More on Death Panels
Here is a sort of Rawlsian argument for less end of life treatment, based on insurance rational people would buy, standing behind a veil of ignorance.
Here is Alex Tabarrok’s critique of the argument at Marginal Revolution.
Health Care Policy and Reform Insights | NCPA
-
Recognition and Awards
It seems to me that if you have a taxpayer-financed system of health care, then NHS-style decisions about rationing are not only inevitable, but actually appropriate. It follows that those responsible for running Medicare and Medicaid should be making more of these hard decisions, in preference to shifting costs onto the private sector or onto future generations.
Responsible management of existing public programs would help clarify the advantages and drawbacks of public health care, in contrast with the private sector which has its own mechanisms to control costs (if allowed to function).
Another thought: the latest talking point seems to be that the U.S. spends one-and-one half times as much as (sometimes misreported as 150% more than) the next-highest country on health care. I wonder how the comparison would look if segmented into under- and over-65 components, adjusted for cost-shifting?
Assuming that the US spends one and a half times as much, which may not be true given trans-national accounting and definitional differences, it may be true that other countries pay too little, particularly in view of the waiting lists, lower life-expectancy for the over 65s, and low innovation that characterizes so many of the lower spending systems.
The broader point is that with personal savings and appropriate insurance options we do not have to cede life and death choices to the government or to any other bureaucracy.