This afternoon’s post-workshop review of LJ and the news brings to the fore two items related to health care:
Item The First. rjlippincott has an interesting post where he talks about the fact that we won’t really know the rules on government health care rationing from the bill — those rules will be decided by bureaucrats at the appropriate agencies once they are established. He’s right, but in again focusing on the government option, he’s missing a key point. I wrote a response, but want to repeat it here because it bears repeating. Those complaining about rationing in the government option are right: if there is a government option, it will do some form of rationing, and there will be some denial of care. Yes, in some cases treatment will be denied. You won’t be permitted, for example, to use those peach pits to treat your cancer. However, there are two very important things that are being forgotten:
- Private Insurers Already Ration Health Care. I’m sorry, but our current system already has rationing. It is part of any insurance plan: there is stuff that is covered, and stuff that isn’t. All those situations you hear about where folks were denied the treatment by the private insurer is rationing. Whether is it done by a public or private group doesn’t change what it is. Would you feel better when grandma is denied her experimental cancer treatment by Blue Cross vs. a Govt Cooperative? So let’s stop arguing about rationing health care. Whatever insurer we have is going to ration, private or public.
- The Government Plan Would Only Be An Option. No where have I seen anything about this government non-profit being a mandatory choice and being the only insurer. You don’t like the rationing regulations chosen by the government plan: then choose one of the private options. No one is holding guns to people heads and telling them to go with the government option. The only reason folks might be forced to go with the government option is if they can’t afford the private option. Guess what: in that case, at least some insurance is better than no insurance. They can always choose to pay for the uncovered treatment themselves without insurance. That’s what they would do now. The insurance they would have that is covered would still leave them better off than no coverage at all.
Sometimes, I think critical thinking is gone in this country. Suppose there were these “death squads” telling Grandma she couldn’t get her treatment under their insurance plan. What they forget is: nothing is stopping Grandma from getting the treatment on her uninsured nickel, as she does now. It just means the plan doesn’t pay for it. This whole death squad/rationing argument is a red herring, because nothing says uncovered services are not provided. They just aren’t on the insurer’s nickel.
As the President said last night: For those that have insurance, not much will change. They won’t be dealing with the government option at all. No massive bureaucracy for them, they get to deal with the streamlined, cooperative insurers like Blue Cross or Kaiser. If they can’t afford any of the private insurance options and choose the supposedly lower cost government/non-profit option, that “massive, government-funded, government-managed health care system” (or equivalent) will be much better than having NO insurance (which is what they have now). Further, they can always choose to pay privately for any uncovered care, as they do now. They still are better off based on what is covered.
The only gamble is that this thing doesn’t add to the federal deficit. That’s the larger gamble, and so we can only hope that whatever bill comes up, the financial projections are accurate (decisions are only as good is the input you’re given), and that the President is true to his word and won’t sign it if the analysis indicates it adds to the deficit. I’ll believe him on that one, simply because I think this doesn’t fall in the category of an emergency bailout.
Item The Second. One thing that surely won’t be covered by the plan is medical marijuana. And speaking of medical MJ (how’s that for a segue), the Los Angeles Times has an interesting map of all the dispensaries in the City of Los Angeles. I thought they had been popping up like weeds (pun intended) of late: this proves it, as do the ads in any edition of the LA Weekly. They are getting to be more numerous than escort services, and that’s saying something. 🙂
