As is true nearly every time I read it, I am nearly overwhelmed by the urge to tell you that I love your blog and everything you post. This time I am acting on it.
Excellent analogy (though extended care vs crisis intervention would need to be addressed in a longer argument).
The first few paras feel like an unnecessary digression. I suspect the argument is actually stronger if you leave mostly implicit the admiration we all feel for firefighters. Cynical of me to say this, perhaps, but downplaying the risk of their occupation is an oblique lead-in that leaves me feeling uncertain about whether you actually like firefighters. You could make the same point about how we resource them, for example, by leading with 'nothing's too good for our valiant firefighters'.
I sincerely hope this gives pause to those who consider only the US' pre-eminence in quality of available health and ignore its abysmally poor delivery of said service.
The first few paragraphs are there because in other discussions about this the conversation was derailed by arguments about the meaning of firefighter heroism from one side or another. In a less ridiculous world none of that would need to be said.
You're right that extended care and crisis intervention are different problems. The consequences of denying medical coverage to everyone are not exactly those of denying fire and rescue. Since both inevitably end in stacks of corpses and public health disasters I felt comfortable eliding that point.
I guess I was suggesting that there might be a rhetorical approach that would allow you to more or less assume that ground was covered, à la 'Firefighters are awesome; let's look at what makes them so awesome.' But you're a better judge of the audience than I could hope to be.
I think you're right, by the way, to leave long-term care issues alone, as they're not germane to the concept of universal access.
Comments 42
Thanks. I like what you are saying.
Reply
Reply
Reply
The first few paras feel like an unnecessary digression. I suspect the argument is actually stronger if you leave mostly implicit the admiration we all feel for firefighters. Cynical of me to say this, perhaps, but downplaying the risk of their occupation is an oblique lead-in that leaves me feeling uncertain about whether you actually like firefighters. You could make the same point about how we resource them, for example, by leading with 'nothing's too good for our valiant firefighters'.
I sincerely hope this gives pause to those who consider only the US' pre-eminence in quality of available health and ignore its abysmally poor delivery of said service.
Reply
You're right that extended care and crisis intervention are different problems. The consequences of denying medical coverage to everyone are not exactly those of denying fire and rescue. Since both inevitably end in stacks of corpses and public health disasters I felt comfortable eliding that point.
Reply
I guess I was suggesting that there might be a rhetorical approach that would allow you to more or less assume that ground was covered, à la 'Firefighters are awesome; let's look at what makes them so awesome.' But you're a better judge of the audience than I could hope to be.
I think you're right, by the way, to leave long-term care issues alone, as they're not germane to the concept of universal access.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment