Ok, I think that most people on this site would agree that everyone should have access to timely, affordable health care; that is, no one should either die prematurely or suffer needlessly or have their lives unnecessarily restricted because they can't afford a doctor or afford medical care.
But, of course, any sort of government involvement (or private insurance for that matter) will involve "rationing" of health care of a sort. For example, few would spend 100,000 dollars for someone who is riddled with pain due to, say, cancer, to live another day or two.
I get that. But what about healthcare that, while not life saving, but still enhances the quality of life? More below the fold.
I'll use myself as an example. I am in reasonably good health and participate in "public" sporting events. (No, I am NOT a good athlete!) For example, over the past two years I've finished an open water 5K swim, finished a couple of marathons (power walking them in the 5:14-5:30 range), a 100 mile foot race and managed to bench press 205 pounds.
But those those accomplishments are meager by "athlete" standards, the fact that I was able to train for and complete these sports was due to the fact that I've always had health care though either the military or via an employer plan.
In 2003, health care enabled me to see and doctor and see a physical therapist with reasonable, affordable co-payments. Because of that, I was able to recover from a rotator cuff injury.
That is why I can swim and lift weights today.
In 2004, health care enabled me to see a sports podiatrist (with reasonable co-payments) which helped me be able to continue my running and athletic walking.
Right now, I am not in pain; pain never interfered with my job. But I have had to lay off of some sports (wall push offs, running, walking) due to a problem with a knee.
Again, health care with reasonable co-payments have helped me see a physical therapist; she suggested that, while I can walk short distances (3-6 miles), I should see a knee doctor which will happen. None of this would be easily affordable unless I had a health care plan.
I don't know how this will turn out; I might end up being just another 50-some odd year old man who has to limit his sporting activities. But I have the chance to find out.
So what is my point?
My point is this: I am willing to pay more in tax so that EVERYONE can have access to this level of care; in my opinion health care shouldn't be subsidized to "only the bare basics".
Enabling people to get to the park, shoot baskets, go for a walk, etc. IS a major public good for which I am willing to pay.
Though I am not rich (and yes, I followed the health care debate carefully and participated in OFA's health care reform efforts), I like what a famous 1'st Amendment attorney said about it:
I get it, they are gonna tax me more so that poors get better health care. Fine. I don’t mind. My tax dollars support a lot dumber shit than that.
(this Marco Randazza's blog)
Notes: just for the heck of it, I'll post photos of myself in various politically related athletic garb (knowing that health care benefits have enabled me to enjoy all of these activities)
Power walking a 30 K in Austin, Texas
Big Shoulders 5K swim, 2008. Yes, it took me forever (1:36) to finish. That is Obama on the shirt (it was a Chicago swim) and he was also on the finisher's medal that I am holding up.
This photo was taken of me after a recent weight lifting session. The shirt has, yes, Ronald Reagan on it; it was from a 1997 4 mile running race in Eureka, IL. I ran that at about 7 minutes per mile; I couldn't touch that pace now-a-days.