Princeton bioethics professor Peter Singer in the New York Times illustrated the best thinking for managing single payer healthcare. “Rationing health care means getting value for the billions spent by setting limits on which treatments should be paid for from the public purse….There’s no doubt that it’s tough – politically, emotionally, and ethically - to make a decision that means that someone will die sooner than they would have if the decision had gone the other way….The task of health care bureaucrats is then to get the best value for resources they have been allocated….If a teenager can be expected to live another 70 years, saving that life gains 70 years, whereas a person of 85 can be expected to live another 5 years, then saving the 85-year-old will gain only 5 life-years. That suggests saving one teenager is equivalent to saving 14 85-year-olds”.
Besides age, I can think of additional criteria that can constrain costs. For example, we can measure intelligence, define mental illness, and identify physical handicaps and addictions. Overall, the panel and bureaucracy could decide certain people make minimal or no contribution to society. The access to healthcare would be adjusted accordingly. I remember that under the current Oregon Health Plan a woman could not obtain treatment for a cancer but was eligible for euthanasia to deal with any pain.
Isn’t it amazing what can be achieved when the traditional moral compass no longer exists.
The "Costs" of Medical Care
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2009/11/03/the-costs-of-medical-care-n1088569
Why We Must Ration Health Care
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Wonder how Singer is going to feel about all of this when he’s the person they’re evaluating.