NYT Condemns Anti-Rationing Health Care Arguments: "Not Substantive"

New York Times:

More to the point: Rationing!

As in: Wait, are you talking about rationing medical care? Access to medical care is a fundamental right. And rationing sounds like something out of the Soviet Union. Or at least Canada.

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[llevy]

Rationing is part of the system of crisis management - whether in medicine or in (the) business (of medicine. The references made to the Canadian system is a good example of this difference in ideas. The Canadian system is a system based on "well-car". I minimizes the cost one has to keep them selves well early. testing, medications, ... all all are geared toward wellness. There is no more or less waiting for emergency care, doctor visits, access to prescription meds. In Crisis care, be it Cancer, liver replacement, on and on ....whether in the US, UK, of Canada money talks the loudest. People with the most money, "best health care" get the care they need. I - a common person cannot travel to Germany , Mexico .. to find a spot ahead on a waiting list. The real short version of providing the best care for all is --- why not give retire folks the care the Senate and House get, and offer comparable care - or supplemental money for comparable care to that of main stream offerings of business or state employees. We already give tax money to insurance companies.

[expired]

A video naming names of congressional leaders who profit from the health care industry.

http://airamerica.com/blog/2009/jun/17/novartis-prefers-profit-pandemic-spot-problem-profit-driven-healthcare-video

[expired]

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/baucus-to-chop-600-billion-from-healthcare-bill-2009-06-17.html

[expired]

Dear MoveOn member,
Key leaders in Washington are now saying that any health care reform will—and must—include a public health insurance option.1,2


The big challenge now? Opponents of reform are trotting out weak half-measures and calling them "public plans,"3 with the goal of leaving us with a public health insurance option in name only. The latest is a proposal for "co-ops"—small, regional insurers that would be too weak to bring costs down or compete with existing private insurance.4


We have to push back right away and with a clear message: Americans demand a strong public health insurance option, one that is available to everyone, national in scope with real bargaining clout, ready to go on day one, and truly public.


Can you write a letter to the editor about how important it is to include a strong public health insurance option in reform this year? Our tool makes writing a letter really simple. You can send the letter right from our website—it only takes a few minutes:

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51500&id=16403-9193653-MA8.iSx&t=3

[txkayrose]

The only part of healthcare that ISN'T rationed, is that which we do for ourselves - a little more exercise, a little less junk-food, fewer cigarettes, less stress, etc. All those things we already know we should do to keep ourselves healthy.
Everything else - surgery, procedures, drugs, therapy, etc - involves time, energy and raw materials of which there is a finite amount and (theoretically) an infinite demand. Isn't that the very basis of rationing?
What has people so upset is that we are discussing CHANGING the CRITERIA for our rationing.
Currently, good healthcare is regarded as an accessory, like a wallet or purse. Everyone has to have SOMETHING, but what, exactly, you carry is dictated by wealth, opportunity / luck, and personal priorities.
GOOD HEALTHCARE IS NOT A GUCCI WALLET OR A COACH PURSE. It can't be divvied up to those few in the right place at the right time, leaving everyone else to gather up the crumbs - and be happy with them, because it's better than nothing.

[bygollymissmolly]

They can scream all they want about the government possibly rationing health care. The fact of the matter is that the for-profit health insurance industry already rations health care. I had a long talk with my physician about health care and which way she would like to have it go. She told me that she is in favor of a public option because she is tired of the for-profit industry turning down her requests for treatment. She said that 20% of the treatments she and her partners recommend are turned down by the for-profit health insurance companies. On the other hand, she said that Medicare rarely turns down requests for treatment.

The thing about all the right wing arguments against a public option for health care is that all the things they say will happen under a public plan are already happening under their plans.

[Beauzeaux]

Health care is not "rationed" in Canada. This routine libel is repeated and repeated as gospel -- even though there's no evidence for it beyond a handful of dubious horror stories.

Health care is already rationed in the US. The ration coupons are those pieces of paper with pictures of presidents on them, If you have enough of them, you can get great health care. If you don't....well, hard cheese.

[urnumbersix]

Excellent article! Well timed. We already ration - irrationally!

We need to ration determined by medical NEED instead of type of health insurance coverage (or lack thereof). I want to follow up on the point mentioned in the article about studying sub-populations when developing guidelines for "what works" in health care. Currently, we are discovering an increasing amount of racial and ethnic disparities in health care. As we develop best-practices guidelines, we must ensure that we are not codifying these existing health disparities.

As medicine moves toward "personalized medicine" based on genetics - we will move away from the proxies of race and ethnicity. Until that time, however, we must find a way to accommodate the differences in treatment outcomes that we already know exist due to racial and ethnic disparities in health care. To do less would be committing medical malpractice on portions of American citizens. If you are in a minority group, that could mean the guidelines would recommend health care services that are bad for you, your children, and Mom & Dad, etc. We can do better.

[jme-SD]

Care is being rationed in the worst possible way now and that's contributing to the costs being so high even for the insured. The government can happily be between me and my doctor just as it is between my mom and her doctor - with a Medicare check!. I do have to limit my visits to the doctor because of costs - but she never does and can go for her check-ups and follow-up care. And why would we create a new agency to handle a public health option besides Medicare - isn't that a wasteful duplication of agencies? Better for them to hire more staff to handle more people on the program then to create a whole separate system. And I find Sen Kyl from Arizona the most recent and biggest BS fear-mongering hypocrite of all. Who in the world does he think pays for the medical care for all those retired seniors in his state?

[MisterHands]

Health care is already rationed, my insurance provider denied, then delayed my shoulder reconstruction for 17 months. The delay caused further nerve damage and the complete loss of feeling in my pinkie finger, which now needs to be amputated.

[rxvette]

Here's how our current unregulated capitalistic healthcare system in the US rations care today:

http://rxvette.blogspot.com/2009/05/healthcare-reform-touches-home.html

[VikingQuest]

Of course there is going to be rationing of care . . . there is now and there will be when Government does it.

[Grunty1]

[In truth, rationing is an inescapable part of economic life.]

Well yeah, That's the point of the article. It is saying that we already ration healthcare by denying it to more and more people and that rationing will not increase under a public option.

[platanoman]

About time the New York Time has a piece on this.