I look at this way, the fact that Congress can’t get anything done was a feature the Founders anticipated. Better paralysis than a abject fall into despotism.

Kind of the opposite of the Lake Wobegon Effect: 80% of Americans are below average.

KZ, do you have any idea how much it costs to become a doctor? do you have any idea what percentage of middle class Brits and Canadians are complaining about how bad their system is compared to ours? and I can assure you that I am by no means or by any definition rich, and I say “it ain’t perfect but it’s better than the rest.”

Point A—just because others have not found a way to do it right does not mean it it’s not possible.

Point B—

you’ll agree that I get to choose what is the pubic interest.

No, I do not recognize your authority in such matters. WE get to choose my friend.

I’ve watched (and experienced first hand) the decline in this nation’s health care delivery system over the past twenty years

20 Years coincides with the rise of Compassionate Conservatism, HillaryCare, expanded Fed Drug programs and Open Borders. And 2 RINO and one Donk administrations.

If it’s true that there is a deterioration in the system (given people are living longer and many diseases are treatable that were death sentences only twenty years ago, so I don’t accept that argument yet) could it be that these socialist “enhancements” have been a large part of the cause? Wouldn’t more socialism just make it worse?

My father is decidedly middle class and my mother’s cancer didn’t hurt him economically. She also lived 5 years past the expected date because of new treatments and quality care. Yes, it wasn’t perfect and yes there were rough patches along the way, especially with rude or less than competent insurance and/or health care workers ( a decided minority as most were great but one bad apple could make for a lousy experience until an end run could be achieved) but overall I understand that it was heaven compared to such places as Britain or Canada !

…I doubt that the American voter will permit an openly two-tier medical care system to develop, where those who can afford it (one way or another) enjoy the full benefit of these advances, while everybody else grows old and dies of cancer.

To a certain extent, we already “permit” such a system - it surrounds us, the direct result (in my view) of the juxtaposition of two separate groups’ goals.

The physicians, as a group, want to deliver quality medical care, but they want to be assured of being paid, reliably and adequately, for doing so. Insurance companies, as the other group, want to make money, and they’re not really very picky, at least at the corporate level, about doing whatever they need to do to generate that big bottom line*. Result: Doctors, on the whole, buy into having the insurance company call the shots when it come to who pays, how (and how much) they pay and just what level of medical care they get in return.

Got insurance (whether self-paid or company-paid premiums)? You get what the policy says - no more, and sometimes less (sometimes a lot less!).

No insurance? Go fish - unless, of course, you’ve got a whole lot of money…then, it’s “Yes sir, step right this way, have we got health care for you!!”

Net result: Insured folks get health care, but at a level decided by insurance execs - who, despite what they may say, have about the same degree of concern for people’s health that they have for quantum physics. Uninsured folks get health care, too - but is the quality of care the same, if you don’t have major bucks to pony up? Sometimes yes, oftentimes…maybe - or, maybe not.

What would really make it far, far worse, though, is if the government ran it.

Can you name anything, anything at all, that is run by government and that attempts to cater to the multitudinous requirements of a large pool of individuals, that can be demonstrated to be usefully efficient and/or even remotely cost-effective?

Seems to me that the comments here represent opinions more than facts, much of them based on personal experience and anecdotes. Before there is a decision to expand are already socialized medical system, for what else is medicare and medicaid? some of the real questions that need to be asked are: Who, really, is uninsured and for how long, on average? Is it younger folks who choose not to get insurance because they find it or the contributions they must make to it too expensive? Do the uninsured, broadly, fail to get medical care at all when it is urgent that they receive it? Or does emergency care, clinics and other options fill most needs? Have we carefully examined whether all those who are now insured through government programs like Schip deserve to be covered, or have there been abuses? What definitively works better in the U.S. compared with other developed countries, most of which have socialized medicine? In the U.S. is there good reason to believe that those with the greatest potential to become the best doctors will choose other professions should socialized medicine be introduced and long-term income generating potential decreases as a result?

There are myriad other questions that need to answered first before we make any drastic changes in our system. We already know that socialized medicine works fairly well in France and Germany, less well in the UK and Canada and barely works at all in Italy. There is good evidence that some of the more advanced treatments for cancer and other difficult to treat diseases have been developed in the U.S. due to the incentives that come from a mostly private system. It seems to me that in the debate about health care, like so much else today, minds have been made up despite a dearth of solid data and information on which good decisions must be based. Anyone observing objectively would admit that we are not in a true crisis when it comes to health care but that serious issues do exist. But when we’re talking about an issue that impacts every human being in the nation I would think a little prudence and patience is called for before jumping to conclusions and imposing an entirely new system.

SteveF

I think your personal attack is unwarranted.

I presented a position you disagree with and now I’m an asshole, a troll, an embarrassment to the species? Why such hostility? I’ve been reading and occasionally commenting here for years and have never demonstrated bad faith or duplicity. It was just an idea for Chissakes, would you really prefer a dogmatic echo chamber where nobody expresses differing views?

KZ, Odd you take this stance

The stance I take is more that of provocateur than advocate, and the idea presented is one held, rightly or wrongly, by many of our fellow citizens. As Bill points out, some sort of significant change in our health care system is likely inevitable. If you don’t accept the premise that the system is not serving many as well as they’d like, if you believe this is the best it can be, I am not here to convince you otherwise, but I do think it’s a good subject for discussion.

KZ, you seem not to have read a few significant words in the comment you objected to:

KZ, if you’re trolling, good job.

I suppose you might have disregarded them because you see yourself as provocateurificating rather than as trolling.

those boots are at the cobbler’s for repair due to excessive usage stomping kittens

I use mine for trampling on the Constitution. Everyone else is doing it, so I might as well join in.