Like most of America, I can recite the point-counterpoint debate on healthcare reform. On one side you have allegations of death panels and on the other you have hollow promises of no care rationing. Both sides offer nothing more than vague rhetoric. Prostate cancer offers us a glimpse of the future.
I have long advocated that the government’s desires to control healthcare costs are incompatible with an individual desire’s to live. Prostate cancer is a case in point. For the last several years, there has been growing evidence that prostate cancer has been over diagnosed. This has largely been through increased screening of the Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA). Today’s article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute provides further evidence of this.
However, it is one thing to identify the trend. It is another thing entirely to ration care based on this. This is more than a lesson in economics. Making care decisions based on cost is equivalent to the Government practicing medicine. How can you tell which individuals will progress into life-threatening cancer vs. men which will have a more modest and non-life threatening form of the disease? The federal government is willing to bet that men’s prostate cancer isn’t as emotionally charged as women’s breast cancer. For the federal government, 30,000 dead men every year is acceptable collateral damage in their war on “excessive” costs.
I’m not debating the macroeconomic issue of over-diagnosing prostate cancer. I’m stating simply – if you are a human being alive in America, you have your own best interests in mind. Your government doesn’t.
Health reform doesn’t have anything to do with actually reforming healthcare. What we’re really talking about is Finance Reform – changing how healthcare is paid for and how much is paid. Healthcare reform isn’t about health – it’s about money. Do you want to trust your health to a bunch of Government officials you’ve never met?
2 comments:
As a prostate cancer survivor (so far), I resent your use of this issue to rail against health care reform. There is no talk or legislation that rations such health care. Our current insurance provided health care (I am not talking about Medicare), i.e. that provided by BS&BS, Aetna, et al, already rations health care based on their arbitrary rules that are generated by bean counters, not doctors. Worse, they refuse to insure anyone with a "prior condition" which is just another form of rationing. Any of the proposed health care reform option under discussion will eliminate this blatant form of discrimination, and that is a good thing for everyone.
Bill,
Thanks for your comments on my "railing" against healthcare reform. I love it when those on the fringe need to use inflamatory language to demonize thoughtful commentary. Congratulations! You've lived up to the very low bar we've come to expect from those screaming at the top of their lungs at healthcare rallies.
I'm actually in favor of meanginful healthcare reform - something that actually improves health. Since you're such a bright and enlightened guy, I'm sure you've waded through all 1100 pages of the draft legislation. And since you're such a bright and enlightened guy, you realize that about 5% of it actually deals with health (the rest deals with costs) - a fair representation of our government's priorities. If we're going to have health reform, let's talk about health.
Post a Comment