Skip to main content

There is not enough money to fund a health care utopia

Advocates of single-payer health care and other government-mandated universal coverage programs consistently lead us to believe that the United States possesses the resources to provide all things to all people. From Medical Futility I picked up this editorial in the Wall Street Journal by Dr Bruce Bray, Associate Professor of Biomedical Informatics at the University of Utah:

A society with unlimited resources to dedicate to health care can pull all the stops and pay for any and all procedures and medications that may prolong life, if even for a few weeks. Unfortunately, that society or economy doesn't exist, even in the U.S., so rational medical decisions based on efficacy and cost must be made.


As every nation--including Great Britain, Canada, and Australia--has found, and as has been reported here numerous times, with any universal health care plan, rationing of services is unavoidable.

Comments

Brian Shields said…
I think the money would be better spent educating the public on how to better take care of themselves. I have a crazy notion that 90% of health issues are brought upon yourself through exercise and diet (said the 282 pound man).

Maybe if people are taught how to cook, how to eat appropriately...

oh, wait.. that'll single handedly bring down the fast food system, the gas stations, and void the great need we have for nurses and doctors. They will then spend more time treating illness instead of fast food fatigue, and we might have some actual progress finding cures.

Nah, sick people are more profitable, and a national health system are exactly what they want.
Unknown said…
I appreciate your view about funding of health care.Government should spend spend more money on health.
Anonymous said…
I read this article. It provides good information about health care.I think spending of more and more money on educating the public on healthand need we have for nurses and doctors.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...