How Much Is a Year of Your Life Worth?
Originally Posted At The American Spectator
By David Catron
July 24, 2009
All advocates of socialized medicine, including the President and his congressional accomplices, believe that government-imposed rationing is necessary to control health care costs. Having little faith in the judgment of individual patients and even less in the workings of the market, they are convinced that only the state is capable of efficiently allocating our medical resources. Very few of these people, however, have the courage of their convictions. With a few notable exceptions, they vehemently deny that they are for rationing. Indeed, as a matter of general strategy, they have done their best to exclude the "R" word from the reform debate. President Obama has gone so far as to explicitly to admonish his political allies "to avoid terms like 'rationing'" while promoting the Democrat health care agenda.
But, make no mistake about it, rationing will be an integral component of Obamacare. Last Sunday the President's budget chief admitted, "I'm not prepared to rule it out," when pressed for a straight answer on the issue. And another of Obama's advisors famously frets about the insistence of American physicians on doing "everything for the patient regardless of cost." Thus, stopping such costly interventions will be a primary mission of the "Federal Coordinating Council for Effectiveness Research," a new hive of health care apparatchiks created by the infamous "porkulus" bill. This new bureaucracy is intended to operate like its European counterparts, meaning that it will assign a monetary value to your life and deny your care if you contract a malady whose cost-of-treatment exceeds that amount.
If you are under the impression that it is impossible to calculate the value of a human life, you are obviously not a progressive policy expert or health care bureaucrat. This calculation, so elusive for philosophers and sages throughout the millennia, is child's play for such people. They have, in fact, already devised a formula for pricing out your life. It is called the "quality-adjusted-life-year" (QALY), and it assigns a numerical value to a year of life. A year of perfect health, for example, is given a value of 1.0 while a year of sub-optimum health is rated between 0 and 1. If you are confined to a wheelchair, a year of your life might be valued at half that of your ambulatory neighbor. If you are blind or deaf, you also score low. All that remains is to assign a specific dollar value to the QALY and, voilà, your life has a price tag.
Imagine, for a moment, what the harvest would have been had this soulless valuation system been applied throughout the West for the past three or four centuries. QALY would have rated John Milton, blind at the time he wrote Paradise Lost, at considerably less than 1. And the hearing-impaired Beethoven would have been lucky to score 0.5 on the QALY scale. For a more modern example, think of Stephen Hawking. Hawking is arguably the most gifted scientist since Isaac Newton, but QALY would value his life at very nearly zero. There would, however, have been winners in the life-rating lottery. The life of Ted Bundy, a good-looking, articulate young man in perfect physical health, would have been valued at a perfect 1.
And, lest you imagine that QALY is mere academic concept unlikely to be applied in the real world, it is already being used in countries burdened with socialized medicine. In Great Britain, for example, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) uses "cost per QALY" to determine if patients should receive expensive treatment or drugs. It was with this formula that NICE calculated the precise amount six months of an average Brit's life is worth. As the Wall Street Journal reports, "NICE currently holds that, except in unusual cases, Britain cannot afford to spend more than about $22,000 to extend a life by six months." In other words, patients whose country has guaranteed them "free" health care are in some cases refused treatment because the incremental cost per additional QALY is too high.
Nonetheless, despite the obvious moral dubiousness of QALY, some progressive policy experts openly advocate its use in the United States. Princeton Bioethics Professor Peter Singer recommended this approach just last week in the New York Times Magazine: "If a reformed U.S. health care system explicitly accepted rationing, as I have argued it should, QALYs could play a similar role in the U.S." Singer is untroubled that some severely ill patients will go without treatment simply because it is expensive: "A QALY approach may then lead us to give priority to helping others who are not so badly off and whose conditions are less expensive to treat." That the "badly off" patient may have been taxed all his life to support "universal" health care evidently has no meaning for the Professor.
Dr. Robert Wachter, Associate Chairman of the Department of Medicine at UC San Francisco, is likewise unconcerned about such "badly off" patients. Wachter writes at his blog that Singer's position would amount to mere common sense "in a society of grown-ups." In an apparent attempt to personify every "arrogant doctor" cliché known to man, Wachter pompously lectures his readers to the effect that government-imposed rationing is inevitable while heaping scorn on the Great Unwashed for daring to entertain alternative viewpoints: "Will the society that brings you Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck (or, I'm beginning to think, some of our Democratic representatives) deal with it in an effective, mature way? I truly doubt it."
Wachter, like many progressives, has a gift for unintentional irony. The real obstacle to an "effective" public discourse about rationing has nothing to do with talk radio hosts, television personalities, Blue Dog Democrats, or the immaturity of American society in general. It is, rather, the moral cowardice of the President and his allies in Congress that prevents a serious debate about rationing. If Barack Obama, Max Baucus, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of their fellow travelers were honest, they would admit that they agree with Singer and Wachter. They would look us in the eye and tell us that the only way to control health care costs is for Washington to impose a Draconian rationing scheme that effectively puts a price on each of our heads.
Such a confession would certainly spark a vigorous national conversation. And this discussion would no doubt last until November of 2010, when the voters would give the Democrats the bum's rush they so richly deserve.
|
|
Urgent Petition
|
Sign the petition to stop Social Security Cuts and send a fax to every Member of Congress demanding they cut other spending, NOT SOCIAL SECURITY.
Share This Petition
|
Recent News
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Source: ABC News
The Food and Drug Administration has warned doctors to watch for fractures of the upper thigh bone in patients taking several popular drugs designed to prevent hip fractures and fight osteoprothesis. The FDA warns that Fosamax and Boniva in particular, if taken unnecessarily or for too long, may actually be causing the bone fractures they are prescribed to prevent. Watch ABC News video.
Read Full Story
Thursday, May 17, 2012
 Exit Not An Option In Chuck Schumer's America. New York Senator Chuck Schumer has introduced the Fugitive Taxpayer Act of 2012 to re-impose taxes on expatriates after they flee the United States and take up residence in a foreign country. Proposal also would impose a mandatory 30 percent tax on the capital gains of anybody who renounces their U.S. citizenship and would bar such individuals from ever reentering the United States again.
Read Full Story
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Whether President Obama gets his second term or Romney enters the Oval Office, there’s a third candidate no one’s paying much attention to, and that candidate is guaranteed to be the one clear winner of election 2012: the U.S. military and our ever-surging national security state.
Read Full Story
Friday, May 11, 2012
According to the New York Federal Reserve, two million US seniors age 60 and over have student loan debt, on which they owe a collective $36.5 billion; and 11.2 percent of this debt is in default. 4.2 percent of all student loan debt is held by people over the age of 60, and that share grows with each passing year.
Read Full Story
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Across the U.S. economy, anxiety is rising about the potential for widespread disruptions after the November election, when a lame-duck Congress will have barely two months to resolve a grinding standoff over taxes and spending.
Read Full Story
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Two-thirds of Republicans and nine in 10 Democrats polled support making immediate cuts to the military across the board -- a position at odds with the leaderships of both political parties.
Read Full Story
Monday, May 7, 2012
Video revealing the circumstances of how a mentally ill homeless man in Fullerton, Calif. died last July was finally published Monday, revealing a stunningly brutal police assault that left Kelly Thomas bleeding, broken and near death.
Read Full Story
Monday, May 7, 2012
The number of people with jobs declined for the second month in a row, falling by 169,000 in April after easing by 31,000 in March. This means that there were 200,000 fewer Americans with jobs in April than there were in February. Additionally, the percentage of working-age adults who either have jobs or are looking for work, fell to 63.6%, which is the lowest level since December 1981.
Read Full Story
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
In November 2010, a police lieutenant from Parma, Ohio, asked Vanguard Defense Industries if the Texas-based drone manufacturer could mount a “grenade launcher and/or 12-gauge shotgun” on its ShadowHawk drone for U.S. law enforcement agencies. The answer was yes.
Read Full Story
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
A gang attack on two people stopped at a red light in Norfolk, VA has not, until today, appeared in the local newspaper. Local police refuse to follow up on the attack. The responding officer coded the incident as a "simple assault," despite the victims' and witness's assertions that at least 30 people had participated in the attack. A reporter making routine checks of police reports would see "simple assault" and, if the names were unfamiliar, would be unlikely to write about it. In this case, editors hesitated to assign a story about their own employees. Would it seem like the paper treated its employees differently from other crime victims? Something is rotten in Mr. Jefferson's State.
Read Full Story
Read All Recent News
Get in the Know Now
Get SSI Email Alerts
Social Networks
Action Center
|
