SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: aladin who wrote (109404)4/15/2005 12:15:47 PM
From: JohnM  Read Replies (2) of 793623
 
Thanks for the comments, John.

Just quick, rather off the cuff responses.

Krugman's argument is at the macro level, that we spend more and, in the aggregate, get less. The more seems obvious; the less is higher infant mortality rates and lower life expectancy. Here's the relevant quote.

Most Americans probably don't know that we have substantially lower life-expectancy and higher infant-mortality figures than other advanced countries. It would be wrong to jump to the conclusion that this poor performance is entirely the result of a defective health care system; social factors, notably America's high poverty rate, surely play a role. Still, it seems puzzling that we spend so much, with so little return.

The attraction of single payer systems to me is that they are more likely to address the health of everyone (even folk who lack employment) rather than simply folk who can afford to pay; and they embody a central social policy tenet for me which is concern for the full national family and spreading the risk.

I think the main issue people with positions like mine must face is the one you bring up, medical innovation, particularly drug innovation. We can argue that policy can't do everything. Innovation is a good thing but if policy choices must be made, it's more important to provide adequate services for everyone than to innovate for a minority. The rejoinder to that is the obvious one: the medical innovation of the present becomes the commonplace of the future. So policy, in my view, should never make that stark a choice.

The other response is that it is, in fact, not that stark a choice, that the drug companies wish to make it that and have done a stunning job of installing that notion in the political culture. But that it is not a truth; just a politically created and manipulated view.

My own guess is that there is a policy answer somewhere which combines these two goods sufficiently well to get a political majority. It won't happen now, not within the confines of the present political culture. But every worm turns.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext