Criticism of the government isn’t always the kind you want

Via Instapundit, via Dan Riehl, “National Poll Finds Seniors, Women and Americans from Across the Political Spectrum Reject FDA’s Consideration of Cost in Drug Approval Process.”

Riehl offers several key quotes.  Here’s one: “Let this poll be a warning to politicians, voters reject rationing; period, and the recent case of the FDA determining a breast cancer  drug is too expensive, is just the tip of the rationing iceberg. Politicians who put a price on life will absolutely pay a price at the polls.”
Here’s another: “82% [of registered voters] believe that cost-effectiveness is NOT a justification for rationing, agreeing with the statement, ‘As a matter of principle, the government should not ration care or deny treatment options based on what it calls “cost-effectiveness.” I don’t trust the government to put a cost on human life.’”

Riehl seems to take the piece as a criticism of Obamacare and of centralized decision making in general.  Reynolds tacitly agrees, in his usual loquacious way.  I don’t think they’re entirely unjustified (read the whole thing), but they may be suffering from rose-colored-glasses syndrome.  Are those seniors objecting to government intervention into health care choices, or to potential reductions in government-provided benefits?  I think it may be the latter.

Let’s not just see what we want to see.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s