The Politics of My Prostate

Kids, in recent weeks I've been trying to get my health care on and learn a little more about just how crazy things really are here in the good old US of A. I'll admit, I've got some deep seated philosophical reservations about the idea of the government messing in health care, but I don't have much insight into the health care side of the equation- which is why some of the discussions the Missus and I have been having (she's in nursing school now and taking a class called Nursing and Society where they're learning about this stuff) have been so insightful.

Now the Great Guru Instapundit and the New York Times have thrown this article into the mix and it's got some interesting thoughts churning around in my head. Basically, the US Preventative Services Task Force is reccomending against regular testing for prostate cancer, citing medical evidence that the test isn't all that effective and can lead to potentially unecessary surgeries that do more harm than good overall. There's evidence out there that suggests otherwise as well, all of which presages a possible controvery over the reccomendation. When faced with a similar reccomendation against regular mammograms for women in their 40s from the same panel, the government was faced with a similar controversy and after outcry from women's groups and other pressure groups backed off following what the same panel deemed to be a medically necessary decision.

All of which raises an interesting question about government run healthcare- especially in the United States today. How do you ensure that a government run system is making medically sound choices and policy? Is it possible to insulate government policy makers from lobbying and special interests enough for them to do this? And if not, then how do we all feel about turning every aspect of our health care into an entirely new lobbying industry to feed the Washington D.C. insanity? Because looking at this article, it seems to say that potentially every aspect and everything the government could choose to cover or not to cover would be subjected to pressure from industry and other lobbying groups. How does that not end badly for any number of people? (Not least of which are the taxpayers who would undoubtedly pay it all.)

Like education, there are no easy answers for health care...