Well, I haven’t written anything in awhile, and the big news story is the health care debate in Congress, so I’ll use this forum to weigh in with my two cents.

People opposed to health care reform tell scary stories about the prospect of rationing health care. The definition of “rationing” is “restricting the consumption of a relatively scarce commodity”. If health care is a relatively scarce commodity, either it will be rationed or it will be distributed unfairly, with many people not getting any. Kind of like the current situation. If it is not scarce, it won’t be. Given that health care is neither free nor cheap, it stands to reason that it will not be overly abundant, hence, it should be rationed. The only question is by whom and by what criteria. The criterion could be first come, first served, or it could by according to wealth, supply and demand. If we are compassionate, it will be by need. Then the only question is by whom. Would you prefer government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats? Or someone else? Insurance company bureaucrats are incentivized, directly or indirectly, by insurance company profits. How government bureaucrats would be incentivized is uncertain. Who do you mistrust more?

Advertisements