Gov’t preemptive rationing.

Let’s review some basic principles of supply and demand: If a government policy increases the demand for a service, the price of that service tends to rise. If the government prevents prices from rising, shortages develop. The quantity provided is then determined by supply and not demand. In the presence of such excess demand, the result could be a two-tier market structure. Consumers who can somehow pay more than the government-mandated price will be able to purchase the service, while those paying the controlled price may be unable to find a willing supplier.

That’s from Harvard eco. prof. Greg Mankiw’s blog, where he cites a recent Washington Post story about “A plan to slash more than $500 billion from future Medicare spending” as an example of a government attempt to increase demand resulting in rationing and less access to health care. So, sure, it may become be “free” under any ObamaCare “federal option,” but good luck getting timely service — which is kind of important when, say, fighting cancer.

Speaking of which, a recent report by a government health care body you’ve likely never heard of, titled with the Orwellian and innocuous sounding name of United States Preventive Service Task Force (preventive of what?), announced, according to ABC News, “For the first time in 20 years,” that “women in their 40s to stop getting routine mammograms and recommending that a host of other breast cancer screenings slow down.” Huh? Welcome to ObamaCare. So much for preventative medicine.

This is nothing more than preemptively conditioning the public to the kind of health care service they can expect from a government-run panel of “experts” determining what’s best for patients.

Here’s a summation by some health care professionals surveyed by Reuters:

* Dr Carol Lee, chairwoman of the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Commission, said she fears insurers — both private and public — will use them to pare back health costs.

“These new recommendations seem to reflect a conscious decision to ration care,” Lee said in a statement.

She said since the onset of regular mammogram screening in 1990, the death rate from breast cancer, which had been unchanged for the preceding 50 years, has decreased by 30 percent.

* Dr Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, said the influential group will not change recommendations for routine mammograms for women starting at age 40.

But he is worried that women will become so confused by the conflicting recommendations they will stop getting mammograms altogether. “Frankly, from our point of view that would be the worst possible outcome,” Lichtenfeld said in a telephone interview.

* Lichtenfeld and other doctors are worried that insurance companies and government insurers will seize on the recommendations as a way to control rising health costs.

“What is going to happen is insurers are going to say, ‘The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force doesn’t support screening. We’re not going to pay for it,’” said Dr Daniel Kopans, professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School and a senior radiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“There were no new data to assess. One has to wonder why these new guidelines are being promulgated at a time when healthcare is under discussion and I am afraid their decision is related to saving money rather than saving lives,” Kopans said.

* “The USPSTF recommendations are a step backward and represent a significant harm to women’s health,” Dr W. Phil Evans, president of the Society of Breast Imaging, said in a statement.

“At least 40 percent of the lives saved by mammographic screening are of women aged 40-49. These recommendations are inconsistent with current science and apparently have been developed in an attempt to reduce costs. Unfortunately, many women may pay for this unsound approach with their lives.”