Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

Sections
Personal tools
You are here: Home Blogs Opportunity Collaboration in Action Healthcare Rationing: What Price Is A Life?

Healthcare Rationing: What Price Is A Life?

Was Dick Cheney's quadruple bypass surgery worth the money?

 

In the United States healthcare reform is policy wonk talk for changing up the way Americans ration health. Conservatives criticize change in the healthcare status quo as “rationing”. Liberals blithely promise reform will not include “rationing”. Both are fibbing.
 
Rationing healthcare is what health systems do. No scheme, no government, no insurer, no individual (save perhaps the über-rich) has unlimited money to buy all the healthcare everyone wants. 
 
In America, we ration healthcare by place of employment. If you have a steady job with a large employer, you probably have decent health insurance. If you are self-employed, maybe not. 
 
Vice President Dick Cheney suffered four heart attacks beginning at age 37. Thanks to American socialized medicine for elected officials, Cheney has been cared for at the very best taxpayer-subsidized hospitals. His is a life worth saving.
 
If Cheney were a poor, young, Latina private housekeeper, most likely he would not have had health insurance when he needed it. And, it is damn certain he would not have gotten any preventive checkups in, no doubt, a “secure, undisclosed location”.
 
If Mr. Cheney were born in the developing world, he might well have died in infancy. Dr. Donald R. Hopkins, Vice President, The Carter Center, writes, “Children born in most advanced industrialized countries…experience infant mortality rates of 10 per 1,000 live births…and can expect to live an average of more than 70 years. Children born in developing countries…face infant mortality rates of 150 or higher (with) a life expectancy of 50 years or less.” 
 
The cure for measles, a highly contagious disease, has been in use for over 30 years. As a result, measles has been wiped out in the developing world. In poorer countries, measles still infects 30 million people annually, mostly kids. 
 
Would you deny the Vice President, a former heavy smoker, his quadruple bypass surgery (estimated cost: $45,000.00) to pay for inoculating 180,000 children against measles (estimated cost: 25 cents per child)? That is reality of global healthcare rationing.
 
900,000 poor children are annually sentenced to death because measles inoculations are unavailable (rationed?). Would you spend a quarter to save a child’s life? 

Dick Cheney bypass?

Posted by Barbara Hamaker at Aug 11, 2009 03:34 PM
On a personal level, and on a political level, I would have let him die in infancy knowing what kind of adult he became in hindsight; and I certainly would NOT have paid for his bypass surgery as an adult. The question is how many children who DID die in infancy due to lack of medical care, would have made brilliant humanitarians and tremendous contributions to the world, instead of war-mongering and killing untold countless innocent people as Cheney has done.

However, as an objective observer, how can we evaluate people based on their personal 'value' as a human being, if indeed all human beings should (and that's a big should...) be treated equally. The answer is it can't be done. But what we DO do is evaluate people based on their economic value as human beings--equally unacceptable. No easy answers, just opinions as is mine above.

What is wonderful is that there are untold numbers of wonderful humanitarians making untold contributions to humanity every day as I write this. As a friend of mine used to say: A big mistake in a little man is little; but a little mistake in a big man is big. Cheney should have that plaque on his wall, or better still tatooed on his heart.

For Societal Good/Health -- vote for the measles.

Posted by Katelyn Mack at Aug 11, 2009 05:54 PM
Great post -- I was so excited to read it that I immediately used it as a reference in my last public health blog post at http://veritashealth.wordpress.com. Here is what I think...

There is no use denying the fact that increasing health care services for the poor and underserved will likely draw resources away from the services provided to the top tier of society. Do I think this would have a major impact on the health of the rich? No. Such a change would only serve to improve the health outcomes of our nation as a whole (I wrote about this in an earlier post entitled 'What [Wealth] Inequality Means for Health'). The gains to be made by making health care affordable and available to all Americans will be better for population health than small, nearly unattainable medical care services to the most well-off.

Medical care services, in general, have only led to modest gains in population health. Water, sanitation, immunizations, and environmental modifications have led to many of the greatest population health improvements in our global history. We must spend more effort and money on disease prevention (innoculating those kids with measles is a good start; preventing youth from smoking is another). Treatment will always provide great tradeoffs for societal well-being because of the enormous economic cost.