By Ezra
This is rather weak stuff from CATO's Michael Cannon on the feasibility of universal health care. Responding to evidence that Canada only has waiting times for elective procedures and France and Germany don't have waiting times at all, Cannon says that 1) waiting times in Canada can still be harmful to mortality; 2) if asked, French and German citizens are unhappy about waiting periods for care; 3) there's some evidence for improved outcomes on very specific diseases in America.
Well, first, he dodged the actual issue. Ponnuru had written that universal coverage was an impossible goal. That was flatly untrue, given the accepted definitions of the words "universal" and "coverage." What Cannon is arguing here is that there are distasteful affects from universal coverage, which are different, though also important, issues. So, quickly and in order, I grant his point on Canada, though if he thinks it problematic that Canadians have to wait for elective treatment and those periods are occasionally harmful, he must be truly distressed that Americans often simply can't afford necessary treatment and they routinely die. As for #2, he's using polling data that looks loaded to me. I have excellent health insurance but am dissatisfied with waiting times. Why? Because I don't want to wait at all, ever. My guess is Germans and French folk feel similarly. But the question should be how long they wait, not how they feel about it. And there, Jon Cohn's data lands a clean left hook for the win. As for Cannon's last point, I've looked over the data on this. Indeed, I spoke to Gerard Anderson, who conducted the study. And what it shows is interesting, and I'm going to spend some time talking about it. Follow below the fold if you feel like some wonkery.
