6 Comments

  1. I’m all for single payer tax funded universal health care, but I have to say that this graphic is not really honest, or perhaps more accurately, relevant to the argument. That’s because it correlates geographical area to single-payer universal health care. Does that make sense? No.
    .
    A better graphic would use population. But that would not support the argument for single-payer universal care, as this graphic SEEMS to do. But thinking about it some more, even a corrected graphic would not be a good argument. Because what in essence is the argument that both graphics would rest upon? That: Because other people (a lot of other people) have it, then we should have it too? Sorry, this does not follow. After all, lot of people are hungry too.
    .
    Luckily the argument for single payer tax funded universal health care can be made without resorting to the type of argument put forth by this graphic. I think we should stick to those rather than muddying the issue with invalid ones.

    1. Except I’m not sure it’s ‘trying’ to make any such argument. What it does illustrate is that the US default position that socialized medicine is radical is a little absurd: in all the developed world, it’s the norm.

  2. As a veteran, I get (relatively) free socialized health care for life! Woo Hoo! I get the doctors of one of the best medical schools in the world, UCSF, giving me the care that I need. For life, baby!

  3. Argh. Single payer health care is not socialised – the insurance industries are heavily REGULATED like they once were before the Reagan-Bush era. Our health care system was wonderful 20 some years ago – it was the creation and legislation allowing HMO’s and deregulation of the insurance industry that has created the current “crisis”. It’s all about greed. Period.

Comments are closed.