Why We Must Ration Care

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

In a long piece in this week’s New York Times Magazine, Peter Singer explains why American politicians’ fear of “rationing” health care is ridiculous: health care is a scarce resource, and like all scarce resources, it’s already rationed:

[T]he U.S. system also results in people going without life-saving treatment…  American patients, even if they are covered by Medicare or Medicaid, often cannot afford the copayments for drugs. That’s rationing too, by ability to pay.


[E]ven in emergency rooms, people without health insurance may receive less health care than those with insurance. Joseph Doyle, a professor of economics at the Sloan School of Management at M.I.T., studied the records of people in Wisconsin who were injured in severe automobile accidents and had no choice but to go to the hospital. He estimated that those who had no health insurance received 20 percent less care and had a death rate 37 percent higher than those with health insurance. This difference held up even when those without health insurance were compared with those without automobile insurance, and with those on Medicaid — groups with whom they share some characteristics that might affect treatment. The lack of insurance seems to be what caused the greater number of deaths.

If we’re already rationing, shouldn’t we try to figure out how to do it in the fairest, most effective way possible? Singer suggests that could mean creating a system of “Medicare for All” (a plan many liberals support) that only pays for the most cost-effective treatments (as opposed to Medicare’s current setup, which pays for many of the treatments doctors choose without regard to their cost-effectiveness). Those who could afford it would be able to get private insurance, too, or pay out-of-pocket, if they wanted a procedure or medicine that had proven less cost-effective.

Of course, something like Singer’s suggestion is very unlikely to be adopted: instead, we’re apparently getting a system that expands health insurance coverage but does little to reduce costs. That’s mostly because it’s against the interests of the health care industry (and the members of Congress it bought and paid for) to actually ration care effectively. But just because it’s against the industry’s interest to ration care effectively doesn’t mean it’s not in your interest, or the country’s.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend