Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The issue raises big questions about the best way to convince insured Americans to cut back on unnecessary health expenses without forgoing vital treatment. Government cost-cutting provisions like the new Independent Medicare Advisory Board have raised concerns that bureaucrats will end up "rationing" care. But the reality is that someone is going to have to say "no" to excess spending at some point, as I've explained previously. "Rationing is going to go on within the Medicare system. It's a fact of life. The question's going to be, is that decision going to be made by government and imposed top down under the current system?" the Cato Institute's Michael Tanner told Politico last month. As Tanner points out, Paul Ryan's Medicare plan intends to empower individuals to make such decisions, giving them a subsidy to purchase insurance on their own rather than having the federal government cover all their expenses. But as the recession may show, if individuals have less to work with up front, they could end up "self-rationing" and forgoing important treatment due to financial hardship or poorly informed decisions.
"You want to be changing habits in a good way. A lot of care was not terribly necessary, but you really want to make sure that people are still getting appropriate care," Kate Sullivan Hare, a long-time health policy observer, tells me in an interview. "Is it 'self-rationing' or rational care?"
All medical care is and always has been rationed. That's the idea behind triage and many insurance practices.
So long as resources are finite and less than we'd need to treat everyone, there are more doctors than patients, and we operate in the real world, there will always be the need to decide how best to use those resources (financial, human, physical, and time) to achieve the most good for the most people. This is simply the reality of how the world works. I'm not saying it's good or right- that's just how it always has been and is likely to remain to the foreseeable future.
We've never had a bureau of unelected appointees deciding the criteria for who will get what treatment and what the cost will be.
You can sue the government as well; 26 states have done just that.I can sue an insurance company, can't do shit against the US Gov't.
All medical care is and always has been rationed. That's the idea behind triage and many insurance practices.
So long as resources are finite and less than we'd need to treat everyone, there are more doctors than patients, and we operate in the real world, there will always be the need to decide how best to use those resources (financial, human, physical, and time) to achieve the most good for the most people. This is simply the reality of how the world works. I'm not saying it's good or right- that's just how it always has been and is likely to remain to the foreseeable future.
We've never had a bureau of unelected appointees deciding the criteria for who will get what treatment
I can sue an insurance company, can't do shit against the US Gov't.
... and Americans are yapping about OUR healthcare system?
Let's try this again.
Is rationing Medicare inevitable? Who do we want making those decisions?
The issue raises big questions about the best way to convince insured Americans to cut back on unnecessary health expenses without forgoing vital treatment. Government cost-cutting provisions like the new Independent Medicare Advisory Board have raised concerns that bureaucrats will end up "rationing" care. But the reality is that someone is going to have to say "no" to excess spending at some point, as I've explained previously. "Rationing is going to go on within the Medicare system. It's a fact of life. The question's going to be, is that decision going to be made by government and imposed top down under the current system?" the Cato Institute's Michael Tanner told Politico last month. As Tanner points out, Paul Ryan's Medicare plan intends to empower individuals to make such decisions, giving them a subsidy to purchase insurance on their own rather than having the federal government cover all their expenses. But as the recession may show, if individuals have less to work with up front, they could end up "self-rationing" and forgoing important treatment due to financial hardship or poorly informed decisions.
"You want to be changing habits in a good way. A lot of care was not terribly necessary, but you really want to make sure that people are still getting appropriate care," Kate Sullivan Hare, a long-time health policy observer, tells me in an interview. "Is it 'self-rationing' or rational care?"
Rationing care — or rational care? - Ezra Klein - The Washington Post
Let's try this again.
Is rationing Medicare inevitable? Who do we want making those decisions?
Rationing care — or rational care? - Ezra Klein - The Washington Post
If we raise the retirement age, something that should have already been done, many of the problems in financing Medicare would go away. It would put a greater burden on the individual, but that burden would come before retirement, at a time that people could better figure out how to pay for a few more years of private coverage, whether that be privately themselves or through their employer.
The system was never meant to cover people for 13 to 15 years. Raise the retirement age, and it won't have to.
Ah yes, prevent the next generation from ever having a job whilst waiting for the older employees to retire, or at the very least, die off. Ah yes, let us work an older man to death. A true capitalist you are. You don't give a shit about the person, just the money he could make available so that you could have what YOU want.
... and Americans are yapping about OUR healthcare system?
Your system is rationed.
No, it isn't. YOURS is at the mercy of insurance companies who shall decide whether or not to cover your medical expenses incurred. This is where the rationing occurs. We don't have that problem up here. You are covered, regardless.
Medicare is 3% of GDP. Health Care is nearly 18%. Using "Emergency Rooms" as health care costs this nation untold amounts of money.
Let's put everyone on Medicare and call it the "public option", then, get rid of Health Care companies. Since Medicare is a measly 3% of GDP, they must be doing something right.
No, it isn't. YOURS is at the mercy of insurance companies who shall decide whether or not to cover your medical expenses incurred. This is where the rationing occurs. We don't have that problem up here. You are covered, regardless.
Funny thing.
Go back through all my posts and you will not find one where I said medical care is not rationed. Everything is rationed, yours is rationed at the front end where people have to wait months for care. Ours is rationed by price. Guess which system most sane people prefer?
By your logic, waiting in a lineup at your local McDonald's for your Big Mac means food in the USA is 'rationed'.
Medicare is 3% of GDP. Health Care is nearly 18%. Using "Emergency Rooms" as health care costs this nation untold amounts of money.
Let's put everyone on Medicare and call it the "public option", then, get rid of Health Care companies. Since Medicare is a measly 3% of GDP, they must be doing something right.
Your system is rationed.
No, it isn't. YOURS is at the mercy of insurance companies who shall decide whether or not to cover your medical expenses incurred. This is where the rationing occurs. We don't have that problem up here. You are covered, regardless.
Funny thing.
Go back through all my posts and you will not find one where I said medical care is not rationed. Everything is rationed, yours is rationed at the front end where people have to wait months for care. Ours is rationed by price. Guess which system most sane people prefer?
Look guys, we've got millions of boomers reaching the years when they'll need healthcare the most, and not enough providers to go around. There cannot and will not be any system that can change that, and so rationing is going to be a fact of life from now on.
No, it isn't. YOURS is at the mercy of insurance companies who shall decide whether or not to cover your medical expenses incurred. This is where the rationing occurs. We don't have that problem up here. You are covered, regardless.
Funny thing.
Go back through all my posts and you will not find one where I said medical care is not rationed. Everything is rationed, yours is rationed at the front end where people have to wait months for care. Ours is rationed by price. Guess which system most sane people prefer?
So, shorter version of your argument: "Everyone who doesn't agree with me is crazy"
Look guys, we've got millions of boomers reaching the years when they'll need healthcare the most, and not enough providers to go around. There cannot and will not be any system that can change that, and so rationing is going to be a fact of life from now on.
It's always been a fact of life. The question is about priorities. Do we care about who actually needs care, or whoever has cash to throw around?
