Alright, Blagojevich didn't say that. And in fact the headline from the Post-Dispatch, "Blagojevich pledges universal care for Illinois" is demonstrably wrong. The article itself lays out the plan in Illinois:
After recapping his first-term success at creating an unprecedented universal health care program for children, Blagojevich said he intends in his second term to extend that benefit to their parents. As with the ``All Kids’’ program of his first term, the new program would be designed to offer affordable health care coverage to families that can’t afford private insurance but earn too much to qualify for Medicaid or other assistance.
So clearly this is not a "universal" plan at all. It is a "catch the folks falling through the cracks" plan. (I suggest the PD invest in a couple of Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionaries. It would do them a world of good.) As far as it goes I don't have a lot of problem with such a plan, although these things have a tendency to grow money grubbing tentacles..and they are harder to kill than a big patch of kudzu. I worry about us not getting the bang for our buck. When you look at the enormous percentage of GDP spent on health care in places like the UK, France or Germany, one might really expect their life expectancy stats to blow the old USA away. (Lets take a look.)
USA-74.24 male, 79.9 female (2000 est.)
UK-74.97 male, 80.49 female (2000 est.)
France-74.85 male, 82.89 female (2000 est.)
Germany-74.3 male, 80.75 female (2000 est.)
Canada-76.02 male, 83 female (2000 est.)
Cuba-73.84 male, 78.73 female (2000 est.)
(All figures from MapQuest's world almanac.)
I'm sorry, but I cannot see a "crisis" here. I'm not saying there isn't room to improve things, and I certainly wish something could be done to keep the price of health care from growing at several times the rate of inflation. I just have a hard time seeing what socializing medicine gains us.
No comments:
Post a Comment