I admit I’m not as read-up as I should be on the current healthcare controversy, but I’m always amused at people who cite the spectre of “rationing” in their opposition to any proposed public healthcare system. It’s undeniable that any healthcare system (government-run or private-run) is going to have a ceiling on expenditures, which means somebody somewhere is going to be denied some kind of treatment at some point (otherwise healthcare would become a bottomless pit of spending as doctors and hospitals try to spend whatever it takes to keep every single patient alive for as long as possible). It’s also undeniable that some bureaucrat (be she a civil servant or private sector pencil-pusher) is going to have a say in the “rationing” decision. It’s already a reality, and adding the government as a player at the medical table won’t change the nature of that beast.
In short, we ALREADY have de facto rationing: 40 million Americans (give or take a few million) can’t afford insurance (and therefore also can’t afford most basic doctor’s visits, prescriptions, etc.). For whatever reason, charitable giving by better-off Americans who can afford insurance (and who presumably can also afford to give to charity) falls way short of covering the premiums and/or outright medical costs of those on the lower end of the income spectrum. (Here’s where I’m a bit irked at my some of my left-leaning friends: they’ll take a bullet to get federal healthcare legislation passed, but they would balk at paying their neighbor’s insurance premium out of their own pocket. Where’s the big non-profit that’s dedicated to providing insurance coverage for lower income families?)
And so we find ourselves in the odd position of (supposedly) having the highest quality healthcare in the world (if you can afford it), of being one of the wealthiest nations in the world (per capita), yet we are the only industrialized nation that DOESN’T guarantee that every citizen gets healthcare coverage. Frankly, I think a federal healthcare system is unconstitutional and would require a constitutional amendment to properly empower Congress to legislate/regulate healthcare, but no one–Republican or Democrat–seems to think anything of it.
Anyway, that’s a long introduction to say that Australian bioethicist Peter Singer has written a long and thoughtful essay published in the New York Times. It’s called “Why We Must Ration Health Care,” and you should check it out.
Peter Singer on healthcare rationing
I admit I’m not as read-up as I should be on the current healthcare controversy, but I’m always amused at people who cite the spectre of “rationing” in their opposition to any proposed public healthcare system. It’s undeniable that any healthcare system (government-run or private-run) is going to have a ceiling on expenditures, which means somebody somewhere is going to be denied some kind of treatment at some point (otherwise healthcare would become a bottomless pit of spending as doctors and hospitals try to spend whatever it takes to keep every single patient alive for as long as possible). It’s also undeniable that some bureaucrat (be she a civil servant or private sector pencil-pusher) is going to have a say in the “rationing” decision. It’s already a reality, and adding the government as a player at the medical table won’t change the nature of that beast.
In short, we ALREADY have de facto rationing: 40 million Americans (give or take a few million) can’t afford insurance (and therefore also can’t afford most basic doctor’s visits, prescriptions, etc.). For whatever reason, charitable giving by better-off Americans who can afford insurance (and who presumably can also afford to give to charity) falls way short of covering the premiums and/or outright medical costs of those on the lower end of the income spectrum. (Here’s where I’m a bit irked at my some of my left-leaning friends: they’ll take a bullet to get federal healthcare legislation passed, but they would balk at paying their neighbor’s insurance premium out of their own pocket. Where’s the big non-profit that’s dedicated to providing insurance coverage for lower income families?)
And so we find ourselves in the odd position of (supposedly) having the highest quality healthcare in the world (if you can afford it), of being one of the wealthiest nations in the world (per capita), yet we are the only industrialized nation that DOESN’T guarantee that every citizen gets healthcare coverage. Frankly, I think a federal healthcare system is unconstitutional and would require a constitutional amendment to properly empower Congress to legislate/regulate healthcare, but no one–Republican or Democrat–seems to think anything of it.
Anyway, that’s a long introduction to say that Australian bioethicist Peter Singer has written a long and thoughtful essay published in the New York Times. It’s called “Why We Must Ration Health Care,” and you should check it out.