A friend of mine commented about the post from yesterday and stated that healthcare rationing is already occurring. I do agree with him on this and I also agree with him on the key differences between what we have now vs. what we will have with Obamacare.
Even if there were no insurance and patients paid 100% of the healthcare, they would choose to ration care for themselves based on what they could afford, need or want. This is the ultimate free market system.
My friend opined about the more practical point in the way we ration care now compared to what we are headed into. Here were his thoughts.
Rationing now is better because it is based on an established and existing legal system and is better for the individual.
First, the insurance company is responsible for the rationing based upon a contract and the law. (My problem here is that the contract is typically negotiated by an employer, based on their needs and not the employee based on his/her needs, wants, or desires. But, nevertheless, it is a contract between a willing private party and the insurance company.
With Obamacare, the government will decide on the rationing and based on history, they will do it based upon politics, i.e., if you are the grandmother of the local SIEU boss, then that decision will be different than if you are Joe Blow.
Second, we have recourse against an insurance company. The state Insurance Commissioners can fine and penalize an insurance company whereas they’ll have no authority over Federal Government. In addition, the Plaintiffs’ lawyers can sue them, juries can award punitive damages if it’s really bad, etc.
We all know how successful an individual will be if they attempt to sue the Federal Government. Look at the VA system and any challenges there are related to the care they receive.
And, lastly, if you don’t like your insurance company’s decision; you can go elsewhere – because you still have that choice and that freedom. This will all end with Obamacare