Do we need it? Can our society afford it?
Look at this scenario with me…
Suppose that a young couple, John and Jane, both 25 years old, got married in May 1990. Their future together was bright as they were both young and healthy, both had college degrees and each had a good paying professional job.
They wanted to start a family, but first they intend for Jane to work for a few years since her “biological clock” still has plenty of time and wasn’t ticking too loudly yet. John wanted to start his own company, but first he needed to get some more experience in his profession and put away some money for the future.
After five years, both at the age of thirty, they decided to let Jane cut back to part time since she had become pregnant with their first child. John had also started his new consulting business in the basement of his home and was making a modest sum of extra income moonlighting. Jane helped out by answering the phone during the day and handling bookkeeping and doing paperwork.
After five more years (ten years of marriage,) Jane was the stay home mom of two little girls and John just quit his job after twelve years to concentrate on his consulting business. His income at first is less that what he and Jane could make when they both worked full time, but the income rapidly increases over the next few years—things are booming, and John was still planning for the future.
When John quit working for is employer, he made a conscious decision that they would be self insured up to a limit. Rather that buying classic health insurance, John bought “excess major medical insurance” with a $5000 annual deductable and a $10,000,000 lifetime cap.
John had a good reason for doing this. You see, the cost savings over traditional “full service” health insurance was substantial, and he elected to invest the savings he realized in a medical savings account in accordance with IRS rules. This means that John’s family would pay for much of the cost of the births of their future children (if they have any,) pay full price for doctor’s visits, and buy their own prescription drugs. The concept worked for Americans 35 years ago—certainly it would work for John.
John sure is a smart guy, isn’t he?
After five more years it’s now 2005. Things are still going well professionally, but a bombshell is dropped into the lives of Jane, John, and their two children.
Jane hears words that no one ever wants to hear from her doctor during a routine medical exam. Jane has breast cancer—a particularly fast growing invasive form.
But it’s not all bad news, because in the year that John and Jane got married, Genentech, began development of two new drugs-- Avastin and Herceptin—that are proving in clinical trials to be highly effective in fighting exactly the type of breast cancer that Jane has.
Now here is where my fictional story becomes a real life story…
“Nearly two years ago, Mary Vaughan was diagnosed with an aggressive breast cancer that had invaded her skin and lymph nodes. Surgery was not an option, so Vaughan entered a research study testing a combination of two drugs that target cancer cells.
Today, her disease has all but disappeared. Vaughan, 56, is still on medication, but is strong enough to work as a nurse near her home in Santa Barbara, Calif. "Most people have no idea I'm sick," she said.
Because Vaughan is in a clinical trial, the cost of her treatment is heavily discounted. That's fortunate, because otherwise her drugs, Avastin and Herceptin, would cost her nearly $8,000 a month -- more than Vaughan says she can afford, even with her insurance.”
And of course there is obligatory complaining about the cost of the new drugs by “health care advocates.” Two years of the medication would have cost $192,000 had it not been for the discount. And of course the “health care advocates” are worrying about how to hand the drug out for free to anyone that needs it.
Let me ask you this question. What incentive exists for companies like Genentech to risk investing billions of dollars and FIFTEEN YEARS of research only to have the government and “health care advocates” demand that they give it away for free or at a reduced cost because some people are said to “NEED” it but can’t afford to PAY for it.
"One question hanging over the four-day gathering is captured by the title of a planned seminar: "Can Society Afford State-of-the-Art Cancer Care?" Scheduled speakers include an executive from Genentech Inc., maker of Avastin and Herceptin.
"These drugs are dramatically driving up the cost of caring for patients," said Leonard Saltz, a cancer specialist at Memorial-Sloan Kettering Hospital in New York. "We really haven't addressed the question of how much society is willing to pay for them." "
Now back to my story about John and Jane. John and Jane could afford to pay for the drug. John and Jane had planned ahead. John and Jane had savings and insurance. John and Jane didn’t rely on the government or a private employer to provide them with health insurance.
WHO SAYS THAT IT’S “SOCIETIES” JOB TO PAY FOR EVERY POSSIBLE HEALTH CARE TREATMENT EVER CONCEIVED BY MAN?
I know that you’re not supposed to place relative values on human life, but are you telling me that an illegal alien or a woman living on the street should be given state-of-the art medical care like these drugs, paid for by “society”?
Remember, “society” doesn’t work. Government doesn’t have a paying job like John and Jane did either.
Government holds a gun to its citizens heads and demands its “fair share” of their income, in the form of taxes. If you don’t pay your “fair share”, the government comes and takes your possessions and puts you in jail. You have no choice but to pay, one way or the other.
I sorry folks, but I say society has no obligation to afford healthcare for anyone. I say that charaties, churches, and foundations should be in the business of ensuring that our downtrodden and poor get anything other than the basic minimums already provided by our government.
Anything else is a slap in the face to all the John's and Jane's out there working hard and taking care of their own needs.
Why bother to work hard if "society" is going to do it for free...
2 comments:
Free health would sure be a dream come true.
The only problem is that "free healthcare" isn't, as I've already said, "free." Somebody pays for it, even if the recipient doesn't.
Post a Comment