this is not a scientific measure. it is a statistical measure.
Don't confuse statistical data gathered by actual performance from statistical data gathered by say telephone survey. These are performance measures, not measures based on what people tell a telephone surveyor. At the end of the day, all scientific measures are statistical measures, based on probability and confidence intervals. Statistics don't lie, people who use them incorrectly or don't understand how to interpret them do. You can tell whether someone got an aspirin or a vaccine, they either got it or they didn't. You can't make that data say anything different.
as to what our government should 'do for us', this is the difference between the liberal point of view, and the conservative point of view. i believe that all things work better when the government sticks to what it is constitutionally mandated to do.
That genie is out of the bottle already, more than 150 years ago. The constitution didn't explicitly provide for a lot of stuff that we have and that conservatives hold dear... namely a standing federal army, an income tax, and a host of other things that the founding father didn't think of. Many of these, such as the pentagon budget, are equally costly to taxpayers, and some might argue accomplish less for them than a national health system.
By the way, I don't consider myself a conservative or liberal. I'm an independent. I've voted for both. I think our current administration is a disaster.
then the worst will be eventual rationing of care.
Our screwed up system already rations care based on income, where you live in the country, and what kind of insurance you have:
If you live in Bennington Vt, you can't get a primary care doctor, because there is a shortage. But if you live in Florida there are plenty of doctors to go around because the pay is higher there for bizarre historical payment reasons, that it would take me too long to explain here. I work in this industry and I don't think it could be any worse.
we can solve the problems we have with health care. they impact a relatively small number of people. it seems to me that solving a small problem is better than creating a huge one.
I'm glad that from where you sit the problem seems small. I see behind the wizard's curtain daily, and it's a mess. A unified national system that provided a basic set of services
but still allowed people to buy up would improve care for everyone without compromising research and development of new drugs. Companies could still compete for employees on the perqs in the buy-up plans.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating a complete take-over, just something that covers everyone with the fundamentals and allows those of us who want and can afford it to buy up to a more expensive set of services.
Frankly, it sound like a conservative's dream, merge the government and the market to improve the whole system, because the market alone isn't getting the job done.
The beauty of democracy is that it is a compromise system. So liberals and conservatives must work to find common ground. Blue staters figure have to stomach more cruise missiles; red staters have to learn to live with an extra social program.