For all those in favor of turning health care over to our ultra-efficient, ultra-responsible federal government, you might want to take a minute to grasp exactly what this will mean for you if you’re ever faced with a catastrophic illness.
The concept of “care-rationing” is happening in socialized medicine countries all over the world to deal with limited resources and increased demand. As it currently stands in this country, health care revolves around you, the patient, who gets to decide what you want to pursue based on your own resources, desires etc..
Under a government-controlled health care system, the onus would be on the federal government to decide what they want to pursue on your behalf in terms of treatment for any type of illness. The government will decide literally if it is worth providing you a treatment based on your age, life expectancy and a whole slew of other variables. If you don’t pass the cost-benefit analysis, you will probably not get the care you need despite your own potential ability to pay for it yourself.
Professor Stuart Altman explains touches on this concept and how “cost-benefit” analysis will become necessary under an Obamacare plan:
The speaker, Professor Stuart Altman of Brandeis University, tells the committee that resources get wasted in the American health-care system, especially for one segment of the population. Professor Altman says he’s reluctant to mention it, but why waste money on in-depth treatment for people who won’t live long anyway? Better to warehouse them and save the resources for the young.
Hot Air analyzes:
Once again, we have people taking the shortage, rationing approach to its logical conclusion. In a non-shortage, free-market approach, people can choose for themselves whether to pursue cost-effective strategies based on their own resources, and the free market would incentivize the creation of enough resources to meet the demand. Only by restricting choice and setting prices will resources become scarce, which we have seen gradually for the last several decades in our own heavily-regulated health-care system, and seen dramatically in the various single-payer systems around the world.
What happens when the state controls all the resources? New resources do not develop, and the government winds up rationing care based on its own priorities, and not the priorities of the patients or caregivers. Professor Altman’s suggestion that the elderly get hospice treatment to save scarce care resources is exactly the kind of decisions the state will make for its citizens, and it won’t be limited to the elderly, either. Anyone whose value does not show a positive “cost-benefit” ratio to the state will also likely wind up without the kind of care necessary to stay alive and healthy.
That’s the bottom line right there. New resources will be crushed meaning Obamacare will create a high demand for “free” health care with dwindling resources. Basically we’ll be left with the social security equivalent of health care. A system from which people take more than is possible to give and never get back what they put in. Although, isn’t that what government is all about?
So some unaccountable bureaucrat will be sitting in Washington determining if your life is important enough to spend precious resources on. Gee, sounds peachy to me considering how well the government manages time and money!
That is not the direction we want to be heading nor should we. Free market principles applied intelligently can reform the already heavily-regulated health care industry.