A dog's life

The health insurance reform bill (at least part 1) is on its way to Obama. It's opponents have let it slip that one source of their anger is racism. Twelve states (so far) have piled on to a challenge of the new law, saying it is unconstitutional because it forces citizens to buy a product. And several commentators are listing the top ten benefits of the reform that take effect now (many others don't happen until 2014).

Karen Oberthaler is a veterinarian who specializes in cancer. Last week she contributed the My Turn column in Newsweek. Yes, people spend money to treat cancer in their pets. She has some observations of how her business differs from health care for humans.

* Most people (about 85%) have health care insurance. Very few (about 3%) of pets do. Having to handle the cash makes a big difference in how much gets spent.

* In both businesses most of the money is spent on the old -- the last couple years of life.

* It is difficult for the rest of the family to come to terms with losing a beloved member of the family, whether human or animal. There is a desire to prolong the life. Even so, euthanasia for pets is seen as a mercy, but is seen as a moral violation when applied to humans.

* The family response to a dying human is to do every test, provide every treatment that offers the slimmest hope. Insurance companies heap on additional tests and treatments (despite discomfort) to ward off malpractice suits.

* The vet has the time and the desire to avoid running up her client's bills and so can say, "This treatment won't help much. The results of that test won't change the outcome."

Being treated like a dog may not be so bad.