Megan McArdle, whom I respect, linked to a piece by Glenn Reynolds that basically says that his wife and father would be dead while his daughter and mother would have a much-impaired quality of life under socialized medicine.
But I have a question. Two, actually.
(1) The treatments for Reynolds' mother (hip replacement) and father (radioactive prostate cancer implants) were developed for a patient pool that is mostly subject to Medicare. Which is socialized medicine by most definitions. Why doesn't that fact show that the argument is fallacious?
(2) If other countries generally force healthy young women to die or live impaired lives, why doesn't that show up in any of the comparative quality-of-life studies?
A third, fourth, and fifth might be: Does Ms. McArdle really believe this argument? If so, why? And what does it have to do with any of the actual health care reforms that are on the table?
Meanwhile, Matt Yglesias points out why I have trouble staying friends with doctrinnaire libertarians. This one's for you, Guy.
UPDATE: Matt Miller has an interesting column in today's Financial Times. He points out that save for the public option, the current reform plan essentially extends coverage using a basic template designed by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts. In addition, one of the financing plans on the table (not my preferred one, I must admit, nor the President's) was basically proposed by John McCain. Finally, the eye-popping cost is propaganda, caused by people's emotional reaction to the t-word; the right way to think about the cost is that it is 0.5% of GDP or 3% of total healthcare spending. In short, the way to a compromise that should attract lots of Republican votes is obvious.
But I will add that since we aren't going to get any Republican votes, I will be very annoyed at my party and President should we get a bill that does not include a public option and that is not financed by a surtax on high earners like, uh ... really? ... my wife and me.

Recent Comments