This week, the promise of major change in the U.S. health care system has galvanized those who want it, and those who don't, in Washington. There's plenty to watch in the political fray, but perhaps more useful to contemplate is what exactly would change, under the legislation now in play.
One concern raised by critics of President Obama's
push for change is that by leveling the playing field in some ways, Americans may be confronted with limitations on what they might have access to, in certain medical scenarios. Rationing is the word critics use, and reaction to rationing is rarely warm.
In the current U.S. system of health care, there seem to be no limitations – certainly none imposed by government – in a free market with a vast range of options, from costly treatments available to the rich to emergency room care, the only place some people get help.
In the UK, by contrast, a board called the National Institute for Clinical Effectiveness is charged with evaluating the relative worth of certain courses of treatment and determining whether they merit government funding. You may be able to seek the treatment, but it may not be covered. Is that rationing?
Writing in
The New York Times over the weekend, a professor of bioethics at Princeton University, Peter Singer, says the way we regard American health care seems to rest on the assumption, "...that it's immoral to apply monetary considerations to saving lives – but is that stance tenable?"
Have you ever lived in a place like Canada or the UK, where health care is dispensed and available according to a system of research, which applies controls based on effectiveness? Share your story here. And join us Friday evening at 7:30 for "
Colorado State of Mind," when we'll talk to a panel of local experts about the latest in this policy revolution.
-Cynthia Hessin, Rocky Mountain PBS
Check out
rmpbs.org/health for real-life health care stories, blogs and resources.
Watch Colorado State of Mind
Complete episodes online.
Watch now.
