Posted on 08/10/2009 4:12:10 PM PDT by FrdmLvr
All the "best people" like Peter Singer, the bioethics professor from Princton who, a few short years ago, was advocating POST-NATAL ABORTIONS! praise Obama's Shovel-Ready Healthcare! Please read his article.
You have advanced kidney cancer. It will kill you, probably in the next year or two. A drug called Sutent slows the spread of the cancer and may give you an extra six months, but at a cost of $54,000. Is a few more months worth that much?
The costs of the current health care system are becoming increasingly clear, and public sentiment for a more systematic approach may be growing. Wed like to know what you think about the prospect of rationing.
If you can afford it, you probably would pay that much, or more, to live longer, even if your quality of life wasnt going to be good. But suppose its not you with the cancer but a stranger covered by your health-insurance fund. If the insurer provides this man and everyone else like him with Sutent, your premiums will increase. Do you still think the drug is a good value? Suppose the treatment cost a million dollars. Would it be worth it then? Ten million? Is there any limit to how much you would want your insurer to pay for a drug that adds six months to someones life? If there is any point at which you say, No, an extra six months isnt worth that much, then you think that health care should be rationed.
In the current U.S. debate over health care reform, rationing has become a dirty word. Meeting last month with five governors, President Obama urged them to avoid using the term, apparently for fear of evoking the hostile response that sank the Clintons attempt to achieve reform...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
NY Times — enough said.
Hey NYT editor....you first!!!!
You can’t put a price on a human life.
Soylent Green indeed. This is one heck of a scary article.
Peter Singer must no doubt be related to Margaret Singer....
...errrr Sanger ;p
You first.
Once you accept the notion that man is nothing more than a mutated descendant related to any other animal, the notion of life having special meaning becomes alien.
Singer is not the exception, other than being smart enough to reason through the consequences of an evolutionary framework to the logical conclusion.
No doubt, Obama would not want to give $54,000 of his own money to give someone else 6 months of life — he said that if it wasn’t his own grandmother he would have questioned giving her hip surgery.
You should read the article as it ends. It’s not at all supportive of Obamacare or any of the other democrat plans. Singer pretty much reaches the conclusion that publically paid for health care should be rationed based upon cost/quality of life issues but with a private insurance available to cover anything that the public plan does not.
This is a far cry from anything the universal single payer proponents would find acceptable. They want a system where everyone receives the absolutely the same care regardless of ability to pay. Therefore such a system must ration care since to do otherwise would bankrupt the system.
How bout this? In Pelosi’s case, she will get the treatment she wants, but we will not.
That was just the title of the piece.
The question is WHO will make the decisions to treat or not treat. Will the decision be made by the patient, patient’s family and personal physician or will a government doctor or bureaucratic board make that determination with no appeal or recourse.
That's so he can say "We never said anything about rationing!"
Whatta putz.
Since liberals think killing babies is no big deal, we shouldn’t be surprised that killing adults and children is no big deal.
Logan’s Run, anybody?
There is no difference between Peter Singer and Dr. Mengele. No difference whatsoever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.