One future for medical care in America
By FrankNatoli Posted in Policy — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The European Union High Court has decided that patients in the early stages of Alzheimer's disease are not "cost effective" beneficiaries of relevant medication, e.g., Aricept, see the London Daily Telegraph at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JQM4O44UAB14PQFIQM.... As an individual with both parents having Alzheimer's, one of whom was treated in its early stages with Aricept, one of whom was not, the difference between the two is shocking. That experience is, of course, anecdotal, but I suspect typical.
What is unfolding in Europe is the future for medical care in America if the American electorate chooses to be governed by Democrats in 2008. In such an event, the likelihood is 100% that (1) government, not individuals, will decide who gets what, and (2) medical care will be rationed, and the largest group who will be hurt the worst will be the elderly.
The ruthless unconscionable analysis of the elderly is as follows: they're old. They've had their run. They don't positively contribute. They don't pay much in taxes. They're a terrific drain on tax revenues in every conceivable way. All the tax revenues spent on them could be better spent on younger people.
The above should make an intelligent elderly voter think twice about supporting Democrats. But as a group, it doesn't. One of Rush Limbaugh's better moments of political analysis was suggesting that Pennsylvania's shift from red to blue was not caused by the usual suspects: unions and rusting industry. Rather, Limbaugh suggested, it was caused by a significant ageing of the Pennsylvania population, with a consequent shift to a voting pattern consistent with demanding necessities from other taxpayers, which is best satisfied by Democrats.
The promise, and the fulfillment, are two different things. And it's unfolding right before their eyes in Europe.