hamburger wrote:george wrote :
...i cannot understand why the united states , being the richest and most powerful nation in the world, finds it difficult to provide such benefit for all its citizens. i can understand that the u.s. government or the states might not want to get into the business of health-insurance. however, they could easily find an insurance company that would provide such a benefit .
i even wonder if it would not be less expensive for the nation as whole to provide such a service - which would result in better health for all - , rather than having a group of citizens fall through the cracks . at a certain point, when these people are too sick to care foe themselves, they no doubt become a burden on society anyways .
i seem to recall the old saying : 'an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure ' - or does that not apply here.
i know that the united states has some of the finest medical in the world ; i just have difficulty understanding why some citizens have to fall through cracks .
It is a fair question, and I will try to answer it. (btw - a few pages back detano ipio posted a link containing an excellent dialogue by two NYT reporters giving a fairly complete summary of the arguments pro and con on this subject. - You may wish to check it out.)
The question of the medically uninsured has been put forward by the Democrat Party fairly consistently for at least the past 18 years. For the most part their efforts have failed, both in the legislative process and, as well, in the general public view. The most memorable failure came in the first Clinton Administration, when the liberal political savants were stunned to find that their favorite issue excited a good deal of public derision and very little political support. Why?
There is no doubt that the United Stated has the ability to create and fund such a universal health care system. The quection is why don't we choose to do it?
I believe the answer is that Americans are less inclined than Europeans and Canadians to see the solutions to public issues as things necessarily best done by government. There is a greater desire here for individual or, failing that, local control of such matters wherever possible. We have been a relatively freer and more democratic country for quite a long time now, and it shows in public attitudes. The presumption among Canadians, and continental Europeans particularly, that intrusive governmental intervention in labor markets, health care and many other aspects of life is generally beneficial, seems as odd to most Americans as evidently does our lack of a universal public health care system seem to you.
In addition there is a great deal of misinformation out there on this issue. We do have public health care for those groups that need it most -- the poor (MEDICAID) and the elderly (MEDICARE), and both of these systems offer far more patient choice and quick access to specialists than does Canada's universal syatem. The uninsured come primarily from populations which don't consume or need much medical care - the young. Insurance is mainly provided by employers, but it is also widely available to individuals. For many insurance is not an attractive proposition - better to just pay for service as you need it.
Finally there is the issue of investment, innovation, and the quality of care. Private systems and enterprise are far better at this than government. Government systems provide universal access at the cost of government rationing and mediocrity. Consider for a moment where most new drugs and treatment modalities originate.
I noted the life expectency data provided. Life expectency at birth in the U,S at 77.7 years, is about 8 months less than the UK, Germany, Finland, Norway and the EU average; 2 years less than France; and 2 1/2 years less than Canada & Sweden. What is indicated by these statistics? Chumly noted various factors that can alter this measure. There are others. The U.S. has a much higher birth rate than any of these countries and generally a much younger population (our median age is more than two years less than that in Canada and almost four years less than that in Europe. We get much more immigration than Europeans - and the official figures ignore a large number of illegals. All these factorsd influence the result and the government policy options as well.
Overall the U.S. is a more socially and economically competitive society than are those of Europe & Canada. I believe this is a better adaptation to the conditions that exist here than the models against which we are often compared. Moreover I believe it is also a better adaprtation to the challenges of the modern world which we all face equally. perhaps a better question here is 'Why do Canadians and Europeans cling to outmoded socialist systems in the face of the economic challenges being posed by large emerging nations?
