National well-being

With both of the likely D candidates espousing some sort of reform in health insurance, and the presidency the Ds to lose [they could do that, too], we're likely to recapitulate the intellectual dishonesty of the last attempt to do something about the horrible American system of delivering medical care. Look to see Harry and Louise and their pestilential lies again. A writer on OurFuture, a woman with experience with both American and Canadian health-care practices, posts a long and cogent article on the pros and cons of the Canadian system, beginning with the canard that it's socialized medicine:

... In socialized medical systems, the doctors work directly for the state. In Canada (and many other countries with universal care), doctors run their own private practices, just like they do in the US. The only difference is that every doctor deals with one insurer, instead of 150. And that insurer is the provincial government, which is accountable to the legislature and the voters if the quality of coverage is allowed to slide.

The proper term for this is "single-payer insurance." In talking to Americans about it, the better phrase is "Medicare for all."

Read the whole thing here. Almost every weekend, someone is holding a benefit in my village to help raise money for someone in a medical crisis. I admire that people pitch in to help, but that wouldn't happen in any other First-World country, and it is to our great shame.