Published On: July 17th, 2009
Rationing is a dirty word in health-reform debates. It’s used as a warning by those who oppose a larger government role in health care, and it’s avoided by those who support a new, government-backed health plan.
But rationing already happens in American health care, the philosopher Peter Singer argues in an article to be published in this weekend’s New York Times Magazine: We deny treatments to people who can’t afford to pay.
Singer argues that public insurance plans, such as Medicare, can’t afford to pay limitless prices for treatments likely to extend life by a few months. If a treatment extends a cancer patient’s life by an average of six months, is it worth $100,000? Is it worth $1 million?
Anyone who wants to pay for such a treatment out of their own pocket, or to buy supplemental insurance, should be allowed to do so, Singer argues. But there simply isn’t enough money to pay for all treatments for everyone covered by existing public insurance programs such as Medicare, much less for an expanded public program.
Health Blog Questions of the Day: Should public insurance programs such as Medicare put a limit on what they’re willing to spend? If not, where should the government get the additional funding to support rising costs?

Read the original post:
A Philosopher Argues for Rationing Health Care



Did you know:



