By Robert Field
It has been well publicized although largely ignored that the USA spends 18% of its Gross National Income for health care where the very popular British national healthcare system spends 9% and the world’s leader for health care, and second most expensive, France spends 11%.
Reform such as ‘Medicare for everyone’ is the most important step to bringing this nation’s health care cost into line and free up perhaps 7% of GNP for investment in the economy and conceivably some tax relief.
But another issue is how much should be expended on the elderly to deal with late in life issues and, especially, terminal illness.
It is amazing that for a country in which just about everybody says they believe in God and the hereafter that death is so feared and abhorred and, in the minds of most people, should be avoided at any cost. But that is a subject for others to report upon.
But the issue of rationing health care for the elderly can and should be reflected upon. And here is a personal example.
At 77, it became increasing apparent to me that my vision was becoming blurred, especially impairing my night vision and causing oncoming headlights to glare. The problem was especially noticeable in my right eye which previously had been marginally better than the left. A recent cataract operation corrected the right eye and a tentative appointment was set for an operation on the left eye.
But to what point should society spend say $10,000 to improve vision for a reasonably good eye when together my eyesight is adequately restored?
Even though covered by Medicare and supplementary private coverage, the cost for the second operation will ultimately be reflected in the cost of everyone’s health care insurance. Isn’t it better that that the $10,000 goes towards preventive or restorative medicine for younger people?
I recently witnessed the expenditures over a course of a year of a several hundreds of thousands dollars in operations and treatments for an elderly relative that might well have been withheld so that the lady could pass on under hospice care in peace. But family members wanted to demonstrate their love and optimism and physicians and other in the health care industry were very willing to take the money.
Given my advanced age and so long as my corrected overall vision is adequate, it need not be further improved. At such time again that I consider it inadequate for driving safety or other purposes, I will have the second cataract operation.
But it is not realistic for this decision to be left up to altruism. There should be criteria that would have advised me that surgery on my left eye was not essential and, if I wanted it done, it would be at my own expense, not Medicare, not the insurance company.
The same applies to other medical issues for the elderly and especially end-of-life treatment. At a certain age, we should not act like health care pigs as we prepare to exit.
