Unlimited health care

Sen McCain’s unfortunate illness raises an interesting ethical question that some countries have addressed, but not the US. It’s a question that should be considered by proponents of a single-payer system. 

Given the prognosis and that only 10% of victims survive five years, should there be limits on what is spent on such care? 

Certainly those directly affected will have one point of view, which many people will share, but what about a bureaucracy charged with managing costs? Should a single-payer system provide unlimited care in all situations; can it? 

Here many people will scream death panel, but at the same time we want lower costs and affordable health care for all. Do we really want no limits?

Is America ready to actually manage health care costs the way other countries do?


  1. If we can ever get people to stop running to the doctor for every ache and pain and runny nose for them and their kids, because health care for many is “FREE”, or so low cost, paid for buy the employer or government, we may be able to control costs. I believe higher co-pays, even for people on Medicaid may help.
    When we go to single payer health care, the long wait times for appointments might help people understand you do not need to see a doctor at the drop of a hat, just because you have insurance.
    I am 61 and I go to the doctor every five years for a physical. My blood panel numbers have been within the normal range since age 35.
    We cannot and should not spend thousands of dollars of other peoples money keeping people alive.
    People die every day, what happened 100 years ago? When grandpa got sick he died.
    Now if a rich person wants to spend their own money, I do not have a problem with that.
    But, for me with very little assets and $34,000 per year income in retirement, I do not expect the government or any one else to spend thousands of dollars on my health care.


  2. Mr. Q, your question is ultimately the most important one. Politicians will not allow the word to cross their lips, Rationing. Economic’s first principle I’ve heard, is the idea of sca rcity. There is not enough wealth to provide life extending, let alone lifestyle extending, health care to every American regardless of age and condition.


  3. I think in this day and age of twisted opinions, facts, and fake news that you’ll never be able to come to a consensus on this issue. As I stated in an earlier post, morally how do not spend $1 million for a baby in NICU, why are we spending money on heart valve replacements at 85?

    Here is why this issue will never get solved.

    In the 1980’s AIDS was a death sentence. Now there are people who have live 20+ years with AIDS. I had a co-work in the 1980’s who had a double lung transplant and nobody had ever lived more than 5 years. He is still alive. Buying an extra 5 years might give enough time to find that one drug or cure to solve the condition. With the twisting of the facts and fake news and the moral cry that healthcare should not be only for the rich, no one will be able to do an effective cost analyst.

    The end will come only when we run out of money and then when the poor people start losing other day-to-day benefits will they make a choice. The sad part is many already have chosen to survive day-to-day instead of getting healthcare insurance which they may never use for years. When the doctors no longer get paid or the people get taxed to death, only then will change come.


Leave a Reply to JRATT1956 Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s