Wait wait, that's not funny

[urbpan]

It must be hard for Peter Sagal to maintain a neutral yet funny tone about the health care debate, when someone he loves is and going broke while suffering from cancer because of the American system. Frankly I don't know how anyone reasonable can oppose reforming the system. Yup, it's going to cost money. That's kind of the point, the U.S. is a rich country, it can afford to provide health care for all its citizens--we already pay more than all the other rich countries, and we don't even have universal health care.

What Sagal is asking for, that lots of people chip in a little so his friend's very expensive treatments are covered, hints at the only way health care reform can work. Everyone must be taxed a little more, so that everyone, including poor people and self-employed people and UNemployed people, EVERYONE can get adequate health care. Again, why anyone is against this, why a "single-payer" (socialist) system is thought to be somehow un-American, is completely beyond me.

Edited to Add: I can remember going to countless benefit rock and roll shows, like the one for Brian Wright of Slughog, where somehow a bunch of underemployed rock fans paying twelve bucks a pop were going to defray the cost of chemotherapy and radiation treatments. This should be the content of the health care debate: should sick people rely on charity to receive the treatment they need? What is this, the 18th century?

Comments

[urb-banal.livejournal.com]

Simplifing the system which is really what this is about, means far more accountability. I mean, even with one source of health insurance it's hard to figure out what the charges are for sometimes. But what is covered by who? It must be nuts if you have 6 or 7 sources for payment, each with different coverage and requirements. I can't see it not being cheaper for the consumer in the long run to have one general insurance company for everyone.

It might be a tax grab, but like you say it's a rich country.

My own experience with the American Health System was that a drug that I did not qualify for on OHIP which had fewer side effects was available in the States (it cost around $30,000 for one series of treatments, more than my yearly income). A business man with money went to the States and got it having it reported here in the Toronto Star and television media. The response of the public was that the stipulations for qualifing were eased and now the drug is paid for by OHIP. :) I was finished by the time but still glad he advocated for the future cancer patients with our type of cancer.

So what is going to serve as a bad example for us if you get universal health care? What are we going to point at when we say, "Well, look how bad it is in ..."