If Larry Niven ever wrote a colder sentence, I haven’t read it – and it was in the back of my head as I was plowing through Senator Clinton’s recent New Yorker article about health care issues. It was less dry than I expected; unrepentant VRWCer I may be, but I give her full points for starting off with “I know what you’re thinking. Hillary Clinton and health care? Been there. Didn’t do that!” Not Eddie Izzard-level humor, mind you, but for a career politician it wasn’t bad.
As to substantive comments, Jane Galt doesn’t agree with Senator Clinton that the difficulty of people with pre-existing problems to get insurance represents a market failure (although her comments section is debating the issue quite politely, in the main), but is more concerned that (in her opinion) this article violates the spirit of the campaign-finance rules; Robert Tagorda liked the idea of better use of information technology, but has issues with her number of uninsured Americans. (Links via Pejmanesque)
As for me… well, it’s not a technical piece, to be sure, and it’s certainly not designed to serve as an argument against getting a national health care system. That being said, a good number of the problems listed are not partisan ones. We do need to revamp our disease protocols to handle the modern era, our existing healthcare system is notably inefficient and we really should start assessing just what modern diagnostic techniques are going to do to our health coverage, just to pick three examples at random*. Discussing them can’t hurt. Truth be told, I also find that I am happier about contemplating the national health care proposals of the duly elected junior Senator from New York than I am in those of the unelected First Lady, which is no doubt some sort of horrible flaw in me, but what the heck. I’m allowed to be quirky, seeing as I’m just this guy on the Internet.
No, really. There’s, like, a blanket permission for it somewhere around here…
Moe