Another chance to argue over American health care.

For those who might like to do so.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/opinion/12sun1.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5087%0A&em&en=81027c4b9b038e39&ex=1187150400

Seven years ago, the World Health Organization made the first major effort to rank the health systems of 191 nations. France and Italy took the top two spots; the United States was a dismal 37th. More recently, the highly regarded Commonwealth Fund has pioneered in comparing the United States with other advanced nations through surveys of patients and doctors and analysis of other data. Its latest report, issued in May, ranked the United States last or next-to-last compared with five other nations — Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom — on most measures of performance, including quality of care and access to it. Other comparative studies also put the United States in a relatively bad light.

 

To those on the political and social spectrum who are opposed to any sort of nationalized health care, let me pose this question.

If legit (and much-needed) spending cuts across the board could help pay a bulk of the cost of a nationalized health care system, would you then support it? Coupled with our current spending woes, the answer's an easy no. But if responsible spending could be employed to make it possible without bankrupting Americans from a tax perspective, would you reconsider?

 

No, never. Nationalized care didn't turn out all that great for routine stuff in Britain, so I don't see it working any better here. Emergency/catastrophic national insurance? Maybe, but that would be a chore to set up.

 

This is what happens when you think with your mouth open.

1) The first post points out that Britain (along with 36 other countries) has been ranked ahead of the U.S. by both WHO and the Commonwealth Fund in terms of patient care. So if nationalized health care "didn't turn out all that great," how, exactly, has the American system turned out?

2) I remember a little while ago, when a bunch of men in wigs sat around trying to decide how to write a Constitution -- the foundation for an entire country -- a few of them rolled their eyes at the prospect and said, "But that would be a chore to set up" and proposed an afternoon of croquet and lemonade instead.

Good thing the rest of them felt like it was worth the effort.

 

How about this horrible idea, where Massachusetts forces you to get health insurance:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040401937.html

 

I will support, and ONLY support, a free-market alternative that makes insurance companies responsible *only* for catastrophic (e.g., hospital/ER/surgery) care. The Medical Savings Accounts concept (coupled with high-deductible, low-cost insurance) is a good one, but Congress has done everything possible to stonewall it and make it impossible to implement on a wide scale.

The current system is like having your car insurance company pay for every oil change and piece of preventive maintenance.

As someone once told me, if you think health care is expensive and inefficient now, wait 'til it's free.

 

I don't really have a personal position tonight, BR. Just thought the Times editorial was sort of interesting. And presented another opportunity for further discussion.

 

Yeah. but there's only been one MRI machine in the whole history of Canada!

 

What's next, socialized fire-fighting?

 

For a number of reason, all of them having to do with the fact that the average American corporation has the civic conscience and basic humanity if a flea, MSA's are a scam that have died a richly deserved death every time someone's proposed them. And you can dance around the numbers all you want, Ragu, but there are six or seven countries who do health-care -- in terms of access and cost -- than we do.