People in West 4X more likely to make it to age 26, 68X more likely to make it to 76 than in 1600

For me, the most amazing rags to riches story isn't the story of any one individual but is our story in the West. The difference between who we were centuries ago and who we are now is stunning on every measure.

The simplest measure of our progress is probably measured in life span. One early bit of data from London in the early 1600s captured the probability that a person would make it to various ages. It's not just an infant who could so easily die in the first years of life. Anyone subject to an abscessed tooth or bout of diarrhea was vulnerable. The reliance on superstition rather than science was just one of many reasons it was so easy to die: it was a century after this data was collected that England executed its last witch.

The red shows the probability that a person would make it to 6, 26, etc., in London in the early 1600s. The blue shows the probability of making it to those ages in the US in 2008. You were 4X more likely to make it to 26 in this century, 68X more likely to make it to 76.

It's right to be amazed at spacecraft landing on the moon or computers in our pockets that can download more data than we could consume in a million lifetimes. But what's even more impressive are the odds that you can still enjoy such things well into the last half century of your life.

You Care, I Care, We All Care for Health Care

It seems to me that - as is so often the case on policy issues - the health care debate is now led by extremists.

One the one hand are the conservatives who oppose universal health care. They see this as expensive and as a way to subsidize the lives of people who are careless about their money, their health, and the treatment of their liver. They don't see health care as any more of a right than membership in a Country Club.

On the other hand are the liberals who see universal health care as proof of the goodness and modernity of a community. And they oppose the notion that wealth ought to translate into privilege when it comes to somethings as essential as health care.

Obama is obviously closer to the second group, and I think that he may be leading us down a path we cannot afford. Health care for him could be what Iraq was to Bush - a vague idea that proves unsustainable because of a failure to move beyond platitudes and hand waving to the point of designing something that won't collapse once it makes contact with the real world.

Health care ought to be a right. But that statement is not the end of a conversation. It is the start of one.

People regularly criticize the US for how much we spend on health care. In 2007, it was an estimated 17% of our total GDP and in a decade it could be 20%. These facts are cited as proof of the failure of our system. I am not so sure.

Once you've bought your house, your car, shoes and meals, where are you going to put your money? Why wouldn't an affluent country put an increasing percentage of additional income into purchasing more years of life with more life in those years? It is conceivable to me that we'll eventually spend 20% to 35% of our GDP on products and services that enhance our feeling of well being, strength and agility, and mental acuity. Spending more on health (and I'd include psychological health under this umbrella) seems to me a sign of progress.

And this gets to the root of the problem and the essential problem to solve in regards to health care. When I say that health care is a right, I am referring to a particular level of care. You deserve police protection but you do not deserve a personal body guard. (But if you are rich, you can hire a personal body guard.) You deserve health care but you do not deserve a hip replacement at 85 (but if you are rich ... well, you get the idea).

Everyone deserves health care. Some basic level of preventative care, anyway, and coverage for broken bones, disease, etc. It's not obvious to me that health care necessitated by bad life choices (obesity, drug and alcohol abuse for instance) are rights.

And as to where the money ought to come from to fund this? I think that it ought to come from two places. One, it ought to come from a tax on products like fast food, video games, TV and corn syrup that contribute to obesity. Two, it ought to come from a tax on the premium health care that only the wealthy can afford. Any product or service deemed too luxurious to be covered by universal health care (and that should include a variety of procedures and drugs) should be taxed as a luxury good and the money put into a pool to provide basic care. This will draw revenue from groups that can afford it and groups that drive up health care costs.

Making our current level of luxury health care universal is a vote for bankruptcy. To decide that a swath of the population doesn't deserve any health care in the most affluent country in the world is a vote for immorality. The first step is to define what we mean by universal health care, carefully - bounding that in ways that provides essential care without creating an unsustainable health plan.

US Life Expectancy Ranking Slips - Secret Plan is Working

AP: US slipping in life expectancy rankings

For decades, the United States has been slipping in international rankings of life expectancy, as other countries improve health care, nutrition and lifestyles.

Countries that surpass the U.S. include Japan and most of Europe, as well as Jordan, Guam and the Cayman Islands.

Bloggers have made much of the fact that we've managed to translate all our money into such poor results, but such bloggers obviously miss the point. The biggest financial problem looming before this country is the problem of unfunded liabilities like social security. For this, our august and secretive government has a plan: gradually erode life expectancies. The dead don't cost much to care for. If more people had access to high quality health care, we'd just have to pay for them for longer.

When Henny Youngman quipped, "I found out I have all the money that I'll ever need. If I die tomorrow," he probably never thought that such a philosophy would become the basis for a government program.