LAC News
From Seinfeld’s Soup Nazi to the Emergency Room — The Reality of Health Care Rationing
By By Lindsey Douthit
July 2009

One of the most popular episodes of the TV show “Seinfeld” featured Jerry and his friends unsuccessfully trying to buy soup from a grumpy chef who would offer soup to some customers but refuse service to others.  If customers did not follow his strict procedures for placing an order, the chef would refund their money and deny them his delicious soup.  From this episode came the famous expressions “Soup Nazi” and “No soup for you!”    

As the House of Representatives prepares to debate health care legislation (without reading it, of course), the term “No health care for you!” comes to mind.  Liberal representatives are pushing hard for a “public option” insurance plan, a government-run insurance program that they claim would provide “a little healthy competition for private insurers.”  The long-term reality of a public option, however, is that millions of Americans would be dumped by their employers on the cheaper government plan, and private insurers would eventually be run out of business.  The government cannot insert itself as a competitor in a game that it also referees. 

To add insult to injury (no pun intended), once the government had a majority stake in health insurance, health care would then be categorized into the overall grouping of government programs that must fight for funding.  This would ultimately lead to “rationing,” or the government’s ability to regulate what kinds of treatments it deems necessary for patients.  Consequently, the government could even deny procedures in the name of “cost-savings.”  As we’ve seen in Canada and England, health care rationing often creates immense moral crises for those concerned with the sanctity of life.  In government-run health care programs, end-of-life dilemmas arise in which older patients are deemed unworthy of treatment because of their age, or individuals die waiting for crucial treatments. 

The organization Patients United Now has launched a website with testimonials from individuals who have experienced firsthand the consequences of allowing a nation’s health care system to be controlled by the government.  There are reports, for instance, of patients in Canada with life-threatening tumors being forced to wait for months on end for treatment.  Many of them end up coming to the U.S. for the life-saving care that saves their lives.[1]  In a 2005 decision striking down part of Quebec’s universal care law, Canadian Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin wrote that it was undisputed that many Canadians waiting for treatment suffer chronic pain and that “patients die while on the waiting list.”[2]  Furthermore, the Fraser Institute found in a 2007 study that the national median waiting time in Canada, from an appointment with a specialist to actual treatment, was 9.1 weeks—about 63 days![3]

For those who truly care about life from conception to natural death, it is also troubling to consider that elderly patients are often faced with health care delays or denials simply because of their age.  In England, for example, elderly patients suffering from age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD) frequently face treatment delays or outright denial of treatment.  If left untreated, AMD patients can go blind in both eyes in three months.[4]  Tragically, elderly patients could easily avoid losing their sight if given timely medical care.  Sadly, the reality remains that in government-run health care systems, bureaucrats tend to be more willing to spend money on younger patients who contribute to the work force, while older patients remain a low priority for health care funds.

There is an inherent danger in the government placing itself as a competitor among private insurers.  Liberal politicians claim that it will merely spur positive competition, but by controlling the game, the government would end up as the winner.  With current government programs already scrambling for funds, patients would most certainly see their health care rationed.  More people would suffer while waiting for treatments, the elderly would be pushed to the bottom of the priority list due to their age, and doctors would lose their right to dictate the best course of treatment for their patients — and people would see their medical requests denied in the name of saving money.  And life would imitate the sitcoms, with a grumpy government arbitrarily screaming, “No health care for you!”