WSJ shocked by rationing of health services that the WSJ doesn't think should exist at all

[cthulu2016]

This is sooooo sick. The Wall Street Journal editorial page is horrified that Oregon’s Medicaid system might seek to limit spending on treatments that aren't very effective or treatments for patients who will die quite soon no matter what is done.

Death Panels. Healthcare rationing in Obamacare!

In Medicaid... which the Wall Street Journal opposes expanding under Obamacare.

The WSJ, quite literally, thinks that the poor should be left to die in the street untreated, but that if the poor are treated, that treatment must be as wasteful of taxpayer dollars as possible.

This is precisely the same as fighting tooth and nail to close down soup kitchens because the poor should starve, and offering, as an argument that soup kitchens should be closed down, that they limit the indigent to two bowls of soup.

Either that or the WSJ is just a dishonest rag that opposes Obamacare categorically and will say any sick thing it can think of.

Two good pieces on this:

...the same people, and organizations, who rail against rationing within Medicaid while simultaneously railing against the Medicaid expansion. Evidently, they are fine with completely denying Medicaid to many of the poorest among us, but against making Medicaid less robust once they get it. Odd...

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/death-panels-in-oregon/

...On one side, it’s fanatically opposed to Medicaid expansion — that is, it’s eager to make sure that millions have no health coverage at all. On the other side, it claims to be outraged at the notion of setting priorities in spending on those who do manage to qualify for Medicaid. It’s OK for people to die for lack of coverage; it’s an utter horror if taxpayers decline to pay for marginal care.

And yes, we’re talking about taxpayers. Nobody at all is talking about rationing the care you may choose to buy for yourself; if Rupert Murdoch wants to spend $100 million on a treatment that probably won’t work, but might prolong his life by a few weeks, he’s perfectly free to do so. The real policy question is simply whether taxpayers should be obliged to do the same for everyone — and the answer is obviously no.

Now, the Journal isn’t really confused on this point. Surely it understands the difference between rationing care and limiting public spending on care. The point, however, is to confuse readers, and make them think that spending controls on Medicaid are the same thing as having bureaucrats pronounce death sentences on the middle class...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/10/death-panels-and-the-apparatchik-mindset/

[NutmegYankee]

1. I really don't have an issue with this.

If a person is dying of stage 4 pancreatic cancer, they should be provided painkillers and other drugs required to make them comfortable. But there is no reason to try ultra expensive drugs or treatments in those last weeks/days because by that point, nothing is going to save them.

[leftstreet]

2. Why are the drugs and treatments so expensive? n/t

[NutmegYankee]

3. Believe me, you're preaching to the choir. nt

[leftstreet]

4. Yep. In the US, End of Life means End of Money

[NutmegYankee]

5. The system is designed to suck every last dime from you. nt

[cthulu2016]

6. It isn't entirely ravenous profits

There is a lot of padding in some drug and treatment prices but even if all profit is stripped out, some things in the world are, in fact, expensive.

Some drugs really are incredibly expensive to produce. Some are not.

There is "rationing" is all health care plans, from for-profit insurance to the most enlightened single-payer because the world actually does not have the resources to provide the best level of health care to seven billion people. For real.

This is a harsh fact of life.

Those limited resources should, however, be distributed as equitably as possible.

[leftstreet]

7. $4.5 billion for 1 Nimitz class aircraft carrier

Just sayin

[cthulu2016]

8. True. But even after we eliminate all such spending

healthcare will still be rationed, either by price or by policy. (Private for-profit healthcare is rationing with dollar bills being de facto 'ration coupons')

The more resources we turn from aircraft carriers to health care the less stringent that rationing will be, but there will always be rationing of some sort. Somebody will be denied something they want.

With food that isn't necessary. The world could produce enough food that everyone could eat all they wanted. (Assuming population didn't grow too much more.)

But there is no natural law that limits science to discovering only affordable treatments. We do, and will continue to, discover some efficacious but astoundingly costly treatments.

[hunter]

9. The very wealthy feel entitled.

If taxpayers are subsidizing the city bus, the very wealthy think the taxpayer should be subsidizing their private jet.

If the taxpayer funds food stamps, the very wealthy think the taxpayer should fund their meals at the country club.

If the taxpayer builds a basketball court in a poor neighborhood, the very wealthy think the taxpayer should build them a marina for their yachts.

If the taxpayer funds a short list of generic drugs, the very wealthy think the taxpayer should pay for their plastic surgeries.

It's only fair...