Rational rationing?

14 Responses to Rational rationing?

1. Floyd the Barber says:

   August 19, 2009 at 3:47 pm

   For an admission by the “progressives” themselves that the Democrats’ plan is intended as a Trojan horse for “a government takeover of the entire health system,” see here
2. Mark in Spokane says:

   August 19, 2009 at 6:06 pm

   If the Democrats’ health care proposals go through, there will eventually be no private health care system. At that point, rationing by the government system would become a real vehicle for “cost cutting.” This is what is fueling the whole “death panel” concern, I think. Once the government runs the show, there won’t be any options for treatment other than what the government will let you have. You may have the money to pay for private treatment, but it simply won’t be available here in the U.S. One will have to go overseas to get it. At least that’s the fear, I think. And it isn’t an unreasonable one, in my opinion.
3. Kevin Lawrence says:

   August 19, 2009 at 7:22 pm

   Heather,

   Your commenters have lost their minds.
4. Polichinello says:

   August 19, 2009 at 8:30 pm

   As long as individuals remain free to exit government-subsidized health care or to pay for more treatment than the government will cover, I not only don’t find it offensive for the government to set a limit on the procedures it will reimburse, I darn well hope it does.

   Yes, but that would mean the government option has no raison d’etre. Private insurers already do this. If they’re worried about the uninsured, then add them to Medicaid.
5. Arvin says:

   August 20, 2009 at 8:53 am

   Why is it every time someone hints on the public option being morphed into the universal health care and ultimately eliminating the private sector, the explanation merely stops at some anecdotal philosophical tenet? Does anyone know how to argue his/her point systematically by referencing the bill and expounding the eventuality of such doomsday scenario?
6. Prof Frink says:

   August 20, 2009 at 12:34 pm

   Why is it every time someone hints on the public option being morphed into the universal health care and ultimately eliminating the private sector, the explanation merely stops at some anecdotal philosophical tenet?

   Not sure what an anecdotal philosophical tenet is, but the truth should be self-evident. How can a private insurance company compete against government issurance? They make the laws and have the backing of the federal reserve.

   Further, a blog is not the correct medium for the arguments you’re looking for.
7. sg says:

   August 20, 2009 at 4:11 pm

   In Arizona, a ballot initiative that would create a law specifically guaranteeing a patient’s right to pay for his own treatment failed recently, by a margin of 0.5%

   http://www.azhealthcarefreedomact.com/arizona-strategy/arizona-history

   “Arizona Proposition 101: The Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act was on the ballot in November 2008.

   Proposition 101 protected two rights: the right to opt out of a government-sanctioned health care system and the right to spend your own money on lawful medical services.

   Neither threatened the safety net health care system in the state.

   The concept was brand new and a committed effort got it on the ballot.

   Once on the ballot, former Governor Napolitano engaged in a 24/7 radio campaign against it. More than 1.8 million pieces of direct mail with blatant lies were sent out in 5 weeks. The state Medicaid department was directed to circulate memos implying that the Medicaid system would be decimated, and vendors to the Medicaid system were pushed to fund an opposition — eventually outspending us 5 to 1.

   Despite all this, and with extremely limited funds to get our message out to early voters, Proposition 101 lost by less than 0.5%, or just over 8000 votes out of 2.1 million cast.”

   Why would any group spend even $1 to keep people from being allowed to pay for their own treatment?
8. Mark in Spokane says:

   August 20, 2009 at 4:36 pm

   And who will enforce Obamacare? Why, our friendly, compassionate, caring, reasonable Internal Revenue Service: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/08/irs_to_be_obamacare_enforcer.html.

   Yeah, its just crazy-talk to be worried about “health care reform.” Nothing to see here. Just a bunch of crazies and birthers and health insurance industry flacks. We are in the best of hands and should just trust the government…
9. John says:

   August 20, 2009 at 7:06 pm

   Under Hillary Clinton’s 1993 health care plan, it would have been a crime to pay for private insurance. So, if you were dying, and the government was unwilling to pay for your treatment, it would have been illegal to get treated. For some on the left, equality is more important than life itself.
10. Louis Andrews says:

    August 21, 2009 at 8:28 am

    Heather’s last sentence tells the tale. She is right on about rationing. Irrational people will oppose rationing, rational people will understand that it is necessary and fair.
11. Chris says:

    August 21, 2009 at 1:06 pm

    But perhaps the conservative critics mean to argue that the ultimate endpoint of the Democrats’ reform plans will be a government takeover of the entire health system

    No, of course not. If they argued that they’d have to present evidence and logic and all those things authoritarians are terrible at and don’t really like anyway. And the conclusion is wrong, so it would be hard to find a good argument to reach it.

    What they want to do is insinuate it without saying it right out, so that they can indignantly claim they never said that, while at the same time profiting from the fear that the insinuation creates.

    Anyone rationally concerned about government should rapidly become aware that there’s a much larger number of people *irrationally* concerned (i.e. fearful) about government, and some people making a lot of profit off that fear. But it’s politically expedient to let the fearmongers be as long as the fearful are stampeding in the direction you want to go…
12. sg says:

    August 21, 2009 at 5:58 pm

    Will private insurance become THE biggest perk? Would you rather take $100k to get a position with private insurance, or $110k and be on the gov’t plan?
13. Rich Rostrom says:

    August 22, 2009 at 1:39 am

    Obama himself stated that he wanted a single-payer system, and many important Democrats and liberals say that they support the “public option” as a step toward single-payer.

    When Canada established its single-payer system, they also prohibited private purchase of medical care. This rule was recently struck down by a court in Quebec, but is still in force in the rest of the country.

    Both Canada and Britain hold down costs by limiting access to care.

    The worries about “death panels” may be phrased in hyperbole, but there is basis for concern. There are people who are influential in the redesign of the health care system (such as Rahm Emanuel’s brother Ari) who have been fairly frank about cost saving at the expense of the elderly and potentially terminally ill patients.

    Under the current bill, there are to be financial incentives for doctors to expose their patients to “living will” counseling and “end of life” planning, and this clause further rewards doctors whose patients follow through.

    The Netherlands enacted an assisted-suicide statute some years ago. Within a few years, physician-assisted suicide became a major cause of death. The Dutch have gone further: doctors can “prescribe” euthanasia a/k/a suicide. Since then, euthanasia has gone from forbidden to tolerated to encouraged to imposed – physicians now have authority to euthanize without consent of the victim or family.
14. Peter Sattler says:

    August 22, 2009 at 8:57 am

    @John

    A crime, under the Clinton Plan, to buy extra insurtance or to pay out-of-pocket?

    Perhaps there were threats of this kind deep in the Clinton plan — I am no expert — but (as many have shown) the bill did contain the following direct provision early on:

    Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting the following: (1) An individual from purchasing any health care services….

    The bill also explicitly allowed people to buy supplemental insurance, although insurance companies would have been forced to make it available to all buyers (driving up prices).

    With these facts in place, the “criminality” charge seems intellectually DOA — although rhetorically, it’s still kicking.

    One can argue that the Clinton Plan would have driven out private supplemental insurance because government regulations would have been rendered it unprofitable/unaffordable. One can argue that the Clinton Plan would have eventually led to these terrible scenarios, as bureaucracies grew and government expanded its reach.

    But these are different arguments — ones that do not require you to misrepresent the past.

Comments are closed.