CDZ When does the U.S. government ration healthcare?

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I don't think I'm following. Trying to stay focused. Do you think the U.S. government rations healthcare or have we ever? Perhaps I'm not thinking this through.

Not under existing laws and regulations it couldn't, aside from maybe the VA, but even then, not really.

 

[task0778]

"What rationing do we do already?"

The Veterans Administration rations health care for our vets, and it's a disgrace. Guys died waiting for an appointment, so no effing way would I support expanding such a system to be nation-wide.

Now this is in no way excusing the Veterans Administration, America sucks sometimes and we do need to take care of our vets better.

The VA has been mentioned a couple times.

Did the VA in any way stop the vets from just going and paying for whatever on their own? Could the vets not start a kickstarter campaign to get whatever treatment they needed paid for?

Or did the VA just take their sweet lazy American time getting around to it?

Most of the Vet at the VA have no other alternative, they cannot afford to go to a private provider. And until a few whistleblowers made the public aware of what was going on, they didn't have the political backing either. So guys died waiting for an appointment, just like people do in many of the universal healthcare systems in other countries. And although my understanding is that things have improved since 2014, they are nowhere near the way it ought to be.

So, the basic question is, why should we expect a gov't run, single payer HC system to be any better for everybody if we can't do it right for a small number of people like our Vets?

I know, I know you think America and the American government sucks. There are just some things you need a government for.

Who said anything about single payer HC system though? I was just looking for an example of rationing. For my point (and not to sound cold, the plight of the VA sucks) but for my point the VA isn't telling a darned one of them vets they can't go pay for a MRI or whatever. The vets are just waiting for the government (which seems to owe it to them) do take care of their healthcare. So from my point of view the vet's inability to just go pay for a new kidney or whatever is rationing their healthcare.

Not that the VA doesn't suck.

"There are just some things you need a government for."

True. But health care is not one of them. Basically, the federal gov't should be there to provide services that the people cannot provide for themselves individually. Such as national security and defense, foreign affairs, regulating interstate commerce and the like. Stuff like healthcare, housing, and education are not and should not be within the purview of the federal gov't IMHO.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

A whole, unified society would see to it that healthcare were equally available to all its brothers and sisters.
Societies that are not whole and unified fall apart, usually quite messily.

I don't think I'm following. Trying to stay focused. Do you think the U.S. government rations healthcare or have we ever? Perhaps I'm not thinking this through.

The U.S. government is not in a position to "ration" healthcare at this time. The society effectively rations it along economic lines. Such a situation is inhumane and cannot continue.

Health care is getting to the point of rationed a good example is Big Pharm being told by the gov on how many pills that can be made, yes this is happening now, and Doctors are getting told that what age a person can get treated, "ever hear you are to old to survive the operation?" and what drugs they can use to treat illnesses.

 

[there4eyeM]

There is a difference between "rationing" and "limits".

 

[Dan Stubbs]

You really need to take an economics 101 class.

I actually got an A in two semesters of economics in college, macro & micro. I however just pretended to buy into what my professors were teaching so I could get that A. What I really thought was there was a conspiracy going on by the rich how to get richer and fool just about everyone by inventing something called Economics.

What I really think is Economics was just developed by the rich to 'con' gullible people into giving them more money by lowering taxes. They figured out a very clever and very convincing way to 'con' people into giving them more money then they already had.

I say what this nation needs is to rationalize out healthcare evenly regardless of income level. Watch that rich guy making $500k a year wine because he needs to wait in a long line to get a liver transplant just like everyone else has too. If he dies in the long line before he can get a transplant, oh well now he knows how poorly hospitals and doctors treat the poor. No more entitlement and special privalages for the rich in the healthcare system. They get treated with the same healthcare as everyone else and have the same coverage.

Boy. For someone who has a college education, you sure do have a limited grasp of spellcheck, and grammar. Back to the topic at hand though. Why do you think that the "rich" are attempting to "get one over" on the poor? Furthermore, how is a tax break giving anything to anyone? Seems to me a tax break simply allows folks to keep more of what is theirs.

Aso, it seems as though you are buying into what I see as a conspiracy theory. Could you explain more about this "con" by the "rich"? How is it organised? Who is in charge? Who started it? "Inventing" the study of how economies work? Really? THAT is some kind of con? You had better be able to explain more about that, otherwise, I have little option but to discount everything you have said as nothing more that garbage spewed by a conspiracy theorist.

It seems conspiracy theorist do make a point from time to time. Suspicion is not a bad thing if the "points of truth" connect and make sense. I have found that bigger the conspiracy the smaller the truth is found. A good example is Clinton's claim of a vast right wing conspiracy against the Clinton family.

 

[Toronado3800]

A whole, unified society would see to it that healthcare were equally available to all its brothers and sisters.
Societies that are not whole and unified fall apart, usually quite messily.

I don't think I'm following. Trying to stay focused. Do you think the U.S. government rations healthcare or have we ever? Perhaps I'm not thinking this through.

The U.S. government is not in a position to "ration" healthcare at this time. The society effectively rations it along economic lines. Such a situation is inhumane and cannot continue.

Health care is getting to the point of rationed a good example is Big Pharm being told by the gov on how many pills that can be made, yes this is happening now, and Doctors are getting told that what age a person can get treated, "ever hear you are to old to survive the operation?" and what drugs they can use to treat illnesses.

Ok. Is this what you are referring to? The DEA just cut opioid production by 25 percent for next year

Google fails me. On the opiods I can imagine the reason. What else is limited by the DEA? That article hints at it. Maybe I skimmed too fast.

 

[oldsoul]

I haven't had this one come up yet but judging from the super rich people I know a little about I don't think it happens much.

My idea is the U.S. government even under Obamacare did not ration healthcare on a daily basis. If I REALLY wanted an MRI because I was playing football or baseball and tweaked my widget, Washington DC generally did not make my insurance company pay for it but DC also did not prevent my employer or me from paying for this MRI on my widget.

It seems my ability to pay for that MRI, or a second filling in two years plastic surgery or whatever is the limiting factor so capitalism rations my healthcare. In essence if you are mad because your insurance doesn't cover something you want BIGGER government to force the private company which is there to make money to pay for something.

(We'll exclude mass casualty events from this conversation. Triage techniques are a whole other topic)

When does rationing start? Simple. When resources become scarce enough to demand it. When that point comes, that's a little harder. For that, I think we can turn to Europe for clues. Or, even closer to home, Canada.

As you point out, economics have already started rationing based on who can pay. When costs get to the point where government can no longer borrow enough to pay, the rationing will commence. Of course it will be called something else. Just look at Social Security. Every so often, congress debates, and inevitably, raises the retirement age. Something similar will happen with healthcare. It will be billed as a "measure to ensure the greatest benefit to the largest number of people", an unfortunate effect of that will be that some people, those seen as not viable contributors to society, or above an arbitrary line of wealth/income, will go without, unless they can pay. In short it will be the old and the dying that get left out first. Grandma, and the terminal kid down the street.

Let's try to get more radical here and elicit more responses.

What rationing do we do already? I really haven't read about them in depth but I know there are national organ donor lists. Honestly I can't believe or haven't seen where your estate doesn't get a heck of a tax deduction when you donate organs (or you with a kidney or liver part!) but hey that's small government for you.

We have to ration SOMETHING on a national level, right? Sometimes folks or Peyton Manning have to go overseas to get non-approved surgeries but that's not REALLY the focus of my question. Is that what we ration though? You can't get non-approved treatments? Even then, Peyton sure got it because he could afford it.

What will happen if I go from city to city just trying to have a colonoscopy a day done out of pocket? Is it rationed or is it all based on my ability to pay?

Not real sure what you're getting at here. What do you mean by, "Let's try to get more radical here..."? Do you mean more radical ideas? Scorpio seems to have one. Ration everything, that way the "poor" get their revenge. Seems like a pretty radical idea to me, at least the reasoning is radical.

What I was hinting at poorly was I needed to say something more offensive to get more responses. Posts here insulting a political hero or a bumper sticker philosophy really get responses. If someone types something up that isn't a current talking point on FoxNN, crickets.

Do as you wish, however, you and I both know your stated tactic will not generate any CONSTRUCTIVE dialog. I wish you well in your endeavor.

 

[oldsoul]

You really need to take an economics 101 class.

I actually got an A in two semesters of economics in college, macro & micro. I however just pretended to buy into what my professors were teaching so I could get that A. What I really thought was there was a conspiracy going on by the rich how to get richer and fool just about everyone by inventing something called Economics.

What I really think is Economics was just developed by the rich to 'con' gullible people into giving them more money by lowering taxes. They figured out a very clever and very convincing way to 'con' people into giving them more money then they already had.

I say what this nation needs is to rationalize out healthcare evenly regardless of income level. Watch that rich guy making $500k a year wine because he needs to wait in a long line to get a liver transplant just like everyone else has too. If he dies in the long line before he can get a transplant, oh well now he knows how poorly hospitals and doctors treat the poor. No more entitlement and special privalages for the rich in the healthcare system. They get treated with the same healthcare as everyone else and have the same coverage.

Boy. For someone who has a college education, you sure do have a limited grasp of spellcheck, and grammar. Back to the topic at hand though. Why do you think that the "rich" are attempting to "get one over" on the poor? Furthermore, how is a tax break giving anything to anyone? Seems to me a tax break simply allows folks to keep more of what is theirs.

Aso, it seems as though you are buying into what I see as a conspiracy theory. Could you explain more about this "con" by the "rich"? How is it organised? Who is in charge? Who started it? "Inventing" the study of how economies work? Really? THAT is some kind of con? You had better be able to explain more about that, otherwise, I have little option but to discount everything you have said as nothing more that garbage spewed by a conspiracy theorist.

It seems conspiracy theorist do make a point from time to time. Suspicion is not a bad thing if the "points of truth" connect and make sense. I have found that bigger the conspiracy the smaller the truth is found. A good example is Clinton's claim of a vast right wing conspiracy against the Clinton family.

True, and even a broken clock is right from time to time. Doesn't mean I should pay any attention to it. Same for conspiracy theories, they are wrong so often that there is little value in entertaining them.