Another data point: Singapore has better health outcomes than most developed countries but spends less than those with (more) socialized medicine.

Govt’s role in health care has increased dramatically over the last 40 years. At minimum, their greater involvement has been correlated with higher costs and more problems.

We could easily afford 1985-era medicine, we can’t afford 2009-era medicine. Maybe we just hit the ceiling of what we can afford?

Mark, I do respect your views and the gracious way you typically present them. I have friends and in-laws who live in England and Canada. They all prefer the medical care and coverage there as compared to the U.S. In England, they actuallly receive receipts for transportation expenses to and from hospitals and medical clinics. Never happen here. Also, no one goes bankrupt in Europe over going broke from expensive medical care.
P.S. A friend had a terrible car accident in New Zealand a few years ago, was laid up in hospital for weeks, and had multiple operations. She paid nada (and is a U. S. citizen who was just traveling in that country). Capitalist greed is in the evil part of our heart compared to many other nations.

I think the past record of the US Congress supports my fear is that we are not going to to do this more wisely.

In the end, we aren’t going to get as far as we would like in covering everyone, and at the same time, we are going to force a lower level of care on everyone else.

Without seeing a final bill and having to time to understand it’s costs and benefits, it’s difficult for me to make that analysis.

If there is a treatment that would have been available for my 2 year old son ten years from now and he dies, but for the financial incentive to development that treatment was removed to provide care for everyone, we better damn well be giving care to everyone.

To complicate the moral question even further, the variable that is difficult to quantify is the impact to world health of the elimination of the health treatment subsidies that we provide to the world.

It is a fact that our capitalistic heath care system accounts for the vast majority of world innovation in medical technology and pharmaceuticals.

By taking some of the financial incentives away that currently exist in our system, are there drugs or technology that won’t be developed which could have say cured malaria, or HIV or other diseases that decimate 3rd world countries?

Will drug companies raise the cost of drugs to other world countries making them less affordable if the profits currently made off the US system are reduced?

The moral ground is not as easy to find as it would first appear. I’m not sure we really know what the positive and negative outcomes will be. My experience tells me that when you try to do more at once, you understand the impacts (positive and negative) less.

As you know Novena, I have always been very respectful in our disagreements and I am curious what you an Ed think fundamentally.

Let’s put the equity issues aside, which were heavily weighted in the 2000 WPO study rankings.

Do you think the level of care (by that I mean; responsiveness, access to the best doctors and technology, and innovation) currently received by those who are currently under privately-administered plans and in a capitalistic-run health care system, will be the same under a more social non-profit government-run plan?

If you feel the level may be reduced, do you feel that it is a fair trade-off for better equity?

I think it is really at the crux of the discussion, and the tough decision we as a society have to make. I don’t think there is an easy answer.

I’m not saying one side is correct and one is wrong, I am just asking if you are willing to wait longer or forgo some high-end treatment options so more people can access?

I personally struggle with that question when weighing the reality of the situation.

Just curious of your thoughts.

Dear Congress: Pass it!

I haven’t heard from him yet. Strange.