In an article published in the magazine, The Economist, the debate about health-care reform is discussed in terms of death. The article discusses Obamacare – Obama’s health-care plan – and how it will determine priority when receiving treatment. The major theme to this article is, how does the health-care plan justify age, and who receives priority. Most people would be willing to spend $1000 to save a child, but is it worth spending one million dollars on a terminally ill patient, to keep them alive for a week? Republicans are furious with the idea that middle aged people, people who have a whole life ahead of them who can contribute to society, should be treated first over very old people, 65+, who face life threatening illnesses. The article then goes to quote Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the current White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who creates an elaborate formula for who should receive medical attention first. Age is the greatest factor taken into account and that people middle age or even younger should receive priority over those who are well past their prime. Who should receive a liver transplant, someone who is 25 years of age and could potentially have a full life ahead of them, or someone 75 years of age, who could potentially die within the year because of unrelated causes.
This article brings about an excellent debate topic in terms of age and who benefits most from Obama’s health-care plan. Who will impact the United States more after receiving a life saving medical procedure? A 25 year old person who has no other illnesses, or a 75 year old person who is closer to death than actually impacting the prosperity of the United States? Clearly this is a very sensitive and controversial topic, but should the health-care reform save the most lives possible, or save lives so that they can live as long as possible?
This definitely is a very sensitive topic. I feel uneasy commenting on this article.
ReplyDeleteIf the reform decided that treatment should be decided for the younger people with no illnesses, another question rises. What about the younger people with other illnesses or disabilities that will clearly dig a deeper hole financially and have no positive impact on the United States? Instead of the policies picking and choosing, maybe it should be those that are directly impacted at the time who choose.
This is definitely a touchy subject and will require lots of bold politicians to tackle such an issue.
I completely agree with Woo. This is a very very sensitive subject. Who are we to decide when it is time to let someone go or treat them? They can be young with a severe illness, and a slight chance to survive. Or they can be older with illnesses that can be treated. The question always is how sick can they be before the health care doesn't cover them? I am really curious to see how the politicians are going to handle this. To me, who is not very educated on this whole subject anyways, I do not see an easy settlement for this issue. I understand prolonging life, but who is to decide that a 65 year old man will not get treated because someone else "is more important" because they have a better chance at being alive longer? This whole idea and topic makes me really uneasy. I will be curious (and maybe worried) to see what they come up with as a solution to this issue.
ReplyDelete