NY TIMES: SAVE MEDICARE, DIE SOONER

That was the headline in the New York Times, back in February 2005:

How to Save Medicare? Die Sooner

By DANIEL ALTMAN

HOUGH Social Security's fiscal direction has taken center stage in Washington of late, Medicare's future financing problems are likely to be much worse. President Bush has asserted that the Medicare Modernization Act, which he signed in 2003, would solve some of those problems - "the logic is irrefutable," he said two months ago. Yet the Congressional Budget Office expects the law to create just $28 billion in savings during the decade after its passage, while its prescription drug benefit will add more than $400 billion in costs.

So, how can Medicare's ballooning costs be contained? One idea is to let people die earlier.

For the last few decades, the share of Medicare costs incurred by patients in their last year of life has stayed at about 28 percent, said Dr. Gail R. Wilensky, a senior fellow at Project HOPE who previously ran Medicare and Medicaid. Thus end-of-life care hasn't contributed unduly of late to Medicare's problems. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be part of the solution. "If you take the assumption that you want to go where the money is, it's a reasonable place to look," Dr. Wilensky said.

End-of-life care may also be a useful focus because, in some cases, efforts to prolong life may end up only prolonging suffering. In such cases, reducing pain may be a better use of resources than heroic attempts to save lives.

Limiting and even denying care to elderly taxpayers who have paid into the system all of their healthy, working lives has always been part of the socialist game plan.

"Reducing pain may be a better use of resources than heroic attempts to save lives" sounds a lot like Barry Soetoro's recommendation: "maybe she would be better off not having the surgery but taking the painkillers."

Seniors are right to worry about the intentions of those who would radically restructure American health care.