Russell Roberts speaks to someone who claims that nationalized health care in Britain is ". . . great for children, but as you get older and older, the attitude is 'you've had your turn so you have access to fewer medical resources.'"
That coincides with my intuition. The cries for "rationing" health care will grow ever-louder in this country, and however the criers might try to disguise it, the rationing they want will fall squarely on older people.The folks who hate the Baby Boomer generation--there's lots, you know who you are--will join forces with the Leon Kass-types who think death is ennobling and with former Governor of Colorado Richard Lamm (". . .old people have a duty to die and get out of the way") and with all the folks who are too busy to help take care of their aging parents and with Mrs. Clinton who wants to do everything for "the children"--fetuses excepted--and they will declare: we don't want to spend money on you old folks anymore.
Which is horribly sad, and I hope they don't win.
But on a lighter note, this reminds me of a movie scene, from Young Doctors in Love (directed by the reliable Garry Marshall and starring a young Sean Young). An old man--an old, old man--as wrinkled as anybody you've ever seen, goes to the emergency room of the hospital. The arrogant young doctor (Michael McKean) snaps, "What's your problem?" Old man: "Doc, I can't piss anymore." Doctor, after taking a long look at the old man, "Old Timer, haven't you pissed enough?"
If you're in the mood for a send-up of all the ER-type shows, I give it two thumbs up.
Not long ago, in the comments section of this site, readers were asserting that the elderly are short-changed in places like Britain and Canada. But the figures show otherwise. The life expectancy of the average UK resident is more than a year longer than the life expectancy of the average US resident (http://ocde.p4.siteinternet.com/publications/doifiles/012005061T003.xls(m and we in the US spend over twice as large a percentage of our GDP to achieve that result (http://ocde.p4.siteinternet.com/publications/doifiles/012005061T002.xls). In fact, we pay more than any other country on earth, and do worse on most measures than most industrialized countries.
We already have rationing of care in the US - here rationing is by ability to pay. Those who can't afford to pay, die. Which I guess is fine for those who can afford to pay. I note that even with the "socialized" medical system of other industrialized countries, those who can afford to pay and are willing to go outside the system still may do so.
If the British system (or the systems in Canada or New Zealand or wherever else) cost more and produced worst results than the US system, most readers of this blog would call any criticism of the US system irrational. So how is it that when the US system is the most costly one out there, producing some of the worst results of all industrialized countries, criticism of the medical systems of other countries (i.e., cheaper and higher performing) persists?
Posted by: cactus | February 22, 2006 at 08:21 AM