This is one of those arguments that’s gone from silly to unbelievably silly in a few heartbeats. There are those who defend Obama’s plan, and its rationing, by saying that private insurance rations also. This is true, but there’s a significant difference, which the Obama defenders ignore. If a health insurance company, HMO, or other private provider denies you coverage, you can argue with them. You can sue. If you have the money, you can either transfer your coverage somewhere else, or just pay for your care out of pocket. Those options may not be open to everyone, but they’re open to some people. If the current plan that’s being walked through Congress becomes law, it’s my understanding that you *might* be able to sue (we don’t want to impoverish lawyers, of course, with tort reform) but there probably won’t be another company to go to, and you won’t be able to pay for your care out of pocket. So the rationing will be *enforced* much more stringently than it is currently.
No one on the left, yet, has responded to my recounting of the Belinda Stronach story. Stronach was a Canadian MP, a big supporter of Canada’s single payer system. She’s also independently wealthy. When she was diagnosed with breast cancer a few years ago, rather than wait the several months that the Canadian health care system thought appropriate, she immediately flew to California and paid for the surgery out of pocket. She then withdrew from Canadian politics, because of course it would be impossible for her to continue to advocate for the single payer system, and awkward for her to now oppose it. On a larger note, breast cancer survival rates in the United States are about 77%. The comparable number, in Great Britain, is 51%. Why would we want to replace the first with the second?
