Quote:
Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna
I know that lots of participants on this forum will automatically reject the thesis of the following article. I did, as well, when I read the headline. But the author has thought the problem out pretty throughly and makes his argument convincingly. I would recommend that readers take a few moments to read this article, if for no other reason than to understand a different point-of-view.
The article was published in the Sunday, July 19 edition of The New York Times Magazine. It is entitled, Why We Must Ration Healthcare, and was authored by Peter Singer. Singer is professor of bioethics at Princeton University. He is also laureate professor at the University of Melbourne, in Australia. His most recent book is “The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty.”
Two of the points that the author made in the article jumped off the page for me...
"The case for explicit health care rationing in the United States starts with the difficulty of thinking of any other way in which we can continue to provide adequate health care to people on Medicaid and Medicare, let alone extend coverage to those who do not now have it. Health-insurance premiums have more than doubled in a decade, rising four times faster than wages. In May, Medicare’s trustees warned that the program’s biggest fund is heading for insolvency in just eight years. Health care now absorbs about one dollar in every six the nation spends, a figure that far exceeds the share spent by any other nation. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it is on track to double by 2035."
"On a blog on Fox News earlier this year, the conservative writer John Lott wrote, 'Americans should ask Canadians and Brits — people who have long suffered from rationing — how happy they are with central government decisions on eliminating ‘unnecessary’ health care.' ....as it happens, last year the Gallup organization did poll Canadians and Brits, and people in many different countries, asking if they have confidence in “health care or medical systems” in their country. In Canada, 73 percent answered this question affirmatively. Coincidentally, an identical percentage of Britons gave the same answer. In the United States, despite spending much more per person on health care, the figure was only 56 percent."
The complete article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/ma...g&st=cse&scp=1
It's worthwhile reading so that we might better understand the opposing positions being cited by our elected representatives. On one hand, the unsustainable increases in the cost of healthcare will consume so much of our GDP, that in only a couple of decades, having less and less to re-invest in it's economy because of healthcare costs, the U.S. will be reduced to a second-rate economic power. By itself, this fact seems to call out for major healthcare reform, particularly reducing the cost of healthcare in this country. On the other hand, some politicians forewarn that "the government will take over" or that "healthcare will be rationed". Yet in several other countries that have single-payer systems, their residents are more satisfied with their healthcare system than we are here in the U.S.
Something seems to be amiss in this scenario. It's clear that we have to make some major changes in healthcare. The only question is what will they be? But for those who simply reject the idea of change, it leaves me wondering whether there are special interests at work who are encouraging our legislators to take positions more in their favor than acting responsibly for the country. Is that possible? |
There was a time when then thought of denying (excuse me,
rationing) health care to any population due to
is it worth it to us[?] as utterly reprehensible. After 35 years of legal abortion, a couple states going pro-euthanasia and Dr. Kevorkian attaining cult-figure status, we are indeed seeming to embrace the idea of letting the elderly die because they are too expensive to maintain, especially when we can take all these moneys for financial insitituion bailouts, auto company bailouts, new IPods, et al.
Whatever percentage of the GDP medical services may be, it is immaterial. If the rate is increasing, it is because as a society we have sacrificed our domestic manufacturing capability and much of the information services business to satisfying "foreign policy." That'[s why our economy is in the toilet and unemployment is rising. The GDP:Medical ratio will continue to get broader as long as the GDP base industries cannot fairly compete in the domestic marketplace with foreign goods/services providers.
It does not take a skilled mathematician or economist to realize that trying to put the brakes on health care costs will not make the economy better. As long as the other GDP base industries continue to decline, the percentage gap will continue to widen.
Despite all the craziness, what the medical industry demonstrates is that an industry can grow in the US marketplace if there is no foreign competition to deal with. There is no "Shanghai Hospital Ocala" selling cut-rate medical services or "Medical Laboratories of Mumbai, Tampa Office" providing discount urine tests and chest xrays.
When we finally get wise and start placing tariffs on foreign goods to at least the same degree they do to ours, then our economy can rebound and jobs reappear. Until then, the idea of denying (excuse me again,
rationing) health care based on "should s/he live or die, what's worth it to me?" is barbaric and immoral.
UPDATE: The British and other national health care systems area prime examples of what "rationing" provides. For an interesting list of those-country newspaper articles of instances of the quality of this type of service, please see
http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/h...d.html#britain