Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
5. You mean
Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:41 PM
Dec 2012
That becomes an issue under socialism when the state is unable to pay for all health care procedures, hence rationing is necessary.

Please identify one government that is socialist that does not face rationing.

For that matter please identify any government that does not face rationing.

...as opposed to paying 17 percent of GDP in health care costs and having 50 million (expected to climb to 70 million pre-reform) citizens without insurance?

Oh, and the rationing debate happened leading up to the health care reform bill being signed into law. On one hand were the single-payer advocates and on the other were the RW nuts screaming about long lines and rationing in Canada. Look up some of the posts addressing the issue.



Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Not only are their stupid vouchers inadequate Warpy Dec 2012 #1
Ice Flows and Eskimos time... WCGreen Dec 2012 #13
Krugman avoids answering whether competition should be allowed to set prices or govt. will take over jody Dec 2012 #2
Who exactly ProSense Dec 2012 #3
Krugman addresses cost of health care. That becomes an issue under socialism when the state is jody Dec 2012 #4
You mean ProSense Dec 2012 #5
Interesting. Still rationing of health care is necessary and fraught with moral subtleties. I'm not jody Dec 2012 #6
Here: ProSense Dec 2012 #8
Thanks, I had already read that. nt jody Dec 2012 #10
you think healthcare is not "rationed" now? Skittles Dec 2012 #14
I never said that but so what? nt jody Dec 2012 #16
We need to ration more. Not every 80 year old with metastatic endstage cancer should be offered a mucifer Dec 2012 #7
Yes stopwastingmymoney Dec 2012 #9
I agree. frostfern Dec 2012 #11
I really don't like your argument. n/t ProSense Dec 2012 #12
nice generalization of baby boomers Skittles Dec 2012 #15
I think the end of life discussion should be brought up as soon as the prognosis is known. mucifer Dec 2012 #17
It should be between people and their doctors ProSense Dec 2012 #18
Kids can live on and on unresponsive in the ICU also. It's the same thing. mucifer Dec 2012 #19
"when given the choice" ProSense Dec 2012 #20
I don't really believe that is true in all cases. mucifer Dec 2012 #21
You're ProSense Dec 2012 #22
I've seen some cases where I really don't care who it is, but someone should say "no". mucifer Dec 2012 #23
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Krugman: It’s Health Care...»Reply #5