Health Reform

At the risk of poisoning the well, so to speak, before Thursday's debate, here's a little story on health reform.

There's a country in the world that, like most other developed nations, taxes its citizens to pay for their healthcare. The program covers everyone it's supposed to within that nation and it's very efficient. In fact, its national health insurance system actually produces outcomes after the age of 65 which lead to nearly half a year of extra longevity for its citizens, when compared to a country like the Netherlands. The program is also wildly popular, much more popular than the private options that compete against it. A fringe political movement seeks to ban it but none of the mainstream parties would dare outlaw this program; it would mean their doom come election season.

Weirdly, this 'socialist hellhole' is America, and that program is called Medicare. The people it's supposed to cover are those above age 65, and it covers them really, really well. It isn't government-run health care, it's government run health insurance. Is there any reason that an insurer should make a profit for managing the risk of me getting sick? Doctors, surely, should profit. So should drug companies. But why the middleman who manages risk and plays no real part in delivering care?

And a closing thought, for people who say Medicare is going broke, ask yourselves when Medicare last raised its tax rate, and then think of when your insurer last raised its premium over the baseline rate of inflation.

Source for the longevity argument: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/08/life-expectancy-facts.php
Source for the popularity argument:
http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/Blog_Medicare_Popularity.jpg