Robert Samuelson gets it brilliantly right in this Newsweek piece:
The trouble with casting medical-care as a “right” is that this ignores how open-ended the “right” should be and how fulfilling it might compromise other “rights” and needs. What makes people healthy or unhealthy are personal habits, good or bad (diet, exercise, alcohol and drug use); genetic makeup, lucky or unlucky, and age. Health care, no matter how lavishly provided, can only partially compensate for these individual differences.
There is a basic moral and political dilemma that most Americans refuse to acknowledge. What we all want for ourselves and our families””access to unlimited care paid for by someone else””may be ruinous for us as a society.
He contends that both the Obama and McCain plans don’t go far enough in controlling costs. What politicians don’t understand that the only way to effectively do this is to say “no” and ration care – unpopular suggestions in an election year.
By focusing on the uninsured at the expense of costs, the problem is sure to worsen:
The crying need now is not to insure all the uninsured. This would be expensive (an additional $123 billion a year, estimates the Kaiser study) and would provide modest health gains at best.
Left-leaning publications like the NY Times needs to stop uncritically applauding efforts like the Massachusetts reform plan, and highlight controlling costs as the main thrust of health reform.
