Thursday, June 01, 2006

Should Michael Pay (1)

A new drug for fighting breast cancer has been released, but it costs $60,000 to treat one person. Health lobby groups are pressing for it to be funded by the government.

That raises an interesting question. If your wife has cancer, would you spend a large chunk of your life savings on her care? Many people would say yes, but others would find it hard.

Many more would say that the government should pay for it.

The problem is that when people say that the government should pay for something, they are actually saying that other people should pay for it. But why should they? If you are not willing to spend $60,000 on your wife's health, why should other people be willing?

Some would say that the government should pay for those who do not have the money. But if they are unwilling to save $60,000 for a health crisis, why should other people pay for it.

No comments: