You can't make these names up!

Here's a quote from today's New York Times: "Richard Kronick, a professor at the School of Medicine at the University of California, San Diego, cautiously concludes from his own study that there is little evidence to suggest that extending health insurance to all Americans would have a large effect on the number of deaths in the United States. That doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t; we simply don’t know if it would." A doctor named Kronick--what are the odds?--especially with the topic he researched.

It would be interesting to see his research protocol for this study. After all, beyond the superficial data points that can be known--age, sex, marital status (but, how many times married? I bet not), homeowner or renter, etc.--the information one gathers is squishy at best.

For example, of what illness(es) did each person in the study die? As an example, I'll use my mother. She had kidney failure and was on dialysis three times a week for about six years. She also developed Alzheimer's, gradually and insidiously, over many years. She had pulmonary problems, due at least in part to smoking for about 40 years (she quit for the last 18 years of her life). The list continues: Macular degeneration, cataracts, migraine. But, the cause of death listed on her death certificate is acute aortic stenosis. Yes, she had health insurance, which covered just about every treatment and prescription. The question is: If you put her into your research categories of "Had Insurance" and "Lived to Age . . .", what have you learned? Very little, in my opinion.

This is a point I've mentioned before, but it bears repeating; in fact, this blog is in large part dedicated to hammering on this point until at least a majority of people in this country (and, elsewhere) accept it as valid: The people who make the decisions about your, and my, healthcare options, insurance, and eligibility are people who know the price of everything but the value of nothing. As a society, we have not evolved to the point where the fruits of innovation, discovery, initiative, and concern for the well-being of others are valued much less than the ability to show a profit. Until we do, healthcare--and education, childcare, work opportunities, etc.--will generally go to the people most able to afford them. This is a kind of rationing, which is the topic of the article from which the quote at the outset is taken.

As Damon Runyon once wrote, “The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet.”

Let me know your thoughts.