The irrational argument for rationing health-care
Opponents of Obama’s attempt to radically expand government control over medicine have warned that his program will lead to the same sort of rationing we see in other countries that have socialized health-care. But Obama’s supporters are trying to dismiss these legitimate fears by distorting the very meaning of “rationing.”
In a recent New York Times article, utilitarian bioethicist Peter Singer writes:
Health care is a scarce resource, and all scarce resources are rationed in one way or another. In the United States, most health care is privately financed, and so most rationing is by price: you get what you, or your employer, can afford to insure you for.
Singer calls this rationing “by ability to pay.” Columnist David Leonhardt concurs:
The choice isn’t between rationing and not rationing. It’s between rationing well and rationing badly. Given that the United States devotes far more of its economy to health care than other rich countries, and gets worse results by many measures, it’s hard to argue that we are now rationing very rationally.
Let’s define our terms.
-
Can you think of a friend who might be interested in this blog post?
- permalink
Subscribe to VfR by email
VfR updates via Twitter
Entries (RSS)
Amazon Kindle edition
Facebook