|
NRL News
THE
THREAT OF HEALTH CARE RATIONING & THE DENIAL OF LIFESAVING DRUGS -
Part 1 Pro-lifers rightly take satisfaction in the fact that abortion rates are down, that public support for unrestricted abortion has significantly declined, and that there is now majority support to severely restrict abortion or outlaw it altogether. We have made encouraging progress in our long campaign to secure the right to life for the child in the womb. In fact, some have been so preoccupied working on behalf of the right to life of others, namely the unborn, that they have paid insufficient attention to the looming threat to our own right to life. This threat arises from demographic, political, and cul-tural trends that play into hands of those obsessed with “end of life solutions.” The demographic trends are simply this: A tidal wave of “baby boomers” is approaching retirement. In 2005, the number of U.S. citizens 65 years of age or older was 36.8 million. In 2010, just three years from now, the number will be about 40.2 million. And in only eight years, in 2015, it will be 46.8 million. Not only will there be more elderly citizens than ever, they will also tend to live longer—albeit with frailties of varying degrees. From these trends it is obvious that a significant number of us will face disability and chronic medical conditions. You must now realize that you may be denied lifesaving medical care and drugs if the wrong policy decisions are made about your future health care. Implicit in the demographic trend is the “resource” trend as it relates to funds for Medicare. Currently there are about 3.3 workers per Social Security recipient. In 2031 there will be about 2.2. The ratio of workers to Medicare recipients is similar to that for Social Security recipients. Hence, while the number of Medicare recipients will increase, the funds available for Medicare will not proportionally increase. So here is the problem: a compulsory government program (everyone over 65 must participate by law) is running short of funds. And what can be done about it? n Raise taxes. There are political limits because those still working will object to excessive taxation. A generational clash is looming here between those who consume medical care and those whose taxes pay for it. n Do the “progressive” thing and transform U.S. health care into a Canadian- or British-style one-size-fits-all nationalized system. As anyone studying these programs can see, the nationalized programs simply establish huge bureaucracies to “manage” the shortage; that is, they provide uncomplicated routine care for everyone—and rationing of the more expensive and important procedures. It is, of course, those procedures that can make all the difference for you. Beyond that, the elderly tend to receive less care than younger patients. The elderly have medical needs that the system simply may not provide (that is why elderly Canadian patients cross the border and shop for medical procedures here). Moreover, some available procedures have outright age limits or are delayed so much that patients die or give up before they get treatment. The point of nationalized health care is that it does not eliminate the shortage of funds for medical care; it simply allocates that shortage. To be blunt about it: there is something deeply un-American about this approach. To surrender decisions about our well-being—about our very survival—to a bureaucracy goes against our deepest convictions. It conflicts with the fundamental notion that we are responsible for ourselves and that we should be free to spend our own money on our health care. A change to a nationalized health care system is often justified with the assertion that it serves “social justice” and that it is “fair” by “equalizing the burden” of the shortage of resources. First of all, this approach is blind to the possibility that the shortage of resources could be alleviated. Second, it is wedded to the notion of the citizen as a ward of the state. And third, it has a primitive concept of fairness that would require all of us to have the same cars and houses, etc. n Use private funds to enlarge the resources available for medical care of the retired. That approach has obvious virtues. It doesn’t tax the working citizens. There are considerable resources available that the retired could use to supplement their medical care. And it increases the range of treatments available to the elderly. Exercising such treatment options is currently legal. In fact, NRLC was in the forefront in securing such rights with legislation in 1995-1997 and 2003. Unfortunately, the 2006 elections have emboldened those who promote the “government-does-all” solution. In fact, the House of Representatives has already taken the first step towards imposing government price controls that would limit your access to lifesaving drugs. President George W. Bush has threatened to veto such legislation. But don’t relax. The next president might very well sign such legislation. The political and demographic problems are exacerbated by cultural trends promoting the notion that the disabled and the chronically ill lack “quality of life” and constitute a burden to the rest of us: We should withhold therapy that does not improve the condition of a disabled or chronically ill person (remember, this was part of Hillary Clinton’s health care plan). We should deny (what someone other than the patient considers) “futile care.” It is unfair to the rest of us to let “them” consume such a large portion of limited medical care. In fact, denial of care is in their “own best interest” and they are better off dead. And so on. Oh, in case you forgot: providing food and water is now “medical treatment.” It may even be withheld; because for the Terri Schindler Schiavos of the world it would be “extraordinary medical treatment” and it would be “in their best interest” to be starved to death. The courts can’t interfere with their right to privacy, their right to be starved to death in a most public way. It is time you get concerned about your own right to life. |