Not all things in life are logical or easily defined. Logic without emotion is an empty vessel. Emotion without logic is a rudderless ship. It takes both logic and emotion to successfully navigate our way through our shared human experience.
OK.
Now, here is where I'm coming from.
I think that most people on this thread will understand the error of precipitous and risky action on the part of the government. I know I argued before, during, and after the invasion of Iraq that it was just that--precipitous and risky. If you're going to do something as drastic as that, you need a really, really, really good rationale and you have to be able to explain that rationale in a way that just about everyone can at least recognize that a case has been made, even if they don't agree. A case for Iraq was never made that would resonate with any but those emotionally predisposed to accept it.
The only "rationales" I have heard for universal single payer are that 1) all civilized countries but us do it, 2) 47 million people don't have health insurance, and 3) the countries with it rank higher than ours in international studies of quality of health car--immediately followed with an "ergo we must do it" as though the "rationales" were utterly persuasive. To me those sound a lot like 1) national security is our highest priority, 2) Iraq has WMD, 3) better to fight them there than wait for them to blow us up, which they will surely do. Surely people who can see the inadequacy of the latter group, as I know is the case with most folks here, can at least consider honestly and earnestly whether the former group is similarly inadequate before we do something as drastic as implement universal, single-payer health care, a change that in itself will be disruptive, irrevocable, and expensive.
I'm not even asking (yet) for the advocates on this thread to offer a tight rationale for going universal, single payer. I'm just asking the simply preliminary question--what's unique about health care. |
