The currently used private health insurers ration care as a money saving measure. It helps the health insurance company ensure profits and to raise their salaries. They ration by limiting the doctors you are allowed to see. They decide what doctors to use based on the fees they have negotiated the lowest fee for.
They ration through dudcutibles, and co-pay fees. They do this to try to get you to self-ration. If you don't think you can afford a certain treatment or drug, you are more likely to elect not to be treated.
They also ration by denial of care. They often explain that the treatment is "experimental" or "unproven". The patient can still elect to undergo the treatment as long as they can pay for it themselves.
A government run system would surely invovle rationing as well. Instead of health insurance companies deciding your medical fate, it will be the government agency. In the government system, profits will not be the primary factor that goes into rationing decisions. If profit is not of concern, than one would think that less rationing will occur.
In my mind, the most destructive force in the current medical community is the frivolous malpractice cases that force insurers to ration and forces doctors to be hesitant to offer care and procedures. I believe that a government regulated system would cut down substantially on malpractice insurance and suits.
Either system involves rationing. What are the benefits/drawbacks of each system in your opinion? Do you have an alternative healthcare idea?
Hater Police
Overall, yes. And cheaper costs per capita.
John
No, more.
FAR more people, same number of medical personal or less.
That means rationing and no one knows how we'll ever pay for this.
Tom R
of course it would be better to have universal health care. i just watched sicko again and i want frances system. even cubas would be better than what we have. i think its ridiculous that we dont have a better system here. the thing that is so frustrating to me is that when we add these changes our economy would go into overdrive. its like people who own horse drawn carriages afraid of cars.
OLD SCHOOL
Yes it will lead to rationing jest look at other countries that have this system.Heck the government can not even keep the post office from running out of MONEY.Name one thing they run that's is not running in the red.
MikeGolf
I have never had my healthcare 'rationed' - except when I was being treated by the VA.
If you take a close look at what the liberals are describing as 'rationing' you will notice that in 90% of the cases it is the requirement that you see a GP who then refers you to a specalist.
It is odd that the only 'real-life' case where of healthcare rationing I have ever seen - was by a government healthcare program.
.
Orignal From: Wouldn't a public option mean less rationing?
Post a Comment