Just my prediction. You will also see politically-correct rationing in other forms, just as you have seen political correctness in the home loan industry, the awarding of federal contracts, in city hiring decisions, etc. Your health concerns will be thrown in the pool and stirred around until the statistics meet what some panel of bureaucrats think is the perfect fairness rainbow.
More troubling than that, in my mind, is that government health care is an invitation for the government to regulate the behaviors of citizens in the guise of cost-control measures.
We've seen this already with tobacco--one of the trump cards the anti-tobacco lobby likes to play is the cost of treating tobacco-related illnesses. This is important because tobacco-related illenesses most often occur when the user is older and eligible for medicare. When taxpayers are footing the bill for the treatment, taxpayers have a (legitimate) right to dictate how you behave.
So once you open the door to government health care, it becomes about cost control, so all sorts of dangerous things become fair game for regulation--helmet laws, seat belt laws, tobacco, alcohol, fatty foods, salt content, etc.
I don't think it's about smokers to the back of the line--it's "there will not be smokers." Their care is too expensive.
Interesting,,three of the councils turned all requests down and others approved more. So it was purely budgetary. That is what we face.
Turning freely available resources, cancer drugs, into sparse commodities with rationing.
This creates the lifeboat situation that E Emmanuel writes about and the “ethical dilemmas” of who to pay for.
I suspect that here in the US to get any treatment for cancer beyond the proven standard treatment will take a patient right to clinical trials. That is a huge part of treatment now.
But I don’t know that a new system would want trials or that companies would invest in them,,to expensive you know and creates a need and a right for effective new expensive drugs.
Our system will slow and halt. No more new lifesaving drugs will emerge from companies who have no incentive to develope them.
Interesting,,three of the councils turned all requests down and others approved more. So it was purely budgetary. That is what we face.
Turning freely available resources, cancer drugs, into sparse commodities with rationing.
This creates the lifeboat situation that E Emmanuel writes about and the “ethical dilemmas” of who to pay for.
I suspect that here in the US to get any treatment for cancer beyond the proven standard treatment will take a patient right to clinical trials. That is a huge part of treatment now.
But I don’t know that a new system would want trials or that companies would invest in them,,to expensive you know and creates a need and a right for effective new expensive drugs.
Our system will slow and halt. No more new lifesaving drugs will emerge from companies who have no incentive to develope them.
I predict people membership in certain organizations will help you move to the front of the line. Say, do you suppose an Ivy League degree will give you a leg up? After all, that’s a big investment in a life, certainly more than a degree from some community college or a mere high school diploma.
“Allow me to say this: with government health care, there will not only be rationing, there will be politically-correct rationing.”
Of this there is little doubt.
Of note is that political correctness holds on predominantly because the media gives it legitimacy.
Bingo! Very good. I agree this is what will emerge if the bill passes.
It's not just your prediction. It's a self-evident reality, obvious and irrefutable. And indisputably immoral, but immorality doesn't enter the Democrats' insular little nightmare world.
“Allow me to say this: with government health care, there will not only be rationing, there will be politically-correct rationing.”
So very true - and even more than just politically correct, it will be simply and completely politicized, with all the corruption and influence peddling that that implies.
And also: "Do you have cancer as a result of a life of debauchery? Why, you should have taken better...What's that? Your name is Kennedy? Oh please, do come in!"