>This does not have to be the case. Individuals would not allow it.
>
>You mean "individuals" would ration.

Just as with every other financial decision in their lives, or face the consequences, like the idots who've lived WAY beyond their means recently and are facing those consequences now.

>What individuals, and would they expect to ration others (iow "death panels" as some would have it)

No, that's what you're advocating.

>or would they ration themselves? If you're saying that people would ration themselves, IME you're dreaming unless it's part of an organized social (iow governmental) process.

I'm literally witnessing it every day with a couple friends who've hit hard times. The day-to-day decisions they're making are purly financially based.

>Only government run/funded care has this possibility. If individuals are put in charge of their health costs, they will draw a line, just as they do with every other financial decision in their lives.
>
>If only it were true in the real world. Perhaps you will agree that deciding on whether to pay for treatment for your 4-year-old who is diagnosed with leukemia is a little different from upgrading your car.

Way to go nuclear. High-risk insurance pools could be made to handle this and the other nuclear example of "pre-existing conditions". They already exist in 30+ states and if properly incentivized could be expanded to all. As a bonus they would alleviate the pressure on emergency room traffic by shifting patients without insurance for these reasons to specialists.

>This is why healthcare costs are responsible for the majority of bankruptcies in the US- that majority being middle-class people with health insurance, fwiw, meaning they've decided to spend beyond the rationing imposed by their insurance company. IOW they've chosen *higher* costs- higher than their health plan or they themselves can afford. We're talking about smart productive people just like you, not financial dummies. QED.

What if that suggestion is wrong and there were other factors?

A reexamination of their data suggests that medical bills are a contributing factor in just 17 percent of personal bankruptcies and that those affected tend to have incomes closer to poverty level than to middle class.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/short/25/2/w74

Using PSID data, we estimate the extent to which consumer bankruptcy filings are induced by high levels of medical debt. Our results suggest that nearly 27 percent of filings are a consequence of primarily medical debt, while in approximately 36 percent of cases medical debts co-exist with primarily credit card debts. Studying the post-bankruptcy scenario, we find that filers are 19 percent less likely to own a home even several years after the filing, compared to non-filers. However, the consequences are less adverse for medical filers i.e those who filed due to high medical bills compared to other filers.

http://www.aei.org/docLib/20060719_MedicalBillsAndBankruptcy.pdf

Then what? (I realize this is a dicey area as all studies tend to have counter studies. I'm not really sure which analysis is correct, if any, which is why I'll not buy the hype of the hypothetical)

>This is about who is going to be in charge of our lives and at what cost.
>
>Jake, the slogans are cool but there are some realities. 1) Rationing. 2) bankruptcies. Both are undeniable realities in the real world and if they contradict the theory, then the theory is wrong.

Ah, but the theory is not in place as I've stated before. Blaming capitalism for the current problems with our health industry is a false-argument. Proposing more government in the face of nearly 50% current involvement in said problematic industry is by definition insane.

>The fact is that individuals do NOT make rational spending decisions when it comes to healthcare- they outspend the insurance companies and destroy their lives. this also demonstrates that rationing is alive and well- since if the insurers did not ration, individuals would not need to spend themselves into bankruptcy.

Rationing is alive and well in in the insurance industry, in medicare and with the individual. Again, this comes down to in a free society, who does the rationing. My choice is the individual.

>Capitalism is the greatest force for innovation, I suggest we implement some before we destroy the whole shebang.
>
>Any "innovator" will tell you that the animal is always right- meaning that what happens in the real world is more important than any theory, no matter how attractive that theory may be.

You're right, and as I look to Massachusetts, Hawaii, Tennessee, Britain and Canada I see the real-world effects of what's currently being proposed here, namely less care, fewer doctors and greater costs. When I look to Texas and Mississippi I see the real-world effects of the reforms I'm talking about actually reducing costs and encouraging doctors to practice. In the real-world, my theory holds up and others fail.