Hillary's Healthcare Plan

Ezra.

Hillary is my least favorite of the top-tier Democrats, but this plan is good and, while not perfect, makes big strides in the correct direction.

I'd still prefer to see a one-stop public option though.

All You Need to Know About Libertarians

BradRocket:

Megan McArdle, a.k.a. Jane Galt, is up to her usual tricks:

An exchange with a blogger who is apparently a philosophy student at the University of Virginia leads me to believe that many people are still misunderstanding my point about the morality of single payer healthcare. Many people responded to my first post by saying, “But we have a duty to care for the sick!” Trying to make myself very clear, I wrote 2,000 words explaining that even assuming, arguendo, that we have a duty to make sure people don’t die from lack of health care, this is not a good moral argument for single payer. At which point I got more posts, including from said philosophy student, saying “But we have a duty to care for the sick!” Length having failed, let me try brevity:

1) Single payer transfers money from anyone who is young and healthy to anyone who is old and sick, regardless of their need for the money.

Basically, yes.

And as someone who is young and healthy (Really! I go on three-mile runs thrice a week and lift weights twice a week!), I have no problem with this. The reason? Well, because I have no problem paying taxes to help old sick people now, because I’m going to be old and sick in the future. That’s the basic principle involved here. But for peeps like Meghan, whose only thought is “MEEEEEEEEEEE-me-me-me-me-MEEEEEEEEEE!”, this line of thought is deeply immoral.

If McArdle was in, or knew someone in, a similar situation, how do you think she would act? Lack of empathy = psycho.

Universal Health Insurance

I do not often write about personal experiences, but this is ridiculous.

It has been almost exactly one year since my last annual check-up, so I called my doctor to schedule one for this year. His secretary informed me that my health insurance only entitled me to a general check-up every two years.

I am not on Medicaid or Medicare. I am not self-employed and barely making enough to afford the cheapest insurance I can get my hands on. I work for one of the largest corporations in the U.S. - probably the world - and I know that I have some of the best health insurance that can be bought, yet why is it that it cannot afford to send me for an annual check-up? If I always had to receive an annual check-up as a child - they wouldn't let me into school/summer camp without one - why should it be any different now? I understand that young adults are at a lower risk of getting sick, but is it not more important to identify possible future complications early on and treat them before they become serious and more costly?

This is part of what is so dysfunctional about our healthcare system. By making it more difficult to give preventative care we increase the burden on the system and shift it exclusively to the end-user healthcare providers, hospitals and doctors. Meanwhile, healthcare plan providers escape with larger and larger profits. This is exactly what is so wrong about Bush's healthcare proposal and the reason it is DOA. It seeks to encourage this behavior by making it economically easier for young people to purchase low-quality, high-deductible healthcare.

Furthermore, I was informed that if I wanted to pay for the check-up out of pocket it would cost be approximately $500. I am lucky enough to be able to afford that if I needed to, but I realize that this is not the case for most of the country. It is unsurprising that a majority of the personal bankruptcies in the U.S. result from medical expenditures.

We are far past the time where such an antiquated and costly health system that lines the pockets of few while denying needed coverage to most can be justified. The best parts are universal healthcare can cover everyone and is cheaper. Let's get a move on.