23 April 2011
Ryan’s Inconsistency
Why does the Wall Street Journal (in its editorial on April 20, 2011, “The Other Medicare Cutters,”) think that an elected board of experts would do a better job of supervising improvements in our health care system than a board appointed by our elected President and confirmed by our elected congressional representatives? Of course, as decided by our unelected Supreme Court in the Citizens United case, the money that would be spent on getting them elected is tantamount to our cherished free speech protected by the First Amendment.
The Ryan plan supposedly results in affordable health care by using the market to offer seniors a selection of private insurance plans. The problem is that the market is the place where people compete to make money. It’s only wealthy seniors who will have the broadest choice in that market. Our collective health, on which the vitality of the entire nation depends, is not improved by making sure that, whatever it costs, the most effective treatment is available. Our collective health is not a tradable item; it is allocated among individuals by reference to the number of bodies they represent, not by the size of their respective wallets.
If we set our sights on affording to improve our collective health, then we have to allocate the administration of its care according to medical need instead of dollar cost. Attacking the overall cost of healthcare has to begin with the underlying condition of the collective bodies, i.e. by mandating wiser living practices and effective treatment procedures. Society cannot be hostage to desperate life-prolonging measures that merely extend the continuance of pulses while diverting resources from raising the general welfare.
Why does the Wall Street Journal (in its editorial on April 20, 2011, “The Other Medicare Cutters,”) think that an elected board of experts would do a better job of supervising improvements in our health care system than a board appointed by our elected President and confirmed by our elected congressional representatives? Of course, as decided by our unelected Supreme Court in the Citizens United case, the money that would be spent on getting them elected is tantamount to our cherished free speech protected by the First Amendment.
The Ryan plan supposedly results in affordable health care by using the market to offer seniors a selection of private insurance plans. The problem is that the market is the place where people compete to make money. It’s only wealthy seniors who will have the broadest choice in that market. Our collective health, on which the vitality of the entire nation depends, is not improved by making sure that, whatever it costs, the most effective treatment is available. Our collective health is not a tradable item; it is allocated among individuals by reference to the number of bodies they represent, not by the size of their respective wallets.
If we set our sights on affording to improve our collective health, then we have to allocate the administration of its care according to medical need instead of dollar cost. Attacking the overall cost of healthcare has to begin with the underlying condition of the collective bodies, i.e. by mandating wiser living practices and effective treatment procedures. Society cannot be hostage to desperate life-prolonging measures that merely extend the continuance of pulses while diverting resources from raising the general welfare.
Comments:
Post a Comment
