One of the things that struck me while writing
my previous piece about Betsy McCaughey on the Daily Show is the incentives on the other side of end of life care. There are obvious incentives to reduce it because it's where a significant part of health care expenditures go, and Republicans have gotten a lot of traction out of saying "Democrats want to kill Grandma to save a few bucks". But - for the same reason - it's also a significant part of where the health care industry's gross income comes from, and Democrats don't seem to be good at conveying the message that "Republican donors are making a lot of money keeping grandma plugged in". In the last Daily Show before Jon Stewart said "This type of hyperbole undercuts a rational discussion about what we can do for the insurance industry." And I think that's the goal. Without rational discussions about health care the default position is to keep things going as-is.
This battle seems like it would be if the auto industry fought "cash for clunkers" because they were making a ton of money on parts, maintenance, and labor. Except it's worse than that, because with this "death panel" discussion HMOs aren't even fighting living wills and DNR orders, they're fighting the ability to discuss those things. It's like the auto industry fighting discussion of cash for clunkers - the notion that any sort of exchange of ideas about how long they're willing to drive their beater and how much they're willing to do to maintain it is abhorrent to the sanctity of automobility.
How did the car industry feel about the "Cash for Clunkers" government-subsidized new car program? Pretty good. How did the housing industry feel about government-subsidized home ownership incentives like guaranteed loans and tax deductions? Pretty good. How would I guess the movie industry would feel about government-subsidized movie tickets and popcorn? Pretty good. So why is the health industry fighting so hard to kill a government-subsidized health care program?