The Shameful Rationing of Health Care

This article from the New York Times sheds some light on the rationing that is inherent in any universal health care system. They look into Britain's universal health system where some people are being denied life-extending drugs because they're too expensive.

In the United States, such people would have the option of joining higher premium pools in return for nearly unlimited care- not an ideal option, but at least they have an option (besides dying). In the British system however, everybody is tied to one another through socialism, hence your best interest can be passed over for "the greater good". Before anybody gets all bleeding heart about it ask yourself this question: Who among your family would you sacrifice to "the greater good"? I can foresee some mother-in-law jokes in my head, but you get the point. The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers.

The first law of economics is the law of scarcity: that there will never be enough of anything to satisfy everyone who demands it. When government runs your health care all your hard work, saving, or sacrificing is suddenly worthless. If some bureaucrat decides a 55-year old would get more years out of a heart transplant than your 60-year old grandfather, then that's that. Your grandfather could have never missed a day of work in his life while the 55-year old could have contributed little or nothing to the system- doesn't matter.

That's how you get a story like this one: A Oregon woman who was a part of the state run health care plan, was denied life saving drugs because they were too expensive. Instead they offered to help her commit suicide. Seriously. Doctor assisted suicide would be less expensive and would leave more money for "the greater good".

So the next time you consider calling a conservative heartless for resisting universal health care, be ready to tell them who's expendable in your family.