Rationing Health Care - it's a lie!

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's a lie most of the time. It sounds right using the term, rationing health care, so most people just accept that terminology is correct without thinking. But it isn't correct at all and it harms a debate when one side frames the issue falsely.


If I cannot afford all the health care that is available, that is not rationing. That would be choosing what I can and cannot afford.

If there is a shortage of flu vaccine and the government controls who gets a dose, that is rationing.

Do you see the difference?


The NHS does not ration health care, the UK public chooses what it is willing to purchase making that decision through their vote, presumably.

In order to ration something you have to own it and be giving or selling it to someone else. But the public owns their own health care in the UK. One individual may not appreciate being at the mercy of the buying pool when it comes to a decision being made about what the pool is going to purchase, but this is an order of magnitude different from the definition of rationing.


This came up in another thread but was off topic so I decided to address it here in a new thread.

 

[kellyb]

According to the Supreme Court of the United States, the very purpose of an HMO is to ration healthcare.

If I cannot afford all the health care that is available, that is not rationing. That would be choosing what I can and cannot afford.

Well, "we" can't afford for everyone to live as long as possible. NICE has to make decisions about who lives longer, and who dies sooner.
That IS rationing.

 

[corplinx]

I read the other thread, frankly I find this hair splitting discussion silly. Vernacular versus Hypothetical versus yadda yadda yadda.

Instead of rejecting the use of the term rationing, just make your stand about other ways people are denied care now.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

According to the Supreme Court of the United States, the very purpose of an HMO is to ration healthcare.



Well, "we" can't afford for everyone to live as long as possible. NICE has to make decisions about who lives longer, and who dies sooner.
That IS rationing.

Only according to a legal expert who is not a health care expert. Health Maintenance.... that is what the HM stands for. They are not HROs. The fact the person writing the legal opinion you cited made that claim does not make it factual.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I read the other thread, frankly I find this hair splitting discussion silly. Vernacular versus Hypothetical versus yadda yadda yadda.

Instead of rejecting the use of the term rationing, just make your stand about other ways people are denied care now.

You would, you want to use the distorted framing as it suits your needs.

 

[corplinx]

You would, you want to use the distorted framing as it suits your needs.

Under the current health care proposals, I would keep my nice health plan, I wouldn't pay more taxes, and my deadbeat brother would finally be able to get insurance and the meds he needs.

Tell me more about "my needs".

 

[GreyICE]

Rationing, efficient distribution, sensible measures, who cares? If $10 could save a human life we would. $10,000 - pretty obvious. $10 million? $10 billion? $10 trillion? The line is drawn somewhere. Screamingly obvious. Current system does exactly that, so will new system. Consult about end to system when unlimited energy achieved. Until then, debate is semantic.

 

[kellyb]

Only according to a legal expert who is not a health care expert..

Why and how is a medical person better at defining the meaning of the term "rationing" than a member of the Supreme Court of the US?
And can you paraphrase for me what that trial was over?

The fact the person writing the legal opinion you cited made that claim does not make it factual.

Look at the definition of "ration"...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rations

Main Entry: 1ra·tion
Pronunciation: \ˈra-shən, ˈrā-\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from Latin ration-, ratio computation, reason
Date: circa 1711
1 a: a food allowance for one day bplural : food, provisions
2: a share especially as determined by supply

That's exactly what we're dealing with in healthcare and the money it takes to keep us 'healthcared' for.
The monetary supply is limited, and the healthcare output costs must be, also.

Insurance companies ration in diabolical ways.
UHC governments are eternally striving towards fair, logical, efficient rationing.

I know you're not a fan of Republican buzzwords, but this is a case where UHC "wins", slam dunk, hands down, so we should not fear discussions about limited resources.

Open, transparent, appeal-able rationing is FAR FAR more kind than insurance company rationing.

 

[boloboffin]

Take the profit motive out of rationing.

Hmm.

 

[kellyb]

Take the profit motive out of rationing.

Hmm.

Srsly.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Under the current health care proposals, I would keep my nice health plan, I wouldn't pay more taxes, and my deadbeat brother would finally be able to get insurance and the meds he needs.

Tell me more about "my needs".

Your needs are anything to badmouth the Democrats. Are you claiming you are for national health insurance?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Rationing, efficient distribution, sensible measures, who cares? If $10 could save a human life we would. $10,000 - pretty obvious. $10 million? $10 billion? $10 trillion? The line is drawn somewhere. Screamingly obvious. Current system does exactly that, so will new system. Consult about end to system when unlimited energy achieved. Until then, debate is semantic.

But see, that's my point. If you buy an inexpensive car because you cannot afford an expensive one, do you call that rationing cars?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why and how is a medical person better at defining the meaning of the term "rationing" than a member of the Supreme Court of the US?
And can you paraphrase for me what that trial was over?

For the same reason the legislature here called body fluids which transmit viruses carried in blood, "blood and OPIM (other potentially infectious materials)". The problem is all body fluids are OPIM and the law was only referring to some OPIM. They were OSHA lawmakers with industrial hygiene backgrounds instead of lawmakers with medical backgrounds who understood infectious disease principles. It's pretty common really when two agencies cross.

Like I said, they are HMOs not HROs. Why do you think something called a maintenance organization is really a rationing organization? And how would that differ from a regular health insurer anyway?

Look at the definition of "ration"...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rations



That's exactly what we're dealing with in healthcare and the money it takes to keep us 'healthcared' for.
The monetary supply is limited, and the healthcare output costs must be, also.

Insurance companies ration in diabolical ways.
UHC governments are eternally striving towards fair, logical, efficient rationing.

I know you're not a fan of Republican buzzwords, but this is a case where UHC "wins", slam dunk, hands down, so we should not fear discussions about limited resources.

Open, transparent, appeal-able rationing is FAR FAR more kind than insurance company rationing.

You keep not addressing my argument and instead just repeat your declaration a choice to purchase less health care is rationing while a choice to purchase a smaller car is not.

 

[Dancing David]

I read the other thread, frankly I find this hair splitting discussion silly. Vernacular versus Hypothetical versus yadda yadda yadda.

Instead of rejecting the use of the term rationing, just make your stand about other ways people are denied care now.

Like me?

I get my depression treated (I take my medicine every day, I even tried weaning), I treat my high blood pressure (I take my medicine every day, BP is rock steady), I treat my sleep apnea (I use my CPAP everytime I sleep).

I can not get private health insurance, period. I can get a group policty through my employer.

It is the profit motive, which is good thing in many areas of the economy.

 

[The Painter]

It's a lie most of the time.

What does this mean??? I guess that means some of the time it is true. So health care is rationed, some of the time.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What does this mean??? I guess that means some of the time it is true. So health care is rationed, some of the time.

Yes, it is rationed some of the time. I pointed that out in the OP.

If there is not enough flu vaccine to go around, and the government then decides who gets it and who doesn't, that is rationing health care.

But choosing to buy less care is not rationing and that is what the majority of care is that people are calling rationing.

 

[The Painter]

Yes, it is rationed some of the time. I pointed that out in the OP.

So health care IS rationed. It is not a lie. You just said so. As long as it is rationed some of the time, it is not a lie.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So health care IS rationed. It is not a lie. You just said so. As long as it is rationed some of the time, it is not a lie.

There isn't room on the title line for a full explanation. That's what OPs are for.

 

[The Painter]

I know what OP's are for. Your title is a lie, all of the time, not just some of the time.

 

[gtc]

If there is not enough flu vaccine to go around, and the government then decides who gets it and who doesn't, that is rationing health care.

In Australia, there are not enough surgeons to ensure that everyone has immediate access to a surgeon. The government decides who gets access to surgeons and puts those who can't get immediate access to a surgeon on a waiting list.

I can't see how my example is substantially different to your example.

And before you attack me - I think America would do well to copy our scheme. Those who don't want to wait as long can pay for private health insurance or pay per visit.