|
July 19, 2010
At The Economist, rationing is in demand
A recent editorial in The Economist addresses whether Dr. Donald Berwick (new head of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) really intends to ration health care as many conservatives suspect. The editorial calls this claim "politically explosive" but then goes on to defend and rationalize health care rationing: That leaves the third charge levied against Dr Berwick--that he will become America's "rationer-in-chief" of medical care. This is a politically explosive claim: Americans do not like the sound of rationing. Indeed, the noisiest protests against Mr Obama's reform efforts broke out last August when some Republicans, including Sarah Palin, claimed that "death panels" would eventually decide which sick people to kill off first to save money.I'm all for having a grown-up debate, but I think that if we're going to use grown-up terms like "rationing" and "demand," maybe we ought to be clear about what those terms mean. "Rationing" means allocating rations, usually because they are in short supply: 1. A fixed portion, especially an amount of food allotted to persons in military service or to civilians in times of scarcity.Are we living in times of scarce health care supply? The Economist seems to think so, for they say that "demand" exceeds supply: Every health system rations in some way or other; the demand for health care is always greater than the resources available.Is that necessarily true? How is The Economist defining "demand"? Presumably, the writers who think that we Americans "deserve a grown-up debate" are either economists or at least conversant in economics. Now, I am not an economist, but I am somewhat familiar with the word "demand" in the economic sense: a. The desire to possess a commodity or make use of a service, combined with the ability to purchase it.Which means that in health care terms, demand would be defined either as: Let's take an unpleasant procedure I touched on in a previous post; colonoscopy. It's not cheap, but it's a good idea for men my age to have it done. The last time I looked, there was no shortage of gastroenterologists and gastroenterology clinics available to perform that procedure on anyone willing to pay for it. So there is adequate supply to meet the demand. As to those who do not want to undergo the procedure or who cannot afford it, there is little demand. So what's to ration? Rationing implies a shortage. Not enough to go around. If anyone who wants a given thing who is able to pay for it can get the thing, then by definition the demand is not "greater than the resources available." So, even though I am no economist, I think The Economist may be misusing the word "demand." Is rationing even the right word? I think it's fair to point out that in countries with government health care, there are two year long waiting lists for colonoscopies. And for procedures like heart surgery, forget it. There are not only long waiting lists, but the NHS resorts to punitive denial of treatment for patients who try to buy medical services privately. So maybe government health care leads to shortages which would make rationing an inevitable part of government health care. If that's what The Economist wants to say, they should say so. posted by Eric on 07.19.10 at 01:45 PM
Comments
Old and busted: "Those crazy right-wingers and their lies about death panels!" The new hawtness: "Hooray for death panels!" TallDave · July 20, 2010 10:40 AM The "scarcity" is that rich people can afford better treatment than poor people. The left wants equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. Our media betters are finding that out right now and it's starting to tick them off. Veeshir · July 20, 2010 12:48 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
July 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
July 2010
June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
barking back at authoritarian dogs
House of Cards A Decline In Morals NAACP Audience Applauds Racism At The Economist, rationing is in demand Fascism A preference in legs is no small disagreement? Moral Authority But what if you don't consent? Are provocateurs now running the Justice Department?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
The two greatest mistakes made by the Left is that market distortions that result from increased regulation won't drive the prices of goods up, and; that markets are static.
You can mandate cheap, affordable housing, but if the return on investment in housing is lower than the return on investment in some other good or commodity, what is the incentive to invest in the lower rate of return? Simply mandating cheap, affordable housing is probably the simplest way to assure that a shortage in cheap, affordable housing will occur. Same thing is true with any good or commodity; mandate low price and shortages result. Static analysis would tend to allow the policy-maker to suggest that more would be consumed since the consumer is being protected from high prices. Like, more health care because costs have been contained.
The next step is to follow the model of our favourite Venezuelan, Senor Chavez. When industries fail to produce goods under price mandates, the industries are simply nationalized. Then, when markets fail, we blame the global corporate hegemonists.
Simple world view, really.
.