I think that for starters we have a different definition of "rationed"
This is from http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=rationed
Verb
S: (v) ration (restrict the consumption of a relatively scarce
commodity, as during war) "Bread was rationed during the siege of the
city"
S: (v) ration, ration out (distribute in rations, as in the army)
"Cigarettes are rationed"
Adjective
S: (adj) rationed (distributed equitably in limited individual
portions) "got along as best we could on rationed meat and sugar"
No one is rationing health care, that is there is no one who is
restricting the consumption of healthcare to those wanting to purchase
it.
What arguably is being rationed is free money from the government to
pay for healthcare - the government sets limits on what they will pay
for and who is eligible to get the free (to them) money.
I think it is true, but am open to persuasion that this is not so,
that the increase in the share of the economy controlled by the
government since the new deal has decreased the total charitable
giving in the country. Perhaps if the government left us more of our
own resources we could and would give more to charity of our choice?
Once the government starts performing a function many folks will think
that the function is now paid for by their taxes and thus is no longer
a concern of theirs, displacing the charitable impulse.
Wo what is your solution? How large a share of the economy, of GDP
say, do we grant the government to provide every need you think
worthy? 25%? 30%? More? Is there any principle that would limit
your willingness to surrender to the government for your or others
"own good"?
Alternatively how about we let the market work - and couple the
consumption of health care to payment for healthcare. Then we will
see a rationalized, but not rationed approach to healthcare.
On Mar 28, 2008, at 11:41 AM, Constance Warner wrote:
The plain truth is that private charity and religious foundations
can't possibly cope with the health care needs of people without
insurance or who have inadequate health insurance. There are too
many people needing too much care--even simple things like having a
tooth pulled--let alone things like getting insulin, if they're
diabetic. Or major surgery, such as an appendectomy or a lumpectomy.
Cf: look at the difficulties that charities and religious
organizations are having coping with widespread but much less
expensive needs and projects--such as food pantries and soup
kitchens. There are more and more people needing services, and the
funding is either stable or diminishing. It's hard to see how the
charities can afford to give out free or low-cost appendectomies to
everyone who needs one, if they can no longer afford to give out as
many free peanut-butter sandwiches as are needed. Providing all the
care that is "wanted and needed"? Given current conditions, that's
a fantasy. I don't know what criteria the charities will use to
ration the care--to decide who gets the emergency care and who
doesn't--but I don't envy them, with hard choices like that. How
would YOU like to look a breast cancer patient in the face and tell
them, "I'm sorry, we didn't get enough donations this month; come
back next month, when your cancer may be incurable, and maybe we can
operate then"?
What makes it doubly sad is that most of the people who need care
have held up THEIR end of the social contract: they work hard, pay
taxes, and don't get into trouble. A large percentage of the people
who need care are the working poor; an increasing number are solidly
middle-class. Don't try to tell THEM that medical care isn't
rationed.
--Constance Warner
On Mar 28, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Matthew Taylor wrote:
Yes, if you want to assume that there is no charity in the US. No
religious hospitals that will care for the uninsured, no children's
hospitals providing endowment / other sourced care.
The issue is should the power of government compulsion be used to
pay for care, which WILL result in government deciding what care is
provided, or should the private sector, including private charity
provide care based on what is wanted and needed.
Matthew
On Mar 27, 2008, at 9:04 PM, katan wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:28:14 -0400, Matthew Taylor wrote:
To be rationed requires that there be a shortage of supply.
There is
no shortage of supply for those able to pay - if you can afford the
procedure you will get the procedure in the US (organ donations
being
And those that can't afford it can just go away and die. Yes?
--
R:\katan
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives,
privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://
www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives,
privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://
www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
