I’ve long suspected that many – maybe most – of the Congressional conservatives posturing about “Obamacare” and decrying hypothetical healthcare rationing don’t really object to “rationing” at all – they just object to the government setting standards and limits that apply to everyone. As most of the people I deal with on a daily basis are well aware, private health insurance already rations healthcare, and the cheaper your plan is, the more your healthcare is rationed.
For the most part, conservatives have been careful to avoid saying that they’re OK with “free market” rationing – rationing that is determined by how much you’re able to pay for private insurance.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor – in a rare (for almost any politician) honest moment, made his true feelings on “rationing” very clear, as first reported on The Hill:
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Tuesday that private healthcare plans ration care for profit but that consumers should be free to buy whatever coverage they can afford rather than depend on government rationing.
In remarks to the College of American Pathologists, Cantor warned that Democrats’ healthcare reform law mandates benefits that are too generous and will bankrupt the country as the government ends up having to offer ever increasing subsidies. That can only lead to government rationing, he said.
“That doesn’t mean those kinds of decisions aren’t being made now by the private sector,” Cantor added, “because they are.”
Even that last statement by Cantor is generally more than conservatives are willing to admit. In and of itself, the statement wouldn’t be that important. IMO, it’s what he said next that we should all take note of – and make sure that this gets included in any discussion of healthcare rationing:
Cantor appeared to go further than Republicans have in the past by acknowledging that not all patients are certain to get optimal healthcare under a system of private insurance.
“I think that the fundamental nature of our system of third-party payer is the problem,” he said. Patients, he added, too often are left with “no decision about what they want and what they can afford.”
Later, Cantor said Republicans want a safety net for people who can’t afford care but that “we’re not for everyone having the same outcome guaranteed.” (Emphasis added.)
Let’s put that last bit into plain English. What Cantor is saying here is that he and his colleagues are for people having different “outcomes” regarding their access to healthcare, with affluent people having good outcomes and middle class and below having pretty crappy ones.
In other words, if you’ve been thinking that the Republican proposals on healthcare are going to result in much poorer access to healthcare, Eric Cantor just told you that you are not paranoid at all.
This will hit the population of people with disabilities especially hard. We tend to need more from the healthcare system and earn a lot less than the general population. Here’s an excerpt from a report on Poverty in the United States for 2009, prepared for “members and committees of Congress”:
In 2009, persons who had a work disability represented 10.6% of the 16-64 year old population, and 23.5% of the poor population within this age range. Among those with a severe work disability, 33.5% were poor, compared to 15.2% of those with a less severe disability and 11.2% who reported having no work-related disability.
This, of course, underestimates the financial hardships faced by people with disabilities, who often have significant expenses related to our disabilities that aren’t covered by any insurance or government program.
But I expect that people can get the idea here. Those with significant disabilities and health conditions have lower incomes and won’t be able to afford insurance that provides a great deal of healthcare. Affluent people, like Eric Cantor (whose assets are in the millions), will be able to get the “cadillac plans.”
In real terms, that means that people of modest means or less won’t be able to afford treatment for cancer, or surgery for heart conditions or any of a myriad of other health issues that can give us many added and enjoyable years. Those will only be for the Eric Cantors who can afford the best insurance and associated deductibles.
On the bright side (sarcasm alert), it should put an end to “futile care” disputes. Very few people will have insurance that would cover the type of intensive treatment usually at the center of those disputes. My guess is that medical professionals and facilities will swallow their principles and tolerate those few affluent folks who insist on “futile” care.
I know that Republicans and conservatives hate the term, but this sounds an awful lot like “class warfare” to me. But I guess it would be rude of me to call it that, wouldn’t it? –Stephen Drake
A congressman who walks through the halls will have complete health coverage. The proletariat woman who mops those floors so they will be clean enough for him to be seen on them will be rationed. And he thinks that’s fair.