I doubt this is original in any way.
I was reading Kevin Williamson’s column this morning
And it occurred to me…
Suppose you did a poll of 1000 random Americans and asked “What would you do to improve health care?”
I assume the answers would almost exclusively have something to do with changing or replacing the financial systems that swirl around health care. The general tenor would be something like “More subsidies for me (or, perhaps, for those groups I deem to be dependent on me for protection) at someone else’s expense”.
Something like that.
Which is to say, I highly doubt you would get many responses having to do with actually improving health care. EG, “cure cancer” or “cure Parkinson’s” or anything like that.
Then I started wondering if there was a population you could poll…instead of polling at random…that would give answers like that. Substantive improvements to the actual art and science of health care rather than pushing various subsidy ideas around on the board.
This feels like a “John Thought”. We’ve been perfectly trained. When we hear the words “health care”, we reflexively assume we are having a political/economic discussion, rather than a scientific/technical one. The parameters of the discussion are pre-loaded into the language we use.