My experience is that government creates problems, wastes money and generally impedes any process they are involved in. To think that by adding yet another layer of costly bureaucracy will improve service or enhance efficiency is tragically erroneous.

Let's leave to government those legitimate services proscribed by the constitution. We can solve the health care dilemma without government intervention.

Maybe the correlation between health and the health care system is not as great as other factors. What are some of the these factors? I could only speculate. Overpopulation, crime and materialism may undermine peoples' health.

Remember: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

That's because it would by necessity *be* an alternative to public care for everyone. A single-payer system can't work if it isn't single payer: its efficiencies are built on the fact that very nearly every human being who walks into a doctor's office or hospital has coverage, and has it from one provider with one set of coverage standards and one paperwork system that gives equal access to all without discrimination. Its efficiencies evaporate when alternative systems are introduced. By contrast, a system that is based in its architecture on multiple competing insurance plans is not fundamentally undermined in its very structure by introducing in one additional competitor, even if that competitor is a government-sponsored entity, especially when there are limited criteria for who can sign on to that option — any more than Medicare, the VA, SCHIP, etc fundamentally undermine private insurance now, or Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac fundamentally undermine other mortgage options in a private marketplace.

Currently we don't with Medicare, nor is Social Security sustainable.

So many people don't realize what's coming with the programs as they exist _now_.

Sibelius and the other new people gave cameras some dumb-eyed, shell-shocked looks when saying this once again, and it promptly died as a news item.

I wonder if entitlement and the sense of it simply has so many in the public robotically stupid and insensibly demanding and expecting things never to go awry. Have they any idea of the fraction of GDP the federal government (and these two monster programs, in their current state _alone_) will later consume?

It's a European-level fraction of the GDP but not necessarily a European extent of social spending and dependence on government.

Of course, by that time, European programs and society will face far worse economic and related problems.

I don't see how you can separate the notion of expanding medicare from reforming its finances. It seems to come down to a basic question: are we going to have a sustainable health care plan or not?

They're afraid of a backlash from a public already worried about excess government intrusion (there is no yammering and mischaracterizing common sound-minded public concern is self-defeating and -debasing) and fiscal mischief. The “public option” is an incrementalist maneuver, a partial government takeover of health care, the same kind of maneuver as what was done earlier with S-CHIP. “Competition” will of course not be fair, nor to “keep the private sector honest” [sic] or any other lies. It's simply a way to siphon people into public care out of private care (and encourage employers to drop employer benefits, in addition to the motive resulting from taxation of those benefits).

As I've said correctly before, not only is the “public option” dishonestly described by its proponents, but these same people would be venomous and vicious in a future with public care for everyone, if disenchanted people argue for a “private option” alternative. It's years, decades away but fully predictable.

… which includes Medicare, a partial model we've put in place for ages already, and which makes the most sense to take and expand. (Reform of Medicare, which has long been sought, is a separate iseue.)

“If we introduce a system of universal coverage, we must close our borders. If we don't close our borders, there's no way to control the costs of a system of universal coverage.”

Do you see the Dems closing the borders, and do you see the Dems worried about the costs, not now when they claim costs will be lowered, but once they have expanded public care to everyone? And what of the Dems and the group of people beyond our southern border that comes here, politically? They already face abuse whenever they even mention one word about reversing their pro-immigration and pro-amnesty (and benefits-for-aliens) stance.

Do you see the Dems closing the borders, ever?

It is good to have both public and private plans. The public plan forces the private plan to have much higher service standards.

I was on the public plan and had the same care there that I have here in the US with my PPO.

October 6, 2008 12:35 PM
A Ontario Health Coalition study exposes the explosive growth of private, for-profit diagnostic, surgical and “boutique” physician clinics across Canada.
http://cupe.ca/health-care/private-clinic-study

Dave Schuler, for the last three years, you drop in every couple of months, drop a ton of facts about healthcare, with only a trickle of personal opinion, and then disappear. IMO, you possess about 3 times the knowledge of anyone else here……..hope you can find more time in your schedule as this matter heats up.

Wikipedia has a pretty good description. It suggests the Canadians are spending less at least in party by not meeting demand very well. Queues get too long, there are shortages of doctors and equipment, and pressure to spend more or cut back care rises.

I'm not arguing against healthcare reform or even against a single payer system. I've favored a single payer system here for thirty years. However, our immigration problem and healthcare system problem are twins. They can't be solved independently. If we introduce a system of universal coverage, we must close our borders. If we don't close our borders, there's no way to control the costs of a system of universal coverage.