The US debate over health care reform has been argued amongst Democrats and Republicans for over 75 years.  In a recent NYTimes Magazine article, Peter Signer,  argues why we must ration health care.  Rationing has always been a negative term in health-reform debates, typically used by those who oppose a larger government role. 

Singer argues that public insurance plans, such as Medicare, can’t afford to pay limitless prices for treatments likely to extend life by a few months.  If a treatment extends a cancer patient’s life by an average of six months, is it worth $100,000?  Is it worth $1 million?

Anyone who wants to pay for such a treatment out of their own pocket, should be allowed to do so, Singer argues.  But there simply isn’t enough money to pay for all treatments for everyone covered by existing public insurance programs such as Medicare, much less for an expanded public program.

How do we value human life?  Should public insurance programs such as Medicare put a limit on what they’re willing to spend?  If not, where should the government get the additional funding to support rising costs?