Review of “We’ve Got You Covered”

I recently finished reading a book written by two economists about how to “fix” healthcare. Since I enjoyed the book, it’s relatively new, I thought others might be interested, and because I had a quibble with it, I thought I’d just write about my thoughts.

So, hopefully you enjoy my first blog-published book review of We’ve Got You Covered by Amy Finkelstein and Liran Einav, available on Amazon or at the public library.

On We’ve Got You Covered:

I thoroughly enjoyed the book – it was thoughtfully put together and well structured – likely a product of a careful developmental editing process. The novel ideas and arguments were especially well presented and made easily understood (pathos). The metaphors were consistent and appropriate. I appreciated the narratives (ethos), as much as I appreciated the careful citations (logos). Check, check, check.

However, in terms of one of the authors’ central arguments and assumptions, I think a deeper inquiry is warranted. They eloquently support the idea that our society consistently acts to care for each other with evidence of every time we’ve expanded our “safety net” and why in the US. They take pains to avoid having a stance on whether or not we ought to take care of each other.

I think it is an act of moral cowardice not to say, boldly, that society should include caring for each other. In fact, the arguments seem to border on the other side, frequently mentioning how thinkers of antiquity often decried the “sentimentality” that led to us wanting to help each other.

The way the discussion is carefully written to appeal to the broadest possible audience has value, certainly. I understand how and why the approach was chosen – to avoid triggering a knee-jerk reaction from the most entrenched politically conservative. But it also entrenches us in the position that compassion is, or ought to be, a secret indulgence and one that might reasonably be considered a political position and not a human one.

“In my view, compassion and sympathy are not luxuries, but essential components of the human experience.”

Sympathy, and the desire to both feel it and receive it, should not be seen as a weakness. Perhaps, not even a virtue – it is only a normal human emotion that keeps us alive, collectively, the way all of our emotions do. In my view, that line of thinking came from Descartes, who very much believed in the body as only a vessel for the mind, in us and animals. (Of course, animals having no mind in his opinion did not merit any consideration as living, feeling beings.) That view has led to so much suffering. Suffering of animals, suffering of the sick and injured, and even suffering of those who hold the view. By clinging tightly to it, they are unable to see how their own bodies and minds are one.

Contemporary medical minds, like Bessel van der Kolk and Gabor Maté have written of the intimate link between body and mind. Of course, people who have always lived in close communion with the land and animals have always known that human bodies, minds, animals, society, and the environment live and die together. (One Health in modern parlance.)

Generated with AI

Now I’m not surprised that the authors took this tack – Descartes, for all my personal distaste of him, has been highly influential for so long that his ideas persist, likely especially so in circles of academic economists. But I am disappointed.

Even in terms of their argument: everyone should be covered by national insurance; they miss a key support to bolster their claim: it feels good to avoid suffering and hurts to watch it in others. Taking care of each other feels good. It is actually, logically good, proper, and morally correct, regardless of political ideology.

If you are struggling with your health, please reach out! Or, if you are a medical or healthcare writer, I’d love to chat about editing your next book.