Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Health care, government and rationing
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, August 13, 2008

The UK continues to have discussions about rationing that, of course, aren't taking place here because we haven't gotten to that point in the conversation.

But as I've been saying forever, when unlimited want meets a finite supply, some sort of rationing must take place. It cannot be avoided regardless of the system.

Libby Purves of the TimesOnline makes another great point that needs to be factored in as well:
We now classify as illnesses things that once were accepted as mere misfortune: infertility, addiction, old age, gloom, shyness or childish overexuberance, unusual physical appearance. In many ways this modern solicitousness is admirably humane; economically it is a nightmare. No budget can ever stretch to meet every need with the ideal and latest treatment.
When you pay for it, you ration care yourself. You place priorities on treatment and do those things that you can afford. You decide.

When someone else pays for it, they place priorities on treatment. National healthcare, of course, takes the latter position as the "paying" decision maker, not you. You are simply one of the hive who will be told what is or isn't available to you in terms of treatment.

As medicine advances, we find more and more things to treat (or at least claim many of them are treatable in that manner). But the budget is only going to be so large. So it is, of necessity, going to have to prioritize its spending where it gets the most bang for the buck. That's going to be a "one-size-fits-all" list because it must be.

And my guess is, left off of that list are going to be many, many treatments that those that have the illness or disease are going to believe should be on there.

Universal health coverage means nothing more than everyone works off the same list. People need to make sure they understand that very clearly when it is presented as a panacea to replace the present system.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I wonder if they will make all the voluntary cosmetic procedure doctors go into the system to perform needed procedures or will they make a exception for the hollywood crowd to have private vanity treatment(face lifts,boob jobs,etc.).

Off topic, but I have been thinking it may be a good time to start shortselling some of the medical insurance providers.
 
Written By: SkyWatch
URL: http://
And my guess is, left off of that list are going to be many, many treatments that those that have the illness or disease are going to believe should be on there.
You mean like this?
 
Written By: KipEsquire
URL: http://www.kipesquire.com
Universal health coverage means nothing more than everyone works off the same list.
Oh, not everyone. The government elite will get their own deal. Private healthcare will still be available for the uber rich. And then key geographical areas (key voting districts, government capitals, etc) will be more equal than others.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
Again though, how is this worse than what we have now? The insurance provider decides what is on the list. At least if it’s the government people feel like they have some input, because of who they elect and "embarrassments" have some impact if they are big enough. As opposed to an insurance corporation that you can’t change because that is the one your employer has.

Not that I’m a proponent of universal care, it scares the crap out of me, primarily because of the backdoor it adds a hard "it will save us all money" excuse to meddle, as opposed to the traditional "good for you/for the children" excuses. However, I just don’t see how anything we have now is any better.
 
Written By: Tito
URL: http://
Again though, how is this worse than what we have now?
Depending on how you choose to pay for your care, you can be in complete control of the prioritization of your care under this system. Under universal care, you have no choice.

That’s how.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider