Individual Liberty — Individual Responsibility 

Why socialized medicine is a truly bad thing

Scott Gottlieb, writing for the Wall Street Journal points to another hidden evil in the so-called “stimulus” package being pushed by the Democrats…

In Britain, a government agency evaluates new medical products for their “cost effectiveness” before citizens can get access to them. The agency has concluded that $45,000 is the most worth paying for products that extend a person's life by one “quality-adjusted” year. (By their calculus, a year combating cancer is worth less than a year in perfect health.)

Here in the U.S., President-elect Barack Obama and House Democrats embrace the creation of a similar “comparative effectiveness” entity that will do research on drugs and medical devices. They claim that they don't want this to morph into a British-style agency that restricts access to medical products based on narrow cost criteria, but provisions tucked into the fiscal stimulus bill betray their real intentions.

The centerpiece of their plan is $1.1 billion of the $825 billion stimulus package for studies to compare different drugs and devices to “save money and lives.” Report language accompanying the House stimulus bill says that “more expensive” medical products “will no longer be prescribed.” The House bill also suggests that the new research should be used to create “guidelines” to direct doctors' treatment of difficult, high-cost medical problems.

I don't know about you, but this is the sort of thing that I find totally abominable about “socialized medicine.” Central planners would make decisions about my quality of life without ever getting to know me. They would determine what care I could receive under their “improvement” health care programs based upon their determination of how much longer I might live, and their perception of the quality of my life, without ever meeting me.

If I should someday contract a serious illness (I already have one, but…) and require an expensive “new” treatment, a central planner could deny me that treatment based upon cost. Sure, the same thing might happen if my insurance company makes the same decision, but there's still that third option that central planners like Mr. Daschle and Mr. Obama would do their best to eliminate…

… I could always pay for it myself, assuming I had accumulated enough wealth to do so. But that, I suppose, wouldn't be “fair” or “socially just.”

Mr. Daschle argues that the only way to reduce spending is by allocating medical products based on “cost effectiveness.” He's also called for a “federal health board” modeled on the Federal Reserve to rate medical products and create central controls on access.

That sort of puts the lie to the claim that “they don't want this to morph into a British-style agency that restricts access to medical products based on narrow cost criteria” doesn't it. Those “central controls on access” sound tailor made to guarantee that I couldn't pay for more expensive care if I wanted to, thereby introducing inequities into the system. That goes even further than the NICE program in Britain does.

An alternative plan

It's just plain wrong too. Mr. Daschle I've got a suggest for you. This is in keeping with my desire to present meaningful, workable alternatives to the social policies that I disagree with. It's really rather simple, and it just might work.

Rather than extracting billions or even trillions of dollars from American taxpayers to fund socialized medicine, why not allow me to negotiate with the various insurance providers to determine a mutually agreed upon standard of care? If the insurance company is willing to cover the cost of more expensive care in return for a larger premium, and if I think that a year of additional life might be better, even while combating cancer, than dying a year earlier and not having any of the other experiences I might have during that year, and am willing to pay the larger premium, why does the government need to get in the way of that?

Since I would be paying the premium directly to the insurance company, and they would be using the premiums they collect from me and other insurees to pay for the agreed upon standard of care, the government could save itself the entire cost of my care. Now THAT is a way to reduce federal spending on medical care without “allocating medical products based on ‘cost effectiveness.’”

Yes, I know that some people cannot afford insurance. Tell me though, why is that a concern of the federal government? Isn't that more a concern for state and local government? Isn't charity better provided locally by concerned compassionate individuals rather than through layer upon layer of bureaucracy adding non-reducible costs to the equation?

Free markets work for a reason Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Obama. They work because people are able to weigh the costs associated with a product or service and make up their own mind, based upon their own unique circumstances whether the product or service is worth the costs. HOW DARE YOU ASSUME THAT YOU KNOW BETTER THAN ME WHAT MY HEALTH IS WORTH TO ME?

You already know that you can't afford to pay for socialized medicine, or you wouldn't be interested in reducing its costs even before you've managed to bring it to pass. Your insistence that we implement it in spite of the fact that you know we can't afford it proves the point. Socialized medicine isn't really about health care at all, is it? It's about more government control of our lives and liberties.

I'm not willing to give up my liberties just to empower you even more.

Hat tip to Logos and Veritas.

Stimulating hypocrisy

Does everyone remember the outrage over the $1.2 million that Merrill Lynch spent to upgrade its executive offices? How about the outrage over that $50 million corporate jet for CITI? You know, the one — the one that CITI had ordered quite some time back, and ended up canceling the order because they got money from T.A.R.P.

While spending “public” funds for that sort of thing on “private” enterprise might seem outrageous, just remember the size of the “stimulus” spending our government engaged in last year. Merrill Lynch's “outrageous” spending on decor rather than loans amounted to less than a millionth of the money our Congress and President extorted from the taxpayer. And, of course, since government is involved in this, there's no limit to the hypocrisy involved either.

Here's another lu-lu: Congress wants to spend $600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars. Uncle Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Congress also wants to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities. The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million; we love the Smithsonian, too, but this is a job creator?

So, the very same government that is outraged over T.A.R.P. recipients spending money on refurbished office spaces and transport is going to spend huge amounts of money on refurbished office spaces and transport.

The hypocrisy is just stimulating.