Last night we went to a dinner and silent auction meant to raise funds for the son of a family friend who has melanoma. The large room was packed to such a degree that the claustraphobic felt a little uneasy. Or maybe I was made uneasy by the reflection that some of the attendees are likely ardent opponents of the health care reforms now being debated in the Congress. Could there be a better demonstration of the need for reform than benefit events of this sort? Why should a 20-something young man with a health insurance policy need to appeal to the charity of friends and local businesses in order to help pay his unmanageable medical bills? We are not talking now about 47 million uninsured Americans. This fellow has insurance, also a dangerous cancer, and the amount in the "you pay" column of his statements is enough to shove him and his middle-class family toward bankruptcy. Since the Republicans are always and ever against every proposed reform of the health care system, they should have to say what this fellow has done wrong. Failed to secure a "health savings account"? Their problem is that no honest person can take them seriously.
For they are full of fetid ogranic matter. I'm disgusted by the refrain concerning the alleged deficiencies of the Canadian health care system. You have these huge bureaucracies, and their relative merits are to be gauged by what amount to a few personal anecdotes? Again, they aren't serious. Here is the high-level truth. The Canadian health care system, compared to ours, is very much less expensive, covers everyone, and, as measured by basic health statistics, achieves better outcomes. Sources here, and here, and here. Republicans often insist that Canadians are dissatisfied with their health care system. That, too, is a load of crapola.
None of the plans developed by different groups of congressional Democrats is anything like the Canadian plan. So you might say that these invocations of the Canadian system are straw men. But that line of analysis breaks down when you consider that the "straw man" is manifestly superior to what we have. If you want to make a false analogy you really ought to find one that does not shame the argument you are trying to make.
Comments