Rationalizing Rationing, the Paul Ryan Way.

Since Paul Ryan’s Dickensian plan for America is now the hot topic and possible future economic plan for the U.S., the discussion has turned to limiting Medicare payments to a set amount, with anything over that your problem. Don’t have the money? Too bad, it was good knowing you.

The states were actually first to try rationing…yes rationing. In the Bizarro World of Republican “projection,” their warnings about rationing…weren’t really warnings, just wishful thinking. The states have been so successful denying care, Congress couldn't resist getting in on the action.

Like voodoo economics, fiscal conservativism, death panels and enemy teachers, rationing is the next bill of goods we're expected to buy into. The section below is part of an opinion featured at Econbrowser, and it’s raw. Over time, many will think this all makes wonderful sense:   

(2) Changing the path requires denying some medical services for someone who would otherwise receive them. Many of the partisan advocates try to claim that their proposal can solve the problem by eliminating inefficiencies or fraud. I am not going to deny that there is some potential for improvement. But pretending that this is the sole issue we need to address is a disservice. The basic reality is that we have found some ways to prolong life and reduce suffering that are very, very expensive. What we need, in my opinion, is a social and moral framework for deciding which of these are worth doing and which are not.
And there are three ways to determine which medical services don't get provided.

• (a) The government can limit the procedures it will pay for and the people who are eligible to receive them.

• (b) The insurance company or other third party can limit the procedures they will pay for and the people who are eligible to receive them.

• (c) If (a) and (b) both say no and you don't have the money yourself to pay for it, then you do not receive the treatment.

Each of those options is morally troubling to many of us. But reality forces us to choose some mix of the three. Pretending that there are no tough choices just digs us deeper into a debt that can't be repaid. 

The radical aspect of Ryan's plan is, instead of specifying which procedures the government will pay for, the government limits the dollar amount that it will contribute, beyond which, it's left to (b) and (c). 

Impossible, you say, to imagine any politician saying such a thing? Sorry, it’s already happened.  

Last February, 2010, Ezra Klein interviewed Rep. Paul Ryan and pressed him about rationing, and how his Road Map would lead to that eventually. He admitted this shocking reality:

Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein calls it rationing, since he believes seniors would have to buy less comprehensive policies and cut back on care. Ryan, in an interview with Klein, argues that the programs are growing themselves into extinction, and his plan at least gives seniors the choice to choose the care they receive. Said Ryan: "Rationing happens today! The question is who will do it? The government? Or you, your doctor and your family?"