Not much to say today. It's Father's Day, so we've been a bit lazy. We expect to be back to our rambling blitherings tomorrow.
**********************************
A major rallying cry of those who oppose a federal health insurance plan--much less a single-payer system--is that it would lead to "rationing" of healthcare. Are these people under the impression that we don't have rationed care now? Under a single-payer system, it's likely that the amount of care any one person gets would be rationed; under our current system, however, rationing is more front-loaded: Some get medical assistance, others don't. Which is better? Guess one's answer might depend on where one falls in the rationing scheme.
Still, we're heartened to know that a most Americans seem willing, at least, to pay a little more in taxes in order to help those less fortunate folks to receive some kind of healthcare ("In Poll, Wide Support for Government-Run Health"). It doesn't make us all warm and fuzzy at the thought of all us caring Americans: We chalk it up to self-interest. The more people who can see a doctor, the less likely we all are to suffer the ravages of drug-resistant TB or ebola. More than that, though, it goes back to our feeling of optimism that common sense is on the rise. Another small victory for post-ideology.
No comments:
Post a Comment