Rich, the editorial speaks for itself, as does my response. I was content to leave it there. But if we’re gonna hash it out more, then let’s be clear, because I have a significant difference from the editorial as it stands.

I did indeed say, “few people worried about death panels think the process will be anything so crude” as what the editorial describes as “deciding whose life has sufficient value to be saved.” From this, you conclude that, “in other words,” I agree with the editorial that the death panels won’t be “literal death panels.” That’s just wrong. I most certainly do not agree that the editorial’s narrow description of a death panel’s function — namely, “deciding whose life has sufficient value to be saved” – establishes the “literal” definition of what a death panel is.

There’s no reason to characterize what “in other words” I must be saying. In my response to the editorial, I said exactly what I meant: Specifically, that “the bureaucrats . . . will gradually restrict your access to various forms of treatment while you wither away prematurely.” A process of foreclosing grandma from care (in contrast to what the president so very sensitively describes as “pulling the plug on grandma”) will produce the effect of premature death. Such a process is thus a death panel. Its proponents tendentiously dispute this, claiming that the idea is to figure out who should get what treatment, not decide who should be saved. But I think our function is to call the opposition on such hair-splitting nonsense, not to make the fog harder to pierce.

Finally, you observe that the editorial and I are both “worr[ied] about government rationing and a general slide toward euthanasia.” I agree, and I credited the editors with exactly those sentiments in the opening paragraph of my response. I don’t think there is any misunderstanding on this point, but to be clear: It is manifest that the editors are motivated by those grave concerns; that is why the editorial was written, and that is why I agree with most of it.