Robert Reich laments the dilution of the public option here. In his witty post, he cites the oft-made comparison between the Canadian and U.S. health care systems, particularly in terms of their cost (in terms of % of GDP) and their coverage (or lack thereof). That got me to thinking, what if, instead of a myriad of options, we had only two: Canada or the U.S.
Better yet, I thought, what if the options were framed in a way in which you could better relate to them? What would you choose then? Here they are:
Option A: You can insure everyone in your family and it will cost you 10% of your household income, or….
Option B: You can insure 5 out of every 6 members of your family and it will cost you 16% of your household income.
So what’s it gonna be? Option A or Option B? I’m sure I don’t have to tell you this, but Option A represents the Canadian system and Option B a slightly more generous system than that in the U.S. How we continue to be okay with paying more while getting less is beyond me. Could someone please tell me what it is about Option B that makes it such an attractive choice?