By Ezra
I don't have a whole ton to say about the voucher schools argument going on between Matt, Kevin, and the newly-renamed McMegan. I'm pretty sure, though, that arguing this out through the frame of single-payer health care is almost certainly unwise, and you should probably, when talking about major changes in education policy, focus the discussion on education policy.
Moreover, Megan's claim that every liberal is for single-payer, but not Britain's NHS, is a bit misleading. Most people use single-payer incorrectly, so it's largely a misunderstanding, and they are in fact for nationalized health care, but not what's considered a bad example of it. A lot of us who aren't for the NHS are for the VA -- and both are single-payer systems, one's just better than the other. It's sort of like how I can be for Cakelove*, against those gross Safeway cupcakes, and broadly in favor of delicious baked goods all at the same time!
But look: This NHS bashing misses the point. In 2003, the British spent $2,231 per person. America spent $5,635. In other words, they spent 39% what we did. So whether they're "better" or "worse" is a bit hard to argue. Better or worse for what? They're certainly cheaper. And I've never, ever heard anyone argue that their health outcomes are 60% worse than ours. I would certainly prefer to get in a car accident in America, particularly if I had awesome insurance. But I'd certainly prefer to pay my health bills in Britain. And I'd really prefer if people stopped pretending you could make an apples-to-apples comparison between the two.
*This is actually a surprisingly robust analogy, because while Cakelove is delicious, it is way, way, way overpriced.
