Our Health Care System is the Best

...is I think what many of the commenters basically said in tearing apart my my post about Mark Steyn.

One back-and-forth in particular that I want to point out and respond to:

I said,

As for Anonymous' point that under a government-run system no one will be able to get a new hip even if they're willing to pay more, I'm not impressed. In the UK, you can still buy private insurance for better care if you don't want to go to the NHS. Wanna guess how many enterprising capitalists will line up to offer premium packages (pun intended)? And no, I have no problem with rich people getting better care. I'm more concerned that lower and middle class people get some level of care at all. See this article for a primer on the NHS: www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1916570,00.html

Anonymous responded,

Every factual analysis of data says otherwise. Here's a great place to start: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649. You can also do some research on the 'life expectancy' canard, and here's a great place to start: http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/08/20/turns-out-us-healthcare-system-is-actually-like-really-good/

Me:

Unfortunately, I find those links less than stellar (we're depending on opinion polls now?). If we're spending far more of our GDP to get less than the very best in bottom line results (except for cancer where I agree with you), isn't there something wrong? You're answer is probably that we need less regulation to reduce costs. I'd like to see some data (not anecdotes) on that before I buy that. My point is that the right has based their objections on emotional anecdotes and the fear of government and by disparaging other systems where the govt is involved. So far, pretty shallow. The left has said (I agree), all you need is government. Not very convincing but not frightening to me. But let's knock one objection off the list...that about the crappy Euro systems. I prefer
Foreign Policy's take: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/18/the_most_outrageous_us_lies_about_global_healthcare

Anon:

"Unfortunately, I find those links less than stellar" Well, of course you do - because they rebut your point factually, and you want to argue squishy 'moral' issues.
"we're depending on opinion polls now" Does it not shame you that you have to resort to lying? The '10 Surprising Facts' article points to real studies done by such publications as Lancet. The life-expectancy rebuttal uses real life-expectancy figures.
"If we're spending far more of our GDP" This is yet another canard. We spend more of our GDP _because_ of government involvement (Medicare alone used 3.2% of GDP in 2008!) and because we fund the innovation that drives the socialized medicine markets of the rest of the world.
"My point is that the right has based their objections on emotional anecdotes and the fear of government" Nonsense. I supplied you with two articles listing FACTUAL reasons why our health care system is equal- or superior-to socialized systems. And why is it that listing problems with
socialized systems - which are rampant - is 'emotional', but listing problems with our system is perfectly valid reasoning? 'Fear of government' is quite healthy and rational. It was the basis of the formation of this country, and any sane analysis of our health care system will show that government is the problem. More government is obviously not the solution.

OK, let's try this. Read these two articles on the ridiculous lies that have all-pervaded the conservative horror stories:

Economist: American health care. Keep it honest: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14258877

Foreign Policy: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/18/the_most_outrageous_us_lies_about_global_healthcare


Finally, If you want my idea of what a sensible, factual, non-squishy analysis looks like, see the Economist's (I know, that liberal commie rag) comparison of the US and UK systems: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14259044

Key excerpt:

Both health systems have their virtues and their faults. At its best, America offers extraordinarily good clinical care, but too many people lack insurance cover or fret about losing it. The NHS provides health care to all at a much lower total cost, but patients have less clout. Both countries are crying out for reforms to bring about better and cheaper care.

Now, that's a much more honest look at the issues. This idea that our system is better than anyone else's and we get the best health outcomes lacks all credibility to me (because, well, see above three links). A little more nuance might win conservatives more converts. Simply repeating over and over again that our system is the best strains the imagination and becomes some kind of weird substitution of patriotism for thought.

No one has YET addressed my main point of that post, which is, what is someone to do when they can't get insurance? There is no money to be made from covering sick people, only from covering the healthy. That's capitalism. Unfortunately, even people that have played by the rules and are decently well off can still be bankrupted by a prolonged illness if they lose their insurance coverage through no fault of their own. And they can't simply buy insurance because no one will cover pre-existing conditions.

Infinite Power: Active and Well

Lost in the election hullabaloo is the fact that our worthy, wigless wonders have been going about their quiet business of protecting (or, circumscribing, depending on your point of view) our freedoms, unaffected by the rabble's screams in favor of this most-incredibly-wonderful candidate or the other. The most supreme arbiters are considering such matters as whether a failure to report to prison counts as a violent crime, or whether a prohibition against granting asylum to individuals that themselves were engaged in persecution applies to those who were forced to do so. No less important is one question, currently in Circuit Court, but inexorably moving up the food chain: simply put, should our government be able to hold someone indefinitely?

The case centers around 17 Chinese Muslims being held at Guantanamo despite the fact that they are no longer considered enemies. Our compassionate government, concerned for their well-being, has refused to deport them to China because of the persecution their community has faced there. At the same time, showing a nimbleness that belies its girth, the government refuses to release them into the U.S. mainland because, wearing its anti-illegal immigration hat, it claims the plenary authority to "exclude" aliens who reach our shores. Under the wide brim of this second hat, the powers-that-be elegantly claim, "even if the detention is indefinite, it is still lawful."

Rejecting the involuntary guests' claim that the gracious host has given up on trying to find a country that will accept them, the owner of the five-star Guantanamo hotel says it '"is actively continuing its efforts to resettle" them, and that negotiations "are ongoing."'

Given that beautiful piece of bureaucratese, it is worth recalling Private Secretary Bernard Woolley's explanation of the difference between "under consideration" and "under active consideration" to the Right Hon. Jim Hacker in Yes Minister: "Well, under consideration means we've lost the file, under active consideration means we're trying to find it."