Sunday, November 01, 2009

Democrats decry the claim that their health care plans would result in government rationing of health care, and they're particularly upset over the suggestion that 'death panels' would deny care to the chronically sick and the elderly.

But why should the public believe them, especially in the rationale they're using to limit the use of flex health spending accounts because, in part, "... it would help curb overuse of medical care" and that such plans create "an incentive for people to spend all the money even if they don't have pressing needs" (My italics).

Isn't that the exact thing critics are worried about, that government will use its power to decide what is and what isn't 'pressing needs' and to limit access to care for anything they decide isn't that important?

Of course, the Democrats could simply remove the requirement that health spending account money be spent within a designated period, thus removing the need to spend money on care that they don't think is so pressing... but that wouldn't raise any tax revenue, would it?