Another Argument Against Government Sponsored Healthcare

Here is what happens when a fully matured version of Hillarycare is allowed to evolve ensuring that the government is responsible to pay for everyone's treatment. When the government controls medicine, treatment priorities emerge, funding shortages arrive, and rationing is inevitable. Traditional rationing as experienced in Canada or the UK are bad enough; look at the collective dental condition of the British. Atrocious. But when rationing is mixed with secular humanism and liberal eugenic ideals, involuntary euthanasia of infants will eventually come into the picture. Government policy in all of its manifestations is a game of incentives, and people will adjust their behaviors good or bad in accordance with the policy landscape in which they live. That is what makes slippery slopes so slick.

UPDATE: Let me lay out a scenario that incorporates this scary confluence of government healthcare, and third party euthanasia committees. An unfortunate child is born in Holland with a serious heart defect that may or may not be correctable, but is certainly fatal if left unresolved. The Death Squad (my affectionate term) meets to consider the case of this deformed child with the goal to determine its candidacy for treatment or extinction.

Initially, the Death Squad must consider the seriousness of the deformity, the prognosis if treated, and ostensibly they are going to make some kind of judgement as to the child's quality of life as well. Liberals love to do that. So having addressed those preliminary issues, they now take into account the fact that they are living in a nation with total government monopoly on healthcare, and that they are themselves government employees. They are certainly well aware of the limitations on the delivery of healthcare in Holland and the effect of rationing on the general public, in fact they are acutely aware of this.

Taking these facts into account the Death Squad now decides whether this quite unfortunate child ought to be allowed to expend precious and finite medical resources. The Death Squad cannot be sure that some other less unfortunate child might come along at any time with a better prognosis, and that child's care could be adversely affected if both children are in the same hospital together. Since this most unfortunate child hasn't much of a shot at a quality life, and since, well, the budget is tighter than usual this year, we had better just euthanize this child. It's nothing personal mind you, it's just the way things worked out. Very unfortunate.

Also unfortunate is the liklihood that as medical gatekeepers (and heaven's gatekeepers for that matter) the Death Squad is under some amount of pressure to take the "economic" issues into account with respect to their decision. Which is the sensible thing to do afterall, deficits and whatnot. Never forgetting but not quite remembering that theirs is a very secular nation, and that they are in a very secular position as doctors, these decisions aren't quite as agonizing as they might be, which is helpful ... for them.