Why health care reform is so tough
One of the more thoughtful pieces on individualism v. community responsibility has been (electronically) penned by Sarah Dine at Health Affairs' blog.
Ms. Dine does not just opine, but rather leavens her discourse with an objective presentation of facts. She observes that soon half of America's health care dollars will be spent by governments
She notes, as I've reported here, that private insurers' market share continues to shrink.
Dine does not propose any solution, but rather notes that the communitarian principles of the founding fathers have been jumbled up with American 'rugged individualism' to produce a profoundly confused composite.
I'm thinking that's a big reason we Americans find health care reform such a divisive and difficult topic.
Comments
Aubrey - welcome back.
Two items. First, you commit the same transgression you accuse Ms. Dine of - the use of political labels. That strikes me as inconsistent.
Second, I note that you have yet to respond to earlier requests to back up your statements with facts. Your earlier posts are dangling out there without substantiation.
Your political agenda is obvious, but you would better serve it by backing up your previous statements with fact.
Paduda
Posted by: Ppaduda | July 6, 2007 6:59 AM
Thanks, Joe, for the positive review of Sarah's post on Health Affairs Blog. We wanted to let Aubrey know that the reason we decided it was important to reference SiCKO was that, for better or worse, it is bringing health policy issues to a large audience of Americans and is serving as a touchstone for debate on American health care today. If the reader wishes to look at Health Affairs' 25-year history, one can see that the journal--and the blog--aim to serve as a forum for multiple points of view in the health policy sphere, backed up with solid research.
Posted by: Jane Hiebert-White | July 9, 2007 9:16 AM
"important to reference SiCKO . . . for better or worse, it is bringing health policy issues to a large audience of Americans and is serving as a touchstone for debate"
Indeed.
I was just reading the other day that, for better or worse, Heinrich Himmler brought issues of racial and ethnic discord to a large audience of Germans, and served as a touchstone for debate.
History rightfully records Himmler's work as a service to the German volk and a valuable contribution to humanity.
Or did I just imagine reading that?
Posted by: Stella Baskomb | July 16, 2007 7:23 AM