Why socialized medicine is a truly bad thing
Published Wed, Jan 28 2009 4:17 PM
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.
Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=1306
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2009/1/28/1306.aspx
Subscribe to this entry's
comment feed. (Atom)
Stanford Matthews responded with:
 | Health care is expensive because there is no profit motive in finding cures. That notion is supported with the rush to patent genetic research and results so the medical industry can charge for the knowledge on how to cure oneself iwth one's own DNA, etc.
It is more profitable to continue as before and why products from Big Pharma like Viagra and Lipitor top the list of money makers.
The gov't is complicit by fostering such nonsense and paying for erections on the public dime.
And the fine practitioners love to object to such talk as they are altruistic in their pursuit to heal the world. Ya, like a high paying job and all the perks that come with it were not the original incentive. Ya, ya, I know how long you have to earn a buck to pay back school loans but at least 20% of the group is unlicensed and avoid that inconvenience. And how about that quiet ignorance of the quacks among you? Not to mention dismissing out of hand any new concepts that conflict with your view of the world at the expense of those you are charged with healing?
Pardon me, I hope no one found this offensive. Those of you who do not deserve this criticism are probably doing nothing about it and thus deserve some smack anyhow. Those of you who do deserve it, shut up.
(I just don't know what comes over me sometimes) |
Debbie responded with:
 | I've corresponded with many healthcare workers, including doctors, in both the UK and Canada. My hubby is also a physician here in the United States. Nationalized healthcare would be disaster for the United States. The horror stories from patients and the frustration from the physicians in the UK and Canada is heartwrenching and should be an example to us. |
David responded with:
 | "I'm from the government; I'm here to help" are words of lying, self-serving dictators throughout history. And even when a dictator is well-intentioned, they're always wrong. ANY TIME a paternalistic authority dictates personal decisions to folks who are not harming others and who ought to be able to make their own considered decisions is simply, morally, wrong.
Of course, some tyrannical political elite can always claim that making ones own decisions about how to manage ones own life--within common sense laws that are a practical implementation of "my rights end where your nose begins"--IS harming others, by some torturous twist of unreason. Well, of course we harm others when we live our own lives, pursuing happiness according to our own lights while seeking not to infringe on others' rights as well! We "harm" the politicians in their perpetual lust for power over us! |
David responded with:
| Addendum: M. Scott Peck's description of human evil includes (indeed, emphasizes) the element of manipulation and/or coercion of others in order to preserve the sick self image and power hunger of the evil person.
Sounds like a typical politician, at least in that (major) element of his description. |
ablur responded with:
 | I have close ties to the medical industry. Watching the rise of the HMO pains me greatly. Seeing the government wanting to HMO the HMOs makes it even worse. |
Comments to this entry are closed.