The Ethics of Health Care Rationing

Bubba has a good post that discusses an article by Peter Singer that promotes the practice of health care rationing, presumably in anticipation of ObamaCare.

Peter Singer is supposedly a bioethicist-- but a more accurate label would be "bio-unethicist".  He is the guy who once said it was ethically permissible to kill babies who have disabling medical conditions.

In any event, Singer's article in the New York Times demonstrates why it is a bad idea for government to be sponsoring health care.  The costs are simply bound to become so high that rationing will become irresistible.  But it should be considered, according to our nation's founding principles, impermissible for the government to make life-or-death decisions about health care for citizens-- or to create other administrative bodies that do so. 

But that is almost the inevitable direction we take when we create programs like Medicare or the new public plan being proposed to achieve universal coverage.  We are creating a situation in which the government has to be attentive to the issue of costs, and ration through various means.

Comments

[The Committee to Elect George Hartzman]

Dear Guarino

This is going to be a tough issue
with the Baby Boom going forward

“The difference
between the costs of currently scheduled benefits and tax revenues...
is projected to total $6.8 trillion in present value...

The outlook for Social Security presents a fiscal challenge
that pales in comparison to that posed by Medicare

The big news in this year's report
is the triggering of the Medicare funding warning

While the warning is new
it simply reflects the same dire financial outlook for the program
…which was exacerbated by the recent addition
of the Part D prescription drug benefit

Social Security and Medicare both present daunting fiscal challenges…

Their fiscal problems are driven by inexorable demographic change
and, in the case of Medicare
relentless increases in health care costs”

Status of the Social Security
and Medicare Programs, 2007
Message from the Public Trustees

If that was the deal in 2007, I wonder what the current unfunded liabilities are

[Bubba]

"If that was the deal in 2007, I wonder what the current unfunded liabilities are"

All of which are conveniently ignored by the Obamanation in their rush to enact cherished agenda item legislation (Cap 'n Trade, Obamacare, Stimulus II) into law before the citizens wake up to the reality of what's being done to them and the economy.

Amazingly enough, there are still some people who don't think that all of this constitutes any problem at all.

[Stormy]

I say let's have a pilot program with ObamaCare to test it's effectiveness before mass implementation. Let's mandate that all government employees and union members, including Obama and members of Congress, be entered into the program, and after a reasonable period of 10 years, let's assess the program. If it is working as Obama promises then, we'll consider it.

[Joe Guarino]

George, the situation is indeed dire for entitlements. David Walker, the former Comptroller General of the United States, has estimated that the unpaid obligations under Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and public pensions approaches 70 trillion dollars over the next 25-50 years, I believe. Added to our current indebtedness, it amounts to 83 trillion. The numbers are mind-boggling.

Our country has a huge problem on its hands, and now we are in a situation in which the government feels the need to ration care. But that is contrary to our founding ideals-- that the government would be effectively denying its citizens life and health. The dilemma we face is of enormous proportions.

Bubba, good point. It is hard to see that the way to fix this problem is to add to our debt and make our economy weaker.

Stormy, we have had a pilot program with ObamaCare. It has been conducted in the state of Massachusetts. That particular pilot program has been failing.

[The Committee to Elect George Hartzman]

One question that I ran across in discussions of health care ethics relative to unfunded liabilities, and by extension taxes on the future income of following generations, is how much should Medicare and Medicaid pay to extend the life of a terminally diagnosed patient for three months?

Thoughts?

[Joe Guarino]

I'm glad I don't have to make that decision, George. But the government should never have been put in the position of making that decision either. Health care facilities have ethics committees that deal with some of these issues, but obviously the problem remains.

At the risk of belaboring the issue, this is yet another problem with third party coverage.

[Stormy]

Joe,

I understand that we ran a pilot program in Mass, but my point was that I would like to see all of the stakeholders in this mess experience it first to see what they want others to be subjected to, like Teddy Kennedy.

Ethically and morally, there should only be one person who makes the decision when their life should end.