Forget your opinions on Obamacare for a moment, and forget that for a couple years one of the biggest concerns was that Obamacare called for rationing of life based on economic needs, i.e. death panels. True or not, I think we all agreed that such rationing was not a worthy aspiration.
In the summer of 2012, when Obamacare was threatened by a presidential election, writer Jonathan Alter argued that “repeal equals death. People will die in the United States if Obamacare is repealed.” Columnist Jonathan Chait wrote recently that those who may die are victims of ideology — “collateral damage” incurred in conservatives’ pursuit “of a larger goal.” If these are the stakes, many liberals argue, then ending Obamacare is immoral.
Except, it’s not.
In a world of scarce resources, a slightly higher mortality rate is an acceptable price to pay for certain goals — including more cash for other programs, such as those that help the poor; less government coercion and more individual liberty; more health-care choice for consumers, allowing them to find plans that better fit their needs; more money for taxpayers to spend themselves; and less federal health-care spending. This opinion is not immoral. Such choices are inevitable.
Michael Strain of the American Enterprise Institute argues that in a world of limited resources, it is “inevitable” that a higher mortality rate is acceptable for certain goals. I suppose this is life imitating art.
Inevitable is a near future thriller in which the US Government has done just that: rationed life. Why? For a better quality of life. Water is the ultimate resource we need, and as Mr. Strain identified that is a limited resource. At some point, if the resource isn’t conserved, maybe Michael Strain’s – and Inevitable’s – predictions are nothing but true.