I was re-reading the blog I posted below and realized how informational it sounded. The thing is, as I wrote it, it was all something of a revelation to me.
See, I've never really thought about health care as something that needed to be rationed. I just assumed it was a distribution problem.
What's the difference between distributed and rationed? Rationing implies that there is a fixed amount to be divided, whereas distributing is only about dividing.
(It is interesting to note that the root of rationing is from Latin ratio: to reason.)
So the idea of health care being limited or the need for it to be divided out in specific, more reasonable ways is something that hasn't fully sunk in for me yet.
Why is health care limited? Why can't we all have access to it?
Covering this beat has got me thinking too hard about this stuff.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
It's important for everyone in a democratic society to think about who receives needed health care and who doesn't. You've already worked harder than most voters to understand how health and medical care works, but there is so much more to know and understand.
A few things you might want to consider: is there truly an unlimited supply of anything? Not water or health care, that's for sure.
And how about "rationing" -- don't you think certain drugs, devices and surgical procedures are rationed in industrialized nations with "universal" care? Check it out...
Like you, I had never considered rationing of health care before this class. I suppose because I have always had access to health care I assumed that it wasn't in short supply. Interviewing Caleb, a 15-year-old athlete without health insurance, put health care in clearer perspective for me.
Your title got my attention for sure this week since my beat has gotten me thinking about rationing water. I certainly haven't given much thought to the rationing of health care though. It does seem that those who really need health care can't get it or don't have it and those who don't need health care as much have it. Another case of the haves and have-nots.
Which is more important? Food and Water, or Healthcare. Both are of course. All three are commodities of sorts and have a certain value.
Somehow, though, we have separated them and I get the feeling that many in our class and university feel that healthcare is something the government should provide to all citizens...regardless.
Why not food as well then? According to NPR, over half the kids in public schools in the south get free lunches. Let's extend that to three meals a day, and make all families eligible if they make $62,000 or less (the SCHIP threshold).
My friends...when I pay for things they are valuable to me. It motivates me to work, and eek out a living for me and my family. I know, not everyone can, and we should make certain allowances.
This is indeed a slippery slope.
Post a Comment