothing really noteworthy and reflects what I've just ranted about.
Big shock, old people and the chronically ill are a major focus for the healthcare industry. Big shock, doctors and trained professionals should be the ones making healthcare decisions rather than politicians and the ignorant masses.
I honestly do not see how he is saying ANYTHING similar to "I'm going to appoint a euthanasia board" especially not with the implications of "to kill your grandmother because she's costing us too much money." Nor has he pushed for any legislation that calls for any such thing. Frankly, your interpretation strikes me as fallacious, some malicious combination of non sequitur and red herring.
I mean, for fuck's sake, asshole, immediately prior he talks about how his grandmother opted for an expensive hip replacement AFTER being told she only had a couple of miserable months to live due to cancer, a weak heart, AND a fucking stroke. Obama says he would have paid out of pocket to buy that hip replacement for her to improve the quality of what little life she had remaining, even though she only got a few weeks of use out of it. Hardly sounds like "death panel" material to me.
To be perfectly honest, I did vote for Obama. But not because of his policies. If I had voted on the issues, I would have voted for a third party. Instead, I voted AGAINST McCain and Palin. I personally did not buy Obama's "Hope and Change" lines, but I was appalled at the flagrant fearmongering his opposition presented and CONTINUES to employ against him. While I was cold to him at first, Obama has grown on me every time I see a level-headed response such as this interview and his balls at the GOP lunch a couple weeks ago.