Rationing Health Care - it's a lie!

[funk de fino]

I find the two bolded statements contradictory.

That explains a lot.

 

[Rolfe]

well i do belive the moon is pretty constant in size, but that maybe just me

OK, I see I phrased that badly. Department of "you know what I mean".

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

There's a difference between seeming bigger or smaller and seeming to exist or not exist. Free and cheap are not the same thing, Rolfe, and your comparison only justifies viewing the NHS as cheap, not free.

Now you're just being ridiculous. Do I need to find an analogy where something that clearly and indisputably exists may be perceived as invisible?

Rolfe.

 

[WildCat]

I find the two bolded statements contradictory.

seems as if

thats the key

C'mon Zig, when DC is giving you English lessons you must know it's not a Martha Stewart "good thing".

 

[Francesca R]

Well, no. Perhaps you weren't here when this started, but that's not my point at all.

No it's mine. You appear to be looking for reasons why the cost of US health care is not inefficient. When prima-facie it is inefficient, and according to logic it should be expected to be. This is nothing to do with "drug costs"

 

[Ziggurat]

No it's mine. You appear to be looking for reasons why the cost of US health care is not inefficient.

And I just told you I'm not.

 

[jimbob]

Is it not OK to say (as the original poster which Ziggurat objected to did) "free to the patient"? After all, the patient doesn't pay anything, the taxpayer does. And not all patients are taxpayers, and not all taxpayers are patients.

Exactly.

It is free to the patient as a patient; many* patients are also taxpayers, and they pay as taxpayers...

Hardly rocket science. And certainly not a "transparent lie".

ETA: *A substantial minority

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.....

(This is not intended to contradict my statement that they do still ration. Both systems do)

No, they don't. They both limit what care they cover. Rationing is something different.

If you buy an insurance plan that doesn't cover flood damage, does that mean they are rationing your coverage if you have flood damage that isn't covered?

No. It means you didn't buy flood insurance!


Cheating people by dumping them from an insurance plan is also not rationing, it is fraud. In that case the insurer took their money then failed to pay when the time came to collect on the goods purchased.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just negotiating the prices down will reduce costs quite significantly.

Depends on which prices you are talking about. How about negotiating down the excessive profits of Big Pharma and Big Insurance? That's where the fat is.

 

[gtc]

No, they don't. They both limit what care they cover. Rationing is something different.

Why do they limit what they cover? Is it because they can't afford to offer every possible service?

If you buy an insurance plan that doesn't cover flood damage, does that mean they are rationing your coverage if you have flood damage that isn't covered?

In economics terms, yes, you are rationing your purchases if you can't afford both.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I was just talking to some guy in Starbucks over politics:

He said this: Where should health care funding go to more: A dieing man who needs a liver transparent, or a man who wants a sex change?

I know, its OT, but i just wanted your opinion.

Elective surgery such as sex changes are typically not covered by any insurance plan. Neither are face lifts and rarely are gastric bypasses covered even if they are medically indicated.

Try another example. How about this one: Who should the liver go to if you only have one, a young mother with pesticide induced liver failure or the 60 yr old alcoholic who has cirrhosis from alcoholism? Pretty much a non sequitur for this thread.

 

[kellyb]

No, they don't. They both limit what care they cover. Rationing is something different.

If you buy an insurance plan that doesn't cover flood damage, does that mean they are rationing your coverage if you have flood damage that isn't covered?

No. It means you didn't buy flood insurance!


Cheating people by dumping them from an insurance plan is also not rationing, it is fraud. In that case the insurer took their money then failed to pay when the time came to collect on the goods purchased.

This is a bit like the "taxation is theft" argument.
If you choose to look at it that way, ok.
The reality is that "we" are operating with limited funds. That means "we" have to decide what we can or can't be covered, and some potentially useful medicine will be cut from the budget.
Rationing. To mAYE toh/ toh MAH toh.

ETA:
But by choosing to call it "not really rationing" you're choosing to give power and influence to those who's whole gimmick is the misconception that American alone doesn't need to ration healthcare. The Obama admin and pretty much everyone here thinks it's better to blow the lid on the false claim that American healthcare isn't rationed by insurance companies presently (and imagine what it will look like when the gov does the same stuff [even if it's done in a more transparent and fair, and better way]).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why do they limit what they cover? Is it because they can't afford to offer every possible service?

No, it's because you get what you pay for.

In economics terms, yes, you are rationing your purchases if you can't afford both.

The point I am making in this thread is use of the framing of limited purchases as rationing is BS.

Rationing is when there is not enough to go around, not enough supply. There's plenty of health care to go around (with some exceptions like vaccine supplies and how many doctors per capita and so on.) The care is limited by what people can afford. If you want to call that rationing then we should be calling everything rationing that someone can't afford.

Terminology should be fair. It should be accurate. It should reflect the facts. Claiming the government would be rationing health care if they owned the insurance company is bullpucky. Saying insurance companies likewise ration health care is just as erroneous.

If the insurer is honest and they don't cover a certain medical service, that's simply defining the product one purchases from them. To call that rationing is akin to saying one is rationing homeowners' insurance because you exclude flood damage. It's not a correct description of what you have.

I know what rationing is. A couple years back I was told by public health authorities I could only give the flu vaccine I bought in the private market to people who met certain criteria. That was vaccine I purchased and OWNED until I sold it to the recipient. But due to the vaccine shortage I was ordered by law not to sell that vaccine to whomever I wanted to, but rather, I could only sell it to people the PHD designated. THAT IS AN EXAMPLE OF RATIONING.

If someone couldn't afford that flu vaccine, no one would have defined that as rationing!

Falsely framing something with political implications or even advertising or other motives is one of the ways people are unduly influenced. Calling the limiting of health care because of what an individual or a society can afford rationing, is one of those cases of misleading framing of an issue.

Skeptics: it should be important to you to want accuracy in communication, not influence by falsely framing an issue.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is a bit like the "taxation is theft" argument.
If you choose to look at it that way, ok.
The reality is that "we" are operating with limited funds. That means "we" have to decide what we can or can't cover, and some potentially useful medicine will be cut from the budget.
Rationing. To mAYE toh/ toh MAH toh.

Taxation is theft is also falsely framing an issue. It does not lead to honest debate of the validity of the tax in question.

I don't know what you mean by "To mAYE toh/ toh MAH toh".

ETA:
But by choosing to call it "not really rationing" you're choosing to give power and influence to those who's whole gimmick is the misconception that American alone doesn't need to ration healthcare. The Obama admin and pretty much everyone here thinks it's better to blow the lid on the false claim that American healthcare isn't rationed by insurance companies presently (and imagine what it will look like when the gov does the same stuff [even if it's done in a more transparent and fair, and better way]).

No, by calling something rationing instead of having a valid debate about what people can or cannot afford when it comes to health care, instead we have an emotionally charged sidetrack about those gatekeepers I noted before.

There are gatekeepers in health care. That leads to some frustration. It is a legitimate issue. This issue is not about gatekeepers. It is about how much basic health care can people afford if the health care shelf is more full of stuff for sell than the general public can possibly afford.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I know that they would object to any reduction in the tax breaks for employee-provided healthcare purchases, but why would they object to an extension of those tax breaks to non-employee health plans? It's no skin off their backs.



First off, it's not "my side". This isn't a football game. It's me, with my opinions. And secondly, actually, republicans are in fact trying to do exactly what I'm talking about:

http://republicans.waysandmeans.hou..._Solutions_Group_Outline_Health_Care_Plan.pdf

"To lower the costs of health care, the Republican plan:
•
Brings greater fairness to the tax code by extending tax savings to those who currently do not have employer-provided insurance but purchase health insurance on their own. This provision would provide an “above the line” deduction that is equal to the cost of an individual’s or family’s insurance premiums."

I read your link on the Republic's health care plan. Everyone gets a free pony.

Care to cite a link that actually says what the supposed plan is rather than all the wonderful things it supposedly does? You are claiming that if as a self employed person I should get a tad more back on my health insurance deduction magic will encompass the country. Earth to Ziggy, that deduction already exists in the tax code.

How does that make the deadbeats pay for health insurance? Currently I pay their unpaid tab when I pay my $1,000/month payment for health insurance.

How does the guy getting minimum wage afford that health insurance I can afford because I have a master's degree, a ton of experience, and an in-demand skill?

How do people get coverage when they have pre-existing conditions?


Or are you buying the koolaid that says just give people the money via our taxes to people who in turn stuff said money into the coffers of the insurance companies, because after all, we have seen how efficiently they take their cut off the top and make that health care system work so efficiently.


Of all the worst things that could come out of this health reform initiative, a windfall for the health insurance companies is the absolute worst outcome I can think of.

 

[kellyb]

No, by calling something rationing instead of having a valid debate about what people can or cannot afford when it comes to health care, instead we have an emotionally charged sidetrack about those gatekeepers I noted before.

The only "emotionally charged" anything is coming from you and you alone, skeptigirl.
In this debate, the rest of the left sees the potent argument, and the rightwing knows it can't win, so it leaves it alone.

 

[kellyb]

Oh, and...

I don't know what you mean by "To mAYE toh/ toh MAH toh".

Sound it out. It's not hard.

 

[kellyb]

Another "Oh, and"...

Rationing is when there is not enough to go around, not enough supply.

Hello? What do you think is at the core of the crisis?
You seem to be under the misconception that everything possibly useful can still be had if the corporate execs give up their gold plated cutlery, etc.
Hello, welcome to the real world, and NO.
It is, sadly, not so simple. Some USEFUL and life-sustaining will have to go for "us" to get affordable healthcare/insurance.

 

[Francesca R]

No, they don't. They both limit what care they cover. Rationing is something different.

If you buy an insurance plan that doesn't cover flood damage, does that mean they are rationing your coverage if you have flood damage that isn't covered?

No. It means you didn't buy flood insurance!

Already dealt with. See post 68 then 86 then 96. You dropped it after that. Please regard your attempts to rake up your OP from a stage that has been covered already as dismissed (not out of hand of course).

 

[jimbob]

skeptigirl,

The effect is the same as what is referred to as rationing when talking about UHC:


Private insurance-based system
If you can't afford to pay for the treatment yourself, and your insurance is maxed out, you can't get the treatment (not rationing) because if you could afford it, you could get it...

UHC:
If you can't afford to pay for the treatment yourself, and your national-supplier won't pay for it because of cost-benefit considerations, you can't get the treatment.

People commonly refer to this as rationing, even though the treatment might be available for someone with private funds to pay for it. (And I do not mean on the black market, as would be required under a system of "true rationing").


Whether you are technically correct is a different matter, but you are never going to get even a substantial minority to accept that the UHC case isn't rationing. In this situation, as almost everyone refers to the UHC situation as rationing, it is better to point out that equivalent "rationing" -maybe with quotation marks, also occurs under the private insurance-based system.