Talk:Health care rationing

Untitled

Copied from my edit sandbox for the lead User:CBailey24/Health care rationing CBailey24 (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Copied from my edit sandbox for the overall description of health care rationing User:CBailey24/Health care rationing CBailey24 (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Copied from my edit sandbox and added onto the description of the United States. User:CBailey24/Health care rationing CBailey24 (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Added a section about "During a Pandemic" copied from my sandbox editsUser:CBailey24/Health care rationing CBailey24 (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Added a section about "Ethics in Health Care Rationing" copied from my sandbox edits User:CBailey24/Health care rationing CBailey24 (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 March 2020 and 11 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CBailey24. Peer reviewers: Mackenziebrumbaugh, Tescobar56.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Purpose

What is this article for? I read all the references which made it clear that health care can be rationed by the simple operation of market forces without any government intervention, and as this was in conflict with the introduction which said something about "how government rations health care" I deleted the reference to government. I see three possible options

1 Is it another place to hang American scare stories about health care restrictions stemming from health care reform? About half the article is in the context of American health care reform- If so the matter is well covered in the American specific article and deserves no mention here.

2 Is it about how governments around the world intervene to affect the allocation of resources that would otherwise happen in a free market? I suspect that this is what Jesanj meant it to be but there are three problems with this.

(i) The title of the article does not convey this

(ii) When I tried to add in a way in which government intervention increases access to health care in the case of dialysis or by the relative absense of access costs in the UK Jesanj deleted it! From what I know about "Obamacare" it is about increasing access to health care and not restricting it. Unless he knows otherwise.

3. Is it about how governments allocate their own budget to individual health care services? This is a legitimate topic but again

(i) the title of the article does not convey this

(ii) the PRI article cited is about this subject and confusingly calls it "rationing". But it only covers 4 countries and in three of these countries only case studies are mentioned and not general principles, so it is hardly a worthy reference for such a topic. It is also very confusing given that it refers to true rationing at one point (the absolute allocation of goods by coupons in war time - i.e. an allowance that cannot be exceeded) and the insurance coverage rules of the UK National Health Service. The latter is not health care rationing in the sense mentioned previously because the UK has a free market in health care with private health care providers and private insurance alongside a dominant government player. The UK government does NOT ration health care but there is price rationing there just as there is in most countries, including the United States. Everyone in the UK knows the NHS coverage rules and everyone is free to determine if they want to spend more (insurance or out of pocket) to extend NHS coverage for themselves or their family into the private health care sector. This is, therefore. not "rationing" in the war-time coupon sense or any kind that most people would call "rationing". The setting of coverage rules (a common feature of almost every insurance policy of any type), as Uwe Reinhardt points out in the other referenced article, is not generally regarded as "rationing". Which means that the very use of this citation seems to indicate that it has been used as a scare tactic in American political debate!!

If the purpose of the article it is not about any of the above, then what IS it supposed to be about? And what shoulf the article title be to do justice to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.230.158 (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Healthcare rationing in the United States now has most of the US-specific content. -- Beland (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe CFD

This article looks like it was made for ideological reasons. It cites one left-wing commentator's non-standard use of the word "rationing" (we refer to wartime rationing ending, not wartime rationing going from ration cards to somehow rationing by the market...) to be authoritative and doesn't at all treat the topic in an encyclopedic fashion. It's like Wikitionary if wikitionary were run by partisan hacks. It should be deleted. 108.68.109.22 (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's since changed a lot. -- Beland (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It certainly has changed a lot since 2013, and not for the better. Even lifetime provisions like stomas are no longer replaced when they fail - an operation which costs £700 - in some Hospital Trusts, without special permission which can be, and is, refused. Update, please, whatever the 'politics'Delahays (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)