Cornell Insider Staff
Oliver Renick
Joe Bonica
Lucia Rafanelli
Hannah MacLean
Peter Bouris
lukepolicastro
zjw5
Anthony
Brendan Patrick Devine
Sam Pell
kmccaffrey
Greg Stein
Michael Alan
nkantro
Alfonse Muglia
Cornell_Karim
R. Patrick McCaffrey
dillonhickman
Jonathan Jaffe
Roberto Matos
Kushagra Aniket
L.R. Conrad
Roshni Mehta
Drug me up, Scotty!
Posted by Oliver Renick on June 5, 2009
Engineering classes give insight to policy; the ‘fairness’ hypocrisy in health care
I came across an interesting article in the Washington Post recently that got me thinking about health care. The ironic thing about it is that the subject of the article was a comparison between our own and Britain’s heath care policies, and the UK’s NICE institution, a subject I am familiar with from an engineering class I took last semester. Here’s an article I wrote discussing the UK’s current health care policies, how they differ from those in the US, and how the concept of unfairness in the US’s system translates into a type of discrimination in universal health care. Here’s an excerpt:
The most commonly heard complaint by critics of our current system is that health coverage is often unavailable to the less wealthy and economically disadvantaged people. Without appropriate funds, the poor are unable to afford proper health services because their insurance plan does not provide enough coverage for certain procedures. Critics often hail this as unfair, as everybody should have equal opportunity to receive health care. But, now there is the British counterpart, where availability is determined by the age of the patient, the possible effectiveness of the procedure, and the longevity of the patient, post-operation. Which is more ‘fair,’ the poor man whose insurance corporation does not cover the operation, or the aging man who cannot receive effective cancer treatment because he is going to die shortly of old age, anyway? Difficult to say.
Essentially both ‘unfair’ decisions are made by an institution, whether a private insurance company or a government-funded NICE. To see if one fairness outweighs the other, let’s say that, curtly put, each person has made a mistake. The old man looking for cancer treatment? He aged, and became, essentially, worthless. The poor man? He was either born into poverty and failed to rise out, or has been unable to keep himself afloat, even on our country’s capitalist economy. It seems obvious that while of course, there are always inevitable difficulties and complexities, the man in poverty played more of a role in landing himself in the current position than the elderly patient. Of course, it is essential that Americans remain empathetic to the plight of those less well-off and benevolent and determined to bring those up from lower economic status. It is not, however, responsible to bring entitlement to some while discounting the situation of others.
Mohib Tora said
the man in poverty played more of a role in landing himself in the current position than the elderly patient.
eh… technically yes but you’re really being too broad in saying that. Misfortune can befall anyone.
it is essential that Americans remain empathetic to the plight of those less well-off and benevolent and determined to bring those up from lower economic status. It is not, however, responsible to bring entitlement to some while discounting the situation of others.
So given the essential empathy, what do you do if not give an “entitlement” to help those “less well-off” ? What good is the empathy?
Oliver Renick said
Thanks for the comment, Mohib.
I guess you could say you pretty much answer your question in your first statement. The reason for the empathy is because, just as you point out, misfortune can indeed befall anyone, and it often does so unexpectedly. Remaining empathetic and striving to bring up those who are down is still important because the situation could at any moment be reversed. The choice of being monetarily benevolent and exceedingly generous must remain the option of the individual, not the state.
Yes, my first statement is broad; is intended to be. Even if only .01% of the poor are to blame themselves, the percentage of people playing a role in the alternative system mentioned is always 0%. While undoubtedly people will ‘get the short end of the stick’ with such policies, it is still an exceedingly better option than collectivist ones.
The purpose of the article is to highlight the hypocritical tendencies of the latter policies.
Monday Reading Madness #3 « Cornell Insider said
[...] commenting? Oliver Renick on Drug me up, Scotty!Mohib Tora on Drug me up, Scotty!The Joe Bonica Exper… on New York Attorney [...]