According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, ration is defined as: "a share especially as determined by supply."
I understand the arguments against healthcare rationing because no one likes being told there's not enough of something to go around, especially when it comes to your life or that of your loved ones. But you have to ask yourself, don't we have healthcare rationing right now, except that it's done by the market and insurance companies? When you have to decide between better coverage and a higher premium, that's rationing. Whenever you apply for a treatment or operation and are rejected, that's rationing.
So I guess my response to all these arguments against rationing is that it doesn't matter whether it's public or private, there's still going to be rationing of healthcare--there always has been and always will be. Our time would be better spent arguing over what should be rationed and how it should be rationed.
2 comments:
"Rationing" is being used disingenuously, as if there were going to be some sort of artificially induced famine of health care. The principle is that supposedly the government will seek to tightly control the delivery of health care, thus destroying the perfectly balanced market forces that now provide it in abundance.
This market-based consumer model, in my opinion, is ridiculous. There is necessary basic health care; then there is more complex medical treatment; then there is vanity care. The first is the domain of public service; the second needs to be rationed by doctors; and only the third is a consumer product.
Hi Dave, I read your response to this post on your own blog. I think accepting that there is health care rationing helps us start working on the real issues, and you've laid out a good framework (basic, rationed, and vanity services) for dealing with that.
Post a Comment