Ladies and gentlemen, we have health care!
[3/22 add.]: I don’t purport to be knowledgable enough to argue for why the US needs a revised health care system, and I certainly don’t understand all that the bill(s) will do. The most succinct argument in that realm has been made by Uwe Reinhardt, as epitomized in this graphic found in the NY Times:
My understanding is that without all three of these attributes, any attempt at change would collapse. An integrated, holistic approach to health demands a more outcome-oriented payment scheme, universal insurance mandates require a different way of structuring costs, and so forth. This I think makes sense.
The argument I am more qualified to speak on is on the ideological side, over why the debate has proceded with the tone, direction, and vociferation that it has (and I watched the live feed late last night, and it was quite rowdy). Chuck Todd, on Meet the Press yesterday morning, summed things up nicely:
And one thing I think we forget, though, is on the issue of health care is that this actually gets at the philosophical divide between Democrats and Republicans. I’ve asked many a Republican and many a Democrat on this issue, is health care coverage a right or a privilege? And that divide in it, it is a philosophical divide. So, on this issue, it shouldn’t be surprising that we’re sitting here so polarized. It’s sort of the fundamental reason why somebody’s a Democrat, believing in a more activist government, or somebody’s a Republican, believing in keeping government smaller…It is truly one of the great philosophical divides of American politics.
My take is somewhere in the middle, but leans distinctly towards the health care as a human right side. If “all men [sic] are created equal” then action on the health care front is required to ensure that this is the case. My formulation of this is that government ought to do what it can to ensure that people start out life on equal footing. Currently, as especially with respect to health, this is not the case. Folks with less economic resources are not only less likely to be able to afford insurance and preventative care, but are more likely to have health problems in the first place. Health care reform as the issue exists today is explicitly a social justice mission. Which is why Krugman ‘s analysis this morning is more apt than he realizes.
Eventually I’d like to see a health care system that rewards individual choices that make health problems less likely. But for such a system to not be discriminatory (and racist), things will have to change quite a bit. Hopefully I’ll start to see that in my lifetime as a result of this bill.
Bedrock & Paradox 
Leave a reply to chollaball Cancel reply