Following up on UJ’s post, below:
I have to admit that I am a bit offended by what seems to be the Republican “talking points” approach to the health care debate. I am leery of apocyrphal or individualistic stories about how something affected one person, for good or ill. The fact that a specific individual had a miserable experience with the Canadian or British health care systems — which seems to be the focus of many Republicans — doesn’t make much of a difference to me; obviously, miserable experiences happen here, too. Anyone who has had to use our health care system much is bound to be able to cite an instance where the care wasn’t as good, or as quick, or as efficient as it ideally should have been.
To me, the more important question is about choice and control. With a government system, you have neither; with our system, you have both. If the doctor I am going to isn’t meeting my needs, I can go to another doctor and get a second opinion. With some government health care systems, I don’t have that choice. In our system, if I am facing a (literal) life or death decision, I get to make that decision, and I would rather make that decision myself than having some distant bureaucrat make the call. When it comes to my health or the health of members of my family, I want some control.
Freedom is a wonderful thing. Often, it also is more expensive, in blood or treasure, than the alternative. Even so, I’m for freedom.