I hate Peter Singer. I don't know him personally, and I don't mean to demean him in that way. But Professor Singer was able to publish a treatise in the New York Times last Sunday. I would like the following to rebut his entire argument, in fact I hope I can re-frame the entire health care debate.
Singer (as far is I can tell) argues for rationing health care in his article, but here's what really got my goat:
Some will object that this discriminates against people with disabilities. If we return to the hypothetical assumption that a year with quadriplegia is valued at only half as much as a year without it, then a treatment that extends the lives of people without disabilities will be seen as providing twice the value of one that extends, for a similar period, the lives of quadriplegics. That clashes with the idea that all human lives are of equal value. The problem, however, does not lie with the concept of the quality-adjusted life-year, but with the judgment that, if faced with 10 years as a quadriplegic, one would prefer a shorter lifespan without a disability.
I would like Professor Singer to explain to me how the quality of my life will improve when my fiancee (with a disability) dies.
I would like Professor Singer explain to our veterans who return from active duty that, because they no longer have legs, they no longer have arms, or maybe they no longer have either, their lives are worth half as much as mine. In my view, they are worth twice as much as my life. When it comes to veterans my view is very simple: spend as much as you can to help an equal quality of life and quality care BECAUSE THEY ARE KEEPING YOU SAFE TO ALLOW YOU (read health insurance industry) TO FUCK EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US.
I don't support war, I support the sons and daughters, the mothers and fathers, who give me the right to sit in my home and write this crap. And yet our veterans get shit in terms of "care".
Which brings me to my point. Health Care v. Military.
Military related budget is about 10% of the fiscal year budget from what I was able to find in 2008. I'm not sure if this includes the Iraq war, but in a single year we spend 500 billion dollars on defense related issues. That's 5 trillion in ten years. For our defense so that everyone in this country can feel secure when they go to work, when they send their kids to school, when you go to college, when you sleep at night. That is the price of your 'security'.
I think like most Americans, my security is tied to my health. Probably, like many of you, I'm willing to take 20% from my national security and apply it to my personal security. It's really your security I care about, your health care.
As a nation, we are willing to spend so much on the military. If you question military spending you're un-American. Unfortunately, if you question how health-care for your neighbor is handled...you're un-American too.
STOP IT!
Here's my whole point: If we can spend 500 billion on our 'National security' why can't we spend a fraction of that (1/5) on our personal security?
According to Singer, because I am fully able-bodied, I get to enjoy the full benefits of our health care system (particularly, since I have no pre-exsisting conditions). However, compared to my 'National Person' my 'Personal Person' is only 1/5 human.
I suddenly feel guilty for not dying when I was 15.