We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Bruce Kesler's excellent health care post yesterday has this PS from him:
This survey also suggests that as in the past early support for a number of reform proposals could fade in the face of arguments that opponents might raise in a public debate. For example, seven in ten Americans (71%) say they favor the idea of employer mandates. But when given the argument often made by critics that this may cause some employers to lay off some workers support falls dramatically, to just under three in ten (29%). The same pattern holds on the topic of individual mandates. Roughly two in three (67%) favor requiring all Americans to have health insurance with help for those who could not afford it. When given the criticism that some people may be required to buy health insurance they find too expensive or do not want, support falls to two in ten (19%).
Americans seem most concerned that any health care plan not raise their costs or involve government limiting or dictating their choices. According to the survey, nearly two-thirds (65%) say they would be less likely to support a plan that would get the government get too involved in personal health care decisions, more than six in ten (61%) would be less likely to support a plan that increases people’s insurance premiums or out-of-pocket costs, and more than half (56%) would be less supportive of a plan that limits an individual’s choice in doctors.
“As we have learned from past debates, public support looms for health reform largest at the beginning of the debate, but it's relatively easy to chip away at that support with arguments about tradeoffs,” said Mollyann Brodie, Kaiser vice president and director for Public Opinion and Survey Research.
Something that sounds/feels good is proposed to acclaim, then criticisisms cause a retreat (or, occasionally, an advance): I think that is largely a good thing, showing people are willing to listen, debate, and actually think about things. At least sometimes, and if allowed/informed.
Healthcare... "quality" has morphed from the old "quality of care of the patient" to the new "quality of cost effectiveness." I was leery, decades ago, of "Health Maintenance Organization" proliferation because while agreeing with the proposition "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" I worried that being largely run by insurers might lead to prevention-only and lessen cure provision. My fears have not been fully borne out, some HMOs are quite good - byt a large number are at best questionable.
And now government is taking over. Look to Britain's National Health: by and large does a good job, but with disturbing tendencies. Faced with complaints that patients were not being seen soon enough in Emergency, rules about waiting time were written and enforced by threats of withholding money - so patients waited in amublances until resources inside the building were available for immediate use... More recently, eople who are overweight have been told they will not be allowed treatment until they have lost weight, smokers have been told to quit or lose access... Yeah, quitting the filthy weed is a good idea, and at least to some extent losing weight might also be a good thing, but to withhold treatment? Well, despite disclaimers of "rationing," these are obviously measures of exactly that.
But it is cost-effective. Sort of. Indeed, if only healthy persons of less than "middle age" are treated, costs go down enormously.