AI's Jane Galt, whose work I generally enjoy a great deal, has an interesting post up today on the subject of health care costs and outcomes. And what makes it interesting, to me at least, is the fact that there isn't a single statistic in it. Not one. Zip. Nada, mi amigo, as our president would no doubt say.

Did I mention that this was a post about health care costs and outcomes?

Now, I'll be the first to say that reliable numbers in this area can be hard to come by. And when you do manage to find them, they're often contradictory, confusing, or suspect in some way. But, really, if you're going to argue, for instance, that the US health care system is being unfairly judged vis a vis those of other nations because of the unique generosity of our tort system, something a little more precise than "much, much much more generous" would probably be helpful. And if you're going to go on to suggest that the surprisingly high infant mortality rate in the US is, in no small measure, due to our heroic efforts to keep doomed preemies alive, then you might consider shooting for a bit more specificity than "many of them" when discussing the death rate for these tragic souls.

I don't mean to sound testy, but, honestly, I just don't know how we're supposed to have any kind of a productive debate about health care in this country as long as the folks who are generally satisfied with the current system insist on policy-making by rhetorical flourish. We say that 43 million Americans lack health insurance, and they say that markets are good. We say that diminished health and shorter life spans for uninsured Americans cost the US economy at least $65 billion a year, and they say creeping socialism. We say that 18,000 Americans die unnecessarily every year because they lack basic health coverage, and they say -- hell, I dunno -- they say their Aunt Gertie Mae has boils.

--------