One of the arguments in favor of Obama’s health care program is something like this:
“Insurance companies effectively ration care, too — deciding what treatments the insurance will and will not cover. Therefore, going to a government-run program will make no difference. Those who complain about possible ‘rationing’ are throwing out a red herring.”
I disagree, for all the reasons Darwin Catholic lists here.
***
[Review: I am not a person who is opposed to health care reform. Indeed, I am a person who has written on this very blog about what kinds of health care reform I think are needed. I have specifically given examples of why charitable assistance is needed for those who can’t afford adequate health care. I just happen to think that going to a single-payer, government-run system might not be the best of our available options.]
***
I would add that in my opinion, effective health care reform would free up our insurance system so that consumers have *more choice* and *more information* in order to choose an insurance progam that best meets their preferences. For example, someone has proposed making insurance portable from job to job.
–> I think the idea is that insurance pools would not be formed by companies on behalf of their employees, but rather by individuals. The role of the employer would be to provide the means to pay for the insurance.
***
And of course for all this to work, yeah, you’d need pricing transparency. You’ve got to know what your costs are, if you mean to control them. You just have to.