he government nor anyone else should be allowed to decide someone is not worth the money it would cost to keep them alive, nor should they be allowed to decide they have to live. And yes, tax payers should have to pay for it.
Let's use the proper term-- healthcare rationing. Healthcare rationing is the determination, by either government (on behalf of taxpayers) or insurance companies, about whether a given life-extending medical procedure is worth the cost.
The point of this thread is that no politician is talking honestly about healthcare rationing and there is no media coverage. But let me talk about why this issue should be talked about.
Whether you like it or not, Revelette, healthcare rationing is a fact of life. It is simply economically impossible to extend everyone life as much as technology allows. We have the technology to extend people's lives a great deal... but we simply don't have the economic resources.
There are limits to the life-extending healthcare we can possibly provide. Whether these are being set by the government, or by the free-market, people who could be (technologically) kept alive are being refused this life-extending care. And this is an economic/mathematical fact of life. There is no way to keep this from happening.
The public policy question is how do we make very tough choices in a rational way. How do we use these limited resources? How do we decide whose life should be extended and under what circumstances? The provisions in Obamacare that Palin was referring to as "death panels" were setting up panels to discuss these very issues.
This very important discussion isn't taking place and most American voters are ignorant about it.