On 08/02/09 13:29, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Arguably, many of these same people are the ones who proudly proclaim
> that America has the "best health care system in the world", despite the
> cost of health care here being the *highest* in the world, the system
> itself being ranked something like 50th in the world, and the average
> life span being something like 37th in the world.

1. Cost of health care being high doesn't negate it being the best.

2. To be fair, it all depends on what ranking you look at. Not all place 
the US that low. The usual ranking people invoke is the WHO, which puts 
it just a bit below 30th - nowhere near 50th.

3. Most of the people I hear from who are against universal health care 
don't claim the US is near the "best". They claim that people who "work 
hard and earn a lot" should get some sort of priority over deadbeats who 
don't. (Not my view, but thought I'd point out that it's not about being 
the best). Effectively, the argument is that access to health care is 
not a human right (although they'll never put it in those terms).

4. To be fair, among industrialized countries, the US _does_ rank near 
the top for the treatment of certain conditions (e.g. certain cancers, 
etc). I don't know if they include people who just don't get care 
because they can't afford it. To be even fairer, the same study shows 
that the US is worse and in some cases really bad for a number of other 
common serious ailments.

	I haven't deeply looked at Obama's plan. I don't know if it's 
particularly good. It's not what most advocates of universal health care 
want. I don't know of any country that actually uses his plan as a 
model. The countries that do come close (Switzerland?) and have a system 
of private insurance actually enforce limits on the amount of profit 
insurance companies make. That doesn't seem to be in his plan.
	
	I think what a lot of UHC advocates have to understand is that just 
because it's government run doesn't mean it will work at all well. There 
are a lot of issues and concerns that simply are not being addressed. 
It's a long article, but you should read:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all

	It's purely discussing government run care, and how in some cases it 
can be really abused, without the guilty party even consciously _trying_ 
to abuse it. If they don't address this kind of stuff, UHC won't work 
that well.


-- 
Kotter: "Have you ever considered becoming a vet?"
Epstein: "Uh...Uh no. My brother Sanchez was in the army. Didn't like it 
a bit."

Post a reply to this message