Universal health care question

Yes, I do.<br><br>
1. Because we all benefit from a universal good health, just as we all benefit from universal good education.<br>
2. Because the line between voluntary behavior and involuntary is not a bright one, but has a wide expanse of grey.

Addictions and their sequelae.<br>
Obesity -- is the cause overeating or something physical that interferes with the way food is processed?<br>
Heart disease -- was it the sedentary lifestyle and high salt diet or the genetic condition that caused it?<br>
AIDS -- does it matter how you contracted it?<br>
Pregnancy -- does it matter whether it's an intended pregnancy?<br><br>
You can go on and on....<br><br>
And the comparison to education is a poor one for so many reasons, not the least of which is that education funding and control is one of the most irrational systems we have ever devised.

<a href="http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/036480.html" target="_blank">Interesting reading on the relationship between malpractice litigation and malpractice insurance rates.</a>

caff -<br>
You have both lauded Medicaid because it covers the poor, and claimed that the US can't do Canada-style government-funded health care because of the differences in scale. Color me confused. Expand eligibility (and funding, naturally) for Medicaid, and bingo, single payer system in the US -- cooperative federalism at its best.<br><br>
Or is Medicaid only good enough for poor people?

<img alt="biggrin.gif" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/biggrin.gif"> I am SO stealing this line.

Actually, the marriage penalty has been reduced considerably in recent years.

It's the PRT version of 1!

I think the confusion is caused by Obama and Clinton. They claim to promote "universal health care," by which they mean mandated coverage by private insurers.<br><br>
Traditionally, however, "Universal health care" meant a single payer system, with the government paying private providers, financed through taxes.<br><br>
Obama and Clinton would keep the private insurers in business; a single payer system would not.<br><br>
Both of these models are contrasted with the UK model, in which providers actually work for the government.

It's hard to know how much is intentional and how much is ignorance, but I pretty much agree with you.<br><br>
I'm trying to think if there's something we actually disagree on, El Dude....

Oh, me too. That's just shameless advertising for my brother. <img alt="wink.gif" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/wink.gif">

<img alt="biggrin.gif" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/biggrin.gif">

I just want to question the idea that government is necessarily less efficient than private business. One of the main problems with our current health insurance "system" is that the private market has proven itself to be horribly inefficient. The losses in administrative costs -- to providers, insurance companies and consumers -- are enormous. It is not an efficient system by any stretch of the imagination. A single-payer system would reduce those costs dramatically.