Rational rebuttal on rationing argument

Terrance Heath, writing on Ourfuture.org (the Campaign for America’s Future site), explains why the healthcare reform path we are taking represents “a particularly worrisome turn.”

Suddenly we’re in a place where passing something kind of like reform may be more important than getting to reform itself. In the name of “compromise” and in interest of getting something passed, we could get a health reform bill that helps fewer people than originally intended, and preserve more of the status quo than almost anyone wants.

And the status quo is something that can no longer be sustained. The issue here is our own misplaced expectations. Arguments against the public option — let alone a single-payer plan — always focus on the notion of rationing and choice. The assumption is that a public insurance plan will place medical decisions in the hands of a government bureaucrat. The American public, it is argued, would never stand for that.

The reality is that we already allow bureaucrats to make those decisions — but instead of being guided by what is best for the patient or the public, those decisions are made with profit in mind. Hence, we end up with a system designed to deny care.

We all know someone who has been in this boat, whose insurance company has denied coverage for what he or she thought was a necessary treatment. And yet, our health care premiums go up and up and up. If this is not rationing, then I don’t know what is.

We need to be honest. To get universal coverage, we are going to have to pay more in taxes and we are going to have to ration care. In exchange, we — or our employers — would no longer have to pay premiums to insurance companies. To me, that seems a fair tradeoff.

Unknown's avatar

Author: hankkalet

Hank Kalet is a poet and freelance journalist. He is the economic needs reporter for NJ Spotlight, teaches journalism at Rutgers University and writing at Middlesex County College and Brookdale Community College. He writes a semi-monthly column for the Progressive Populist. He is a lifelong fan of the New York Mets and New York Knicks, drinks too much coffee and attends as many Bruce Springsteen concerts as his meager finances will allow. He lives in South Brunswick with his wife Annie.

One thought on “Rational rebuttal on rationing argument”

  1. Medicare for all is the way to go but it's not happening. Obama needs to channel FDR or LBJ not Calvin Coolidge.The GOP plan is clear: obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, delay, delay, delay so that nothing worthwhile gets accomplished and that was does get enacted takes as long as possible. It might just work, that is crippling governmental effectiveness. And Obama wants bipartisanship with these thugs?

Leave a reply to Anonymous Cancel reply