a quote: >>>
One final comment. It is common for opponents of health care rationing
to point to Canada and Britain as examples of where we might end up if
we get "socialized medicine." 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." There is no particular reason that the
United States should copy the British or Canadian forms of universal
coverage, rather than one of the different arrangements that have
developed in other industrialized nations, some of which may be
better. But as it happens, last year the Gallup organization did ask
Canadians and Brits, and people in many different countries, 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. <<<
20 July 2009
more thoughts on healthcare
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html?pagewanted=1&em
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I noticed several things about this article.
1. The author does not believe in the "infinite value of human life". In fact, he calls it a "feel-good" idea. He believes--and he says it and shows it in the QALY section--that the value of human life is quantifiable. This quantifiable price on human life depends on time, which in itself relates to productivity. It is why the life of an 85-year-old man does not have the QALY that a teenager does. This inevitably leads to the idea that human life is valuable only in so far as it can benefit society; the old and feeble do not have as much value as the young and strong, because they have fewer years to live. This stands in stark contrast to the Biblical view of the value of human life. If the Bible is true, all human life is equally valuable, infinitely so. While we may be able to put a price on how long we would like to live; there is a chasm of difference from putting a price on life itself.
2. The author fails to understand the qualitative difference between an agent rationing healthcare and socio-economic forces limiting healthcare options. One involves an imposed human choice, and one involves the pressures of circumstances. One involves a person telling me what I can and cannot do; the other involves my situation in life alternatively disabling me or enabling me.
3. The idea of rationing health care is on the trajectory of euthanasia and infanticide and geneticide. Many people disagree with this, but the underlying values are very similar. That is, society has placed a price on the human life, and that price depends on the person's age and their potential in life. The old man is weak and generally has little potential in life left. Therefore, why waste resources trying to keep him alive? In fact, if he is in a nursing home, he is merely draining resources from the system; it would be better to put him out of his misery. The severely handicapped child will contribute little to society, and he may not live long; why care for his needs? This is exacerbated when we enter a system of healthcare in which the needs of the many become the concern of one entity. The government will, like any business, be concerned with cutting costs.
Post a Comment