|
Obamacare: Another Rationing
Fears Irrational, We Need Rationing Editorial
By Wesley J. Smith
Editor's note. This first
appeared on Wesley's blog at
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2010/11/09/obamacare-another-rationing-fears-irrational-we-need-rationing-editorial/
First it was the New York Times.
Now, it's western cousin the Los Angeles Times, has written an
editorial that calls rationing fears about Obamacare
"irrational"–as it implicitly calls for rationing. First, the
editorial decries the opposition and supposed political
exploitation around the establishment of guidelines for cancer
screening procedures. It isn't guidelines that people fear. It
is enforceable guidelines that will restrict their ability to
obtain these tests, even though they sometimes save lives.
The Times then gets more
specifically into rationing. From "Irrational About Health Care
Rationing:" [www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-health-20101108,0,7435506.story]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
These episodes illustrate what
may be the biggest challenge facing policymakers as they try to
restrain the healthcare costs that are consuming so much of the
country's resources. Americans have a hard time accepting limits
on their access to care, even if the treatment or drug is shown
to be ineffective. They're much more willing to put up with
rationing by income, which the current system imposes by
allowing wealthier people to buy more and better care, than
accept even the whiff of rationing by the government.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We are not a country that
promotes equality of outcomes, but equality of opportunity.
Beyond that, the fact that some people are unable to pay for
insurance isn't any more rationing than my being unable to
afford a house the size of Al Gore's homes. What people fear is
the government barring them from receiving efficacious
treatments or procedures based on cost/benefit/quality of life
invidiously discriminatory categories. Not the same thing at
all. To be sure, we need to make health insurance accessible to
those who want it. But as we do that, we should not let the
government tell our doctors how they are to treat and care for
us.
And then comes the disingenuous
part:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A similar theme has run
through the criticism of the new federal healthcare law, which
takes a few small steps toward promoting science-based medicine
and more effective treatments. Republicans seem particularly
eager to eliminate spending on research that compares the
effectiveness of treatment regimens, evidently preferring to
leave doctors in the dark than to lay a foundation for the
government to stop funding some types of care. It's fair to
debate how best to achieve healthcare reform. But it's hard to
see how healthcare costs can be brought under control if
attempts to make the system more efficient and effective get
waylaid by irrational fears about rationing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Baloney. Nobody wants less data.
Nobody wants doctors remaining in the dark. If the guidelines
aren't enforceable, no problemo. Doctors and patients can
consider the evidence when deciding the kind of screenings and
preventive care that are best under the circumstances.
Ah, but unless they are
enforceable, there is no guarantee the guidelines will save
money. But if they enforceable, it is rationing. Therein lies
the rub. So, once again, Obamacarians tell us we are nuts to
worry about rationing, as they clearly seek to prepare the
ground for the government to do just that.
It is important to note when
considering this post that none of this kind of advocacy is
being promulgated in a vacuum.
For example, we anti-rationers
have noticed that the New England Journal of Medicine has
proposed a NICE style rationing regimen based on Quality
Adjusted Life Years.[http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2010/10/14/new-england-journal-of-medicine-pushes-nice-style-qaly-health-care-rationing.]
They know that some of President Obama's main advisers (example,
Tom Daschle) and bureaucrats (example, temporary Medicare head
Donald Berwick) are outright rationing enthusiasts.
The American people see the code
writing on the wall. They know what it portends. Their fears
about rationing are anything but "irrational." |