Before I Call it a Night
Posted by Brett Kincaid on July 23, 2009
Thanks to Roby Brock for these polling numbers regarding Arkansans’ views on health care. What jumps off the page is that 86% of repsondents offered that they were satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the care they receive. A number of pundits from the right suggest this means nothing is wrong, at least in the perception of the regualr Arkansan. A superficial, polticially-motivated reading of this poll could lead you to that conclusion.
But how about this take:
- Satisfactory performance is hardly “great” or even “good”.
- If you have never seen good health care, how can you be disatisfied with poor healthcare?
- People rarely admit publicly to being in a worse position than their neighbor. I suggest the knee-jerk reaction of respondents would be to say, “Hell yeah I’m satisfied. Now I gotta run eat my Hot Pocket and watch Wheel of Fortune.”
I also wonder how many of the 23% of Fourth District residents and 28% of First District residents without any health coverage were polled.
3 Responses to “Before I Call it a Night”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
asw1974 said
Why do you assume that these people who say they are satisfied with their health care are too stupid to know better. I dont understand why you say they dont know good from bad. You act like it is the job of government to make us happy.
Brett Kincaid said
Satisfactory: Giving satisfaction sufficient to meet a demand or requirement; adequate.
Good: of high quality; excellent.
Great: wonderful; first-rate; very good
My point with that comment is that those words have different meanings.
Also, it is not a matter of being smart or stupid. It is a matter of exposure. If one has never been exposed to a better product, how could they really know when a bad one exists?
I certainly do not rely on the government to make me happy. I do think, though, it is the responsibility of government to make sure everyone has GOOD health coverage. Ultimately it will drive down the costs for everyone. Not government-run health care, mind you. Health COVERAGE…very different.
Capitalist said
You are only looking at the better/worse medical care (different from health care) from one side. I would turn the question around: if you’ve never been exposed to a bad product and are satisfied with what you currently receive, why spend a trillion dollars to experiment and perhaps find that you like the current better than the forecasted? Also, you reference “not government-run healthcare” but “health coverage”. In socialist nations, things like government-controlled health coverage is meted out on a favoritism basis, meaning that if you don’t pay something under the table to the government controllers, you don’t get what you need.
Even if this health care bill becomes cost neutral, compared to current, as Obama is trying to structure in his attempt to regain his footing, it’s the wrong treatment to the problems of the medical care world. The main problem is one of cost, not of treatment. An easier solution (although it’s not a slam dunk) to the cost factor is tort reform as it relates to medical malpractice. That alone would save tens of billions of dollars. If the government wants to get involved, let it subsidize prescription drugs. Medical treatment in the US is high quality. It’s just the cost that is the problem. Let’s not through out the baby with the bath water.