Over at Spot-on (where I’ve been remiss in keeping up my remedial education work for the non-specialists) I’m up talking about optimism over recent polling results about the nation’s appetite for universal coverage reform— Looks Good, Doesn’t Fly.
As ever come back here to comment.
Two weeks ago, what seemed to be a very interesting survey appeared in The New York Times.
It suggested that most Americans were supportive of universal health
care, and more importantly were interested in considering raising taxes
to pay for it. Several gleeful commentators on the left, and even a few
on the right, considered this was a new dawn for the health reform
movement.
Unfortunately this is nothing new. Americans have always been in favor
of universal health care. At least they have been when you ask them
about it in surveys. Unfortunately there are several other things they
say in surveys that they are also in favor of that undermine the
prospects for “universal” coverage. For example, in 2003 by small
plurality, Americans said they preferred the Canadian health care system to their own. But don’t worry they said the same thing in 1989!
None of these polls mean either that Americans do actually prefer the
Canadian system (especially given how little they know about how either
country’s system actually works) or that something similar will
actually hop the border and come to the lower 48 any time soon. Continue
Categories: Uncategorized
“what part is incorrect?”
Oh, maybe the part that Mathew might disagree with, or the part that he thinks that someone ‘important’ will disagree with., or maybe the part that Matthew will disagree with later on for some obscure reason or maybe the part that Matthew will decide that he doesn’t support at all because it was foolish and irresponsible to begin with, given the benefit of afterthought. Matthew is good at afterthought.
Hmmmm.
So, what part is incorrect?
t
Tom is as usual not entirely incorrect on this one…but those kids also vote on other issues too. The elderly vote about health care pretty much to the exclusion of everything else.
> That’s why the nation’s elderly are so well covered.
> They are the only group to consistently understand
> that they are “less fortunate” or may become so
> without the government’s assistance and protection.
Or their children understand that if they don’t get the government’s assistance and protection that they’d be expected to pay for dad & mum’s care, either directly or by the loss of whatever estate dad & mum have managed to accumulate.
t