Dave: I’m going to veer off into the philosophical
side of the argument here. While I see your point above and can agree from a cost/benefit analysis angle, does this not open up a whole different can of worms, and from the ethical/bioethical vantage?
While Palin’s “Death Panel” assertion was ham-handed, the underlying logic was sound regarding rationing and quality of life calculus. The British NHS maintains NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence), an Orwellian bureau name, if there ever was one. NICE is responsible for “Quality” and “Outcomes” standards and functions, in essence, as the arbiter of who gets what and why.
Are we not ceding certain questions to the government that we really don’t want them answering? I’m not trying to sound alarmist or sensationalist, but the heavy hand of government is slowly and inexorably sweeping away our civil liberties and, as far as medicine and ethics goes, the US Government doesn’t exactly have the best track record (see eugenics research in the 1920s and 1930s, Tuskegee, LSD testing in the 1960s).[/quote]
Absolutely, it opens up a whole can of worms. I’m not suggesting that the solution is simple. I’m merely saying that some form of rationing is unavoidable (a la Canada and the UK) if we want to contain costs.
As to your question of “ceding certain questions to the government that we really don’t want them answering”… well… that’s certainly one way to look at it – and a lot of folks would agree with you. I’m not even sure where I stand on this issue, although from a pragmatic standpoint, the Western European health care systems do a much better job of providing inexpensive health care to the vast majority of their citizens than does our system.
Personally, I could live with a European system, even in the knowledge that if I developed some unusual condition, I might not get the treatment I’d get under our system. But that’s just me.
