Health-care resources are not unlimited in any country, even rich ones like Canada and the U.S., and must be rationed either by price or time. When individuals bear no direct responsibility for paying for their care, as in Canada, that care is rationed by waiting.
Esmail illustrates his point in "'Too Old' for Hip Surgery," profiling legal challenges faced by the Canadian government and their monopoly on healthcare. He tells the story of Canadians who, upon being diagnosed with dangerous, fast-acting medical problems, are told they must wait months for treatment. A question for any Canadian reader: Is it true, as the article implies, that individuals are restricted from spending their own money on healthcare, but rather must accept only government services? That is hard to believe, but explains why Canadians often must travel to America for major-medical procedures.
On the face of it, I am not morally opposed to government-run universal healthcare. Rather, with most conservatives, I don't believe that the government can do a better job. However, as Esmail's title suggests, moral issues do develop when government policy imposes itself in life-and-death issues. How old is too old? How sick is too sick? To use Obama's phrase, this is "above his pay grade" -- which is fine, as long as he doesn't offer legislation which requires an answer. We should be more than a little frightened by Nancy Pelosi's recent contraception comments -- especially if she and her ilk are going to be writing up our healthcare benefits.
Universal healthcare is often presented as a moral issue -- as if those opposed to it were opposed to healthy people. What proponents don't realize, though, is the moral quagmire they will find themselves in when presented with limited resources and thousands upon thousands of daily emergencies.
No comments:
Post a Comment