Jason, I’d be interested to know what level of quality is found in these other countries that pay MUCH MUCH less per capita for health care. You get what you pay for. I don’t think most U.S. citizens would be willing to sacrifice quality when it comes to their health care. A free market with competing providers seems the best way to ensure the highest level of quality service. If that means we have to pay more for it, then so be it.

I’d disagree somewhat here, it may not be a “right” today; but I certainly think it will and should be soon. I’d argue we’re in the middle of a revolution in biology and healthcare. This isn’t just flying cars or Jetsons talk; we’re at the point of understanding the fundamental machinery of life. With this revolution, I think you will see an increasing gulf between the haves and the have-nots. For an example, cancer that would have killed you 2 years ago; may very well have treatments today available only to those who can afford it. One only has to look to places like Africa and the AIDS epidemic to see larger evidence of this.

Midnight, I think you should take a less dogmatic approach here. Maybe I’m wrong here; but you seem to offhand denounce universal healthcare, because of the code words “government controlled”. In doing so, I think you ignore many of the “universal healthcare” success stories in other countries around the World. Many countries compared to the US pay MUCH MUCH less per capita for healthcare, provide healthcare to all their citizens, and have comparable service. In fact I think an easy argument could be made, at 16% GDP the US healthcare system is one of the worst around for what were paying for.

I don’t have the answers to this. I do think though, like many politically charged issues, people tend to get caught up in abstract ideas and catch phrases. Instead of talking about practical, pragmatic solutions.

Regarding health care as a role of government: First, kudos for cutting the bullshit. I like candor without condescension.

As you guessed, I do disagree. I don’t believe “general welfare” in the Constitution extends that far. I do agree that a system as you described would be optimal. However, I do not believe it can work. I have no faith in government to manage anything of any size in any sort of fiscally responsible and productive manner.

BTW, thanks for the kind words.

I hate to say this and I expect you’ll disagree, but I see the provision of basic health care as a role of government. Unlike the other for-profit companies I do business with every day, I don’t get any value whatsoever from my health insurance provider. They are just a necessary evil on my road to medical care.

I would like to see a system where basic care is managed by the government and provided to everyone. The health insurance companies would then offer plans for additional coverage above the basic everyone already has. That way, no one lacks for care, but those who are willing or able to purchase enhanced plans from private providers will do so. I would envision that my taxes would go up a little to pay for this, and my health insurance would go down a little, and I’d end up right where I am now. The difference would be that my neighbor would not be doing without much needed basic care because he’s marginally employed and can’t afford it.

My primary reason for posting back isn’t to fan the flames further - I think you and I are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. But I wanted to mention that I enjoy and value your writing - I’ve been reading since your days in the NYT and I thought your Iraq stuff provided a great perspective that was not readily available elsewhere. Keep up the good work.

If the truth is complicated, looks like politicians are willing to lie to us in order to simplify it.

However, a couple of your latter points seem to ignore the first point on which we agreed: nobody has the right to health care. If nobody has the right to health care, then what right have we to object that some people lack health care (not a basic right). Furthermore, I doubt that the profit of health care companies is even the underlying reason, but even if it is:

First, you have no right to deny someone the fruit of their own productivity (profit). Second, if you try to eat away at the profitability of a company then that company will eventually cease to exist. You can argue that they should be allowed a “fair” profit, but what is fair? Who decides? In a free market, the market decides. In some forms of “planned economies,” the government decides what is “fair.”

I don’t want to deny health insurance to anybody. However, I will not condone stealing the rightfully earned profits of company in a free market in order to provide a service that is not a basic right. Taking profits and forcing someone to serve a customer that has not paid is outright tyranny.

We have no right to enslave others to our own desires (provide a service such as health care) no matter how much we might desire something.

I believe that society as a whole (the majority of American voters) want affordable health care for all. Certainly this is true of voters in all the other rich countries of the world, all of whom provide at least basic coverage to all.

I further believe that American voters object to some lacking insurance in order to provide profit to insurance companies. Health insurers are just about universally reviled by all who do not profit from them. They’re certainly not popular or respected by doctors, hospitals, or patients.

Do we really want to deny quality health care to the poor, solely to protect the profits of insurance companies?

Enjoyed the read!

David