In large measure because the subject is narrowly addressed. If the problem is how to make sure that everyone has access to adequate health care, I think a solution can be arrived at. But the contention is never about the problem. It is about people's pet solution to the problem. The commonest pet solution is some sort of government-sponsored healthcare system. One would think that just about everyone would know by now that the government isn't very good at that sort of thing. Moreover, the government doesn't make anything or sell anything. It's only source of income is taxation. So the government pays for nothing. Taxpayers underwrite the government. Some sort of private consortium ought to be devisable into which all could pay. But what about those who cannot afford to pay? And what about those who take care of themselves? And those who do not? So: Why "is there nocomprehensive national health insurance system in the U.S.?" Because it's large country with a lot of people with different, sometimes contending, interests and the problem is complex, not simple, and no one wants to address the problem only beat the drum for the solution of their choice. Please don't bring up Canada or Europe, both of which have different problems regarding healthcare, problems that are growing.
'Please don't bring up Canada or Europe, both of which have different problems regarding healthcare, problems that are growing.' Undoubtedly there are problems, and undoubtedly they are growing, which in itself doesn't mean that one can't look at how other countries are - whether well or badly - dealing with them (Do I need to add that Europe really does embrace a palette of different health-care models? Or that we are all undoubtedly aware that the U.S. is a large and complex country?)
'It is about people's pet solution to the problem.' Is this really so? My impression is that many people use the 'narrow address' as a cover for an underlying disinclination to solve the problem, something that may - and I repeat, only may stem from a strong belief in individualism. But I would be glad to be wrong here and am ready to be convinced.
I think that's an interesting point, Lee, that people use the narrow address to avoid the problem. If so - and I think there's a good case to be made for it - it still leaves us not solving the problem. In Canada - I think its supreme court may have done something about this, though - it has been against the law for citizens to have private health care (though the politicians managed to get around this). In Britain, more and more people who can afford to are paying for private health care (if one can believe the British papers, which Maxine warns me against). I believe some sort of solution could be found at the state level, but I am absolutely convinced that the federal government is not the place to seek a solution.
I have never understood why there is no comprehensive national health insurance system in the U.S.
ReplyDeleteIn large measure because the subject is narrowly addressed. If the problem is how to make sure that everyone has access to adequate health care, I think a solution can be arrived at. But the contention is never about the problem. It is about people's pet solution to the problem. The commonest pet solution is some sort of government-sponsored healthcare system. One would think that just about everyone would know by now that the government isn't very good at that sort of thing. Moreover, the government doesn't make anything or sell anything. It's only source of income is taxation. So the government pays for nothing. Taxpayers underwrite the government. Some sort of private consortium ought to be devisable into which all could pay. But what about those who cannot afford to pay? And what about those who take care of themselves? And those who do not?
ReplyDeleteSo: Why "is there nocomprehensive national health insurance system in the U.S.?" Because it's large country with a lot of people with different, sometimes contending, interests and the problem is complex, not simple, and no one wants to address the problem only beat the drum for the solution of their choice. Please don't bring up Canada or Europe, both of which have different problems regarding healthcare, problems that are growing.
'Please don't bring up Canada or Europe, both of which have different problems regarding healthcare, problems that are growing.' Undoubtedly there are problems, and undoubtedly they are growing, which in itself doesn't mean that one can't look at how other countries are - whether well or badly - dealing with them (Do I need to add that Europe really does embrace a palette of different health-care models? Or that we are all undoubtedly aware that the U.S. is a large and complex country?)
ReplyDelete'It is about people's pet solution to the problem.' Is this really so? My impression is that many people use the 'narrow address' as a cover for an underlying disinclination to solve the problem, something that may - and I repeat, only may stem from a strong belief in individualism. But I would be glad to be wrong here and am ready to be convinced.
I think that's an interesting point, Lee, that people use the narrow address to avoid the problem. If so - and I think there's a good case to be made for it - it still leaves us not solving the problem. In Canada - I think its supreme court may have done something about this, though - it has been against the law for citizens to have private health care (though the politicians managed to get around this). In Britain, more and more people who can afford to are paying for private health care (if one can believe the British papers, which Maxine warns me against). I believe some sort of solution could be found at the state level, but I am absolutely convinced that the federal government is not the place to seek a solution.
ReplyDelete