Rationing Health Care


I've been hearing a lot of debate about the necessity of rationing health care, as if there were not enough of it to go around. Conservatives use this argument to encourage the status quo. Liberals use the same term to encourage change. If we accept that there's not enough to go around, rationing seems, well, only rational.

My complaint centers around the irrational way we presently choose the haves and the have-nots.

What would rationally-derived health care rationing look like? Here are some ideas. Decide based upon:
Hair color
Race
Zip code
Gender
Religion
Political party
Taste in music
Underwear preference (Boxers/briefs...)
Legibility of handwriting
Credit score

These criteria might seem absurd, but each can be unambiguously, rationally determined. Equity determined by hard and surprisingly fast rules.

Playing this little game exposed for me the absurdity of the whole argument. If the irrational scheme fails and the rational schemes fail, might we question the rationing premise? Perhaps we're struggling to answer the wrong question.

One strategy for resolving this kind of dilemma involves assuming abundance, rather than scarcity. What if there were plenty, more than we could possibly imagine?

Feels different, doesn't it?

blog comments powered by Disqus