Rationing is Ethical

This is what I'm talking about. Allocate our finite resources in such a way that they bring our whole country the greatest benefits. It is completely detrimental and unsustainable to keep spending huge amounts of our resources at the end of life. I want my tax dollars and insurance premiums to result in the greatest possible increase in quality-adjusted life-years, though I understand the inherent subjectivity in determining how to measure or weigh "quality". Even ignoring quality and focusing on life-years would be a vast improvement over our current system. $80,000 of Avastin for a few more months of life? That money could lead to dozens or scores of extra life-years if spent elsewhere. If we, as a country, invested more in childhood nutrition, health education, and smoking cessation instead of pharmaceutical and biotech companies, we would have greater national health and longer, happier lives.

Unsustainable Resource Allocation

Yesterday I wrote that our elderly are getting 2-4 times the money out of social services as they put in, as hard working taxpayers and their children are deprived of valuable services that would strengthen our country now and for the future. This recent MSNBC interview with crazy Betsy McCaughey gives the CBO citation and shows how the approximately 3:1 ratio was found.

There are two valid drivers for how we allocate money. The more deontological driver is to spend money to give people what they deserve. Benefits to soldiers, for example, or temporary unemployment benefits, or funds to support poor children. People who have a raw deal through no fault of their own, or who made sacrifices for the rest of us, deserve care. The more utilitarian driver is spend money on whatever will net the greatest good. What sets us up to have the best future? Military benefits are driven by this, also, as they are often calculated incentives to attract needed recruits so that we can even have a military. Public works projects that improve our infrastructure so we can continue trade and growth. Investing in research. Paying such vast amounts of money on social services to the elderly is more than they deserve and is not an investment in the future. At least McCaughey wants to raise the Medicare age to 70, even if she opposes making the system more efficient.

The major invalid driver of money allocation is greed. Special interests want their money. Politicians want votes and campaign contributions. Politicians make allocations (corn subsidies, no-bid contracts, F-22s, bridges to nowhere, etc...) that will get them votes and contributions, even though it hurts most people. Old people vote. Old people vote more often than young people. Politicians make policies that benefit old people at everyone else's (and the country's overall) expense. We are in a death spiral of increasing social security and Medicare expenses because politicians pacify the elderly now for votes instead of looking at the big picture and our country's needs for the future.

The interview also helpfully shows that a public option, or the public marketplace option that Obama talked about, would greatly reduce health care costs by eliminating the widespread occurance of localized insurance monopolies. I have two real choices for insurance provision in my area, and that is not competition that benefits consumers. When did Republicans start hating competition? Was it when insurance lobbyists handed them goodies, or are they just stubbornly trying to shoot down at any cost everything Obama tries to do?

Also, tort reform, which I've strongly advocated, seems to be a very low priority as far as cost controls go. It's still a good idea, and the special interest most opposed is the lawyers who take half the money, but it can go on the back burner.

Obama's Marketplace Plan

Even the famous Ewe Reinhardt agrees with me. Obama's proposed marketplace, where private insurers would compete with a public plan to provide customer-friendly health insurance, is going to be costly. If you're going to give so much care to people, ban rescission, allow pre-existing conditions, and put a low cap on out-of-pocket expenses, then you're going to have an expensive insurance plan.

To keep costs practical, one thing you have to be aggressive about is the chronic diseases that make up the bulk of costs. Encourage and demand more personal responsibility, and be able to cut people off from expensive care caused by their irresponsibility. For example: diabetes is widespread and totally manageable. It is far cheaper to help diabetics follow their treatment regimen than to pay for all the ER visits resulting from improper self-management. Many hospitals offer services that help slower diabetics keep track of their medication, plan their diets, get regular check-ups, and so forth. Not everyone uses those services, though. Some people insist on doing whatever they feel like, and make six trips to the ER each year. That hurts the rest of us. When New York City began a program to call every diabetic regularly to remind them to get check-ups, there was a big outcry about violating their privacy. Well, they violate everyone else each time they avoidably use expensive health care resources. Should everyone pay for a smoker's expensive lung cancer treatment? For a head injury of a motorcyclist who refused to wear a helmet?

We are all part of a system. If a person is going to renounce their responsibility to the system, their responsibility to take care of themselves so costs to the rest of us are manageable, then they renounce their membership in the system. The system should help those who make good faith efforts to support the system in return, but should not be obligated to help those who selfishly and irresponsibly hurt the system. An arrangement like England's that refuses to pay more than a set amount to keep a person alive for a short time would also be appropriate. We have finite resources to be spread out among everyone in the system. If we focus on an individual at the expense of the group, we cause far more damage that we prevent. In health care matters, we need a teleological utilitarian ethic. Even some modern deontologists allow for a 'Principle of Permissible Harm'. Spend our finite resources first where they will cause the greatest increase in quality-adjusted life-years working. That will make the system much stronger and sustainable for the future. Our current system is not sustainable, and is killing more future life-years than it saves now.