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.