In the health care debate, “rationing” has been demonized.
Scare No. 1: Since everyone will have coverage, “government” will find it too expensive to cover everything. So they will be forced to limit or delay treatment, creating long waits for tests etc.
Scare No. 2: “Government” is going to decide how long people live. If a panel decides it doesn’t want to pay for an elder’s care, it will just let people die.
Regarding the first scare, health care now is mostly delivered based on one’s ability to pay. If insurance doesn’t cover something, the ill person or his family pays out of pocket. If the person or family goes bankrupt, can’t pay or avoids paying, “the system” picks up the tab.
“The system” ultimately is everyone else, in one form or another.
Because most of us believe all broken bodies should be fixed, even if patients are broke, we all pay for that, with some help from insurance.
It’s not “rationing,” but Medication Meaning is it rational? No!
Because “the system” can’t keep paying forever, reform is on the agenda. Reform may not eliminate all the obligations of “the system,” but, done correctly, could minimize them considerably and cut costs in general, without undue effect on good care.
The second scare is blown even further out of proportion.
One’s view of “life” colors one’s feeling about “death.” That enables fear to burn and spread like a forest fire.
But there is no greater disservice to a person than to keep him alive when there can be no quality outcome before death. Congruently, there is no greater waste of medical resources than to keep someone alive who will never “live” again, who may not even know whether he’s alive or who may not want to live any longer.
End-of-life issues sit on a slippery slope, but good laws can minimize the skid. Patients and families should have the only authority to make difficult decisions, under the strictest of guidelines, and doctors should have the flexibility to counsel them with real prognoses. Scope Of Pharmacy Doctors should never be afraid of a candid conversation and strong recommendations, and patients and families should be encouraged to plan well ahead for such decisions. It also helps for families to do their own research to make sure the doctor’s recommendations are sound.
No one but the patient and/or family should make such a decision. It could be argued that if insurance will not pay for certain end-of-life scenarios that it forces the hand of patients and families. But if a patient or family wants to buy hope, when realistically there is none, or extra time to pray for a miracle, they should do it with their own money.
If you view life strictly as a heartbeat and breaths – with or without mechanical help — think of this way: Would you rather stay alive, yet never “live” again, or be given a ticket to heaven?
Would you rather be rational, or scared to death, about rationing?