The term rationing is one where the United States is not faced with a shortage of service as the level of goods and services of the country are not used, or are out of demand. This generally tends to happen when there is a limit that is implemented on the goods and services and is based on the ability to pay. Considering the general public here in the case, there is a huge misbelieve that if there is a medical condition and a possible treatment for it, then the insurance companies are liable to pay irrespective of the costs. This however is never the same if a person needs to pay for the treatment from their own pockets. This is simple human nature. However there is always rationing that happens when a person is not covered by insurance. Here the individual or even the practitioners would consider whether it is useful to allow the treatment on the person and whether the outcome might be useful or not.
The first article by Newt Gingrich is one which describes the current day situation where there is a clear level of rationing. The author states a very interesting point, ‘if you are a single male with no children, the legislation still requires you to have maternity benefits and well-baby and well-child care coverage. You dont want or dont need that coverage? Sorry, you have to pay for it anyway’. This is the current situation among all Americans and the perspective of the citizens is clear from the title of the article: ‘Healthcare rationing: Real scary’ (Gingrich, 2009).
The second article by Floyd on the other hand discusses the issues faced by the government. It is clear that in the current situation the health care systems are very costly and the Americans expect to receive the best without the will to pay for it. This leads the author to set down three important questions which have been answered here in the document. The author has set down the following: ‘The current debate over healthcare rationing surrounds three key