WSJ shocked by rationing of health services that the WSJ doesn't think should exist at all [View all]

[cthulu2016]

This is sooooo sick. The Wall Street Journal editorial page is horrified that Oregon’s Medicaid system might seek to limit spending on treatments that aren't very effective or treatments for patients who will die quite soon no matter what is done.

Death Panels. Healthcare rationing in Obamacare!

In Medicaid... which the Wall Street Journal opposes expanding under Obamacare.

The WSJ, quite literally, thinks that the poor should be left to die in the street untreated, but that if the poor are treated, that treatment must be as wasteful of taxpayer dollars as possible.

This is precisely the same as fighting tooth and nail to close down soup kitchens because the poor should starve, and offering, as an argument that soup kitchens should be closed down, that they limit the indigent to two bowls of soup.

Either that or the WSJ is just a dishonest rag that opposes Obamacare categorically and will say any sick thing it can think of.

Two good pieces on this:

...the same people, and organizations, who rail against rationing within Medicaid while simultaneously railing against the Medicaid expansion. Evidently, they are fine with completely denying Medicaid to many of the poorest among us, but against making Medicaid less robust once they get it. Odd...

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/death-panels-in-oregon/

...On one side, it’s fanatically opposed to Medicaid expansion — that is, it’s eager to make sure that millions have no health coverage at all. On the other side, it claims to be outraged at the notion of setting priorities in spending on those who do manage to qualify for Medicaid. It’s OK for people to die for lack of coverage; it’s an utter horror if taxpayers decline to pay for marginal care.

And yes, we’re talking about taxpayers. Nobody at all is talking about rationing the care you may choose to buy for yourself; if Rupert Murdoch wants to spend $100 million on a treatment that probably won’t work, but might prolong his life by a few weeks, he’s perfectly free to do so. The real policy question is simply whether taxpayers should be obliged to do the same for everyone — and the answer is obviously no.

Now, the Journal isn’t really confused on this point. Surely it understands the difference between rationing care and limiting public spending on care. The point, however, is to confuse readers, and make them think that spending controls on Medicaid are the same thing as having bureaucrats pronounce death sentences on the middle class...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/10/death-panels-and-the-apparatchik-mindset/