This is what it means to cede control of your health care to the government:
The heartbreaking dilemma over Charlotte, born three months premature last October, was dramatically revealed as Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust asked the court for an order allowing its doctors not to ventilate her again if she has life-threatening breathing difficulties.
Yesterday, Mr Justice Hedley was told by Trust counsel that all doctors now agreed that Charlotte's quality of life was so terrible that ventilating could only lead to her suffering further pain and indignity. But the baby's father Darren Wyatt, 33, originally from Birmingham told the judge: "When you get to the stage when you grow to love someone, you can't just throw them away like a bad egg and say you will get a different egg."
Hey, but at least it's free, right?
Posted by Walter at October 2, 2004 09:26 AMNah. This is inexcusably mixing any number of policies as if they're all one. The British system isn't the Canadian system isn't the Swedish system, and none is the proposed Clinton system, and certainly none is the proposed Kerry plan which merely expanded government insurance, including that given to our own Congress.
"Government-run medicine" can mean a gillion things, some worse, some better, and "government run insurance" is a whole nother set of notions. They're all debateable, but attempting to tar all with the flaws of one is simply a lie.
Posted by: Gary Farber at October 3, 2004 12:37 AMA difference of opinion perhaps, but I'll stick with what I said.
There are legitimate reasons to limit the quantity or quality of health care a patient receives. It is usually a question of economics, allocating limited resources to a much less limited demand. Like most human interactions, a balance between supply and demand is best achieved when consumers and suppliers negotiate directly, each mindful of his own interests. But in each system you list the government blends those two interests together, to varying degrees. Eventually the only remaining interest is that of government, deciding these things based on political calculations.
That's inefficient, and leads to more situations such as this news item.
Posted by: Walter at October 3, 2004 08:55 AM