Life (for some) At All Cost

Australian philosopher Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics at Princeton University, wrote an intelligent article published in the NYT last week masterfully articulating the infantile and unsustainable nature of the current American health care system. A brilliant ethicist and utilitarian, Singer points to many of the forces behind the out of control upward spiral in costs. I would summarize with the expression, "Life at all costs."

Our "spare no expense" attitude is simply not tenable. While oversimplified, the following example illustrates one key fundamental problem. Say a man has two months to live. A $60,000 treatment could give 1-2 extra weeks. In the UK, forget it unless he pays. In the USA, if he has premium insurance, the insurer drops $60K, but to cover this, the system denies 200 children health care, dozens of whom suffer untreated illness and three die. America screams "life at all cost" with awareness of the man and blindness to the kids. A major cornerstone of our health care fiasco is the systemic denial of services to the less privileged so the more privileged can enjoy lavish levels of services at obscene expense.

In the USA, 54% reported they chose to do without medical care because of the cost (13% for UK and 7% for the Netherlands). Over half of the USA has gone without care due to cost. Medical expenses are behind over 60% of bankruptcies. Almost 50M have no coverage, and that number climbs rapidly. More than 22,000 Americans die each year for lack of health insurance. Costs have doubled in the last ten years and are expected to double again in the next ten.

The country desperately wants health care reform. They want coverage that can't suddenly be denied when they get sick. They want care that can't be denied because an insurance investigator finds a "pre-existing" condition. Ironically, the Harry and Louise couple used to derail Clinton era reform has come out in favor of it this time around. Also ironically, millions were spent attacking the Clinton plan on television. In the last two months, $40M has been spent advocating Obama's health care reforms on television.

Another significant part of the problem is greed, and the greedmeisters are fighting back. The health care industry has spent nearly a billion dollars on lobbying in the last two years, not to mentions millions in campaign contributions to Congress, which is turning 84 shades of purple. The blue dog democrats look ridiculous compared to the astute Republicans that have stated they in principle agree with Obama's fundamental goals. Of course we always have the Neanderthals who see everything in the context of their obsession with "breaking Obama" (14 second DeMint clip). Who cares what the country wants or what helps America? Anything that could be seen as a victory for the president must be vehemently attacked and opposed.

The country will continue to suffer until it recognizes what the rest of the industrialized world has already accepted. We simply do not have the resources to provide life (for some) at all cost.