The health care problem, in a nutshell
As it often does, The Economist magazine boils things down to their essence. From last week's Lexington column:
We are all going to die. And the demand for interventions that might postpone that day far outstrips the supply. No politician would be caught dead admitting this, of course: most promise that all will receive whatever care is medically necessary. But what does that mean? Should doctors seek to save the largest number of lives, or the largest numbers of years of life? Even in America, resources are finite. No one doubts that $1,000 to save the life of a child is money well spent. But what about $1m to prolong a terminally ill patient's painful life by a week? Also, who should pay?
Love that last part.
Comments
Jay,
It is precisely the avoidance of those in the majority political party to broach these serious questions that makes many of us critics believe they are more interested in enhancing political power than they are in improving health care.
One further point to quibble about. If anyone wants to spend his or her money on health care what does it matter to me, you or the government? If the government is going to pay then it does have a say. But if the government is not writing the check by what logic should it be able to ration health care services?
One may say people spend their money unwisely in many ways but the very definition of freedom is allowing people to choose for themselves on how to spend their time and money on legal goods and services. Do you believe Americans should not be able to choose freely on how they consume health care?
Posted by: Dan | September 8, 2009 9:58 AM
Until the government and/or political party can decide how to ration healthcare, it will continue to write blank checks in order to consolidate political power at the expense of future generations.
Posted by: tim | September 8, 2009 11:11 PM