I'll bite. I, like most Americans, oppose a government-led universal health care insurance system.
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_...alth_insurance_overseen_by_federal_government
29% favor such a system, 39% oppose it (31% unsure).
46% believe such a system would result in a decrease in the quality of care, and 16% believe quality would increase.
42% would expect prices to rise, 25% would expect prices to decrease.
Not to suggest that the consensus view is necessarily the right view, but it
will mean that we'd be implementing a system most Americans do
not want.
Personally, I'm of the belief that the problem with American health care isn't the 40 million Americans who don't have health insurance - it's the 250 million that do have it. Huge insulation between the buyer and seller usually discourages the buyer from shopping around. Why should one shop around for health care? There's no real incentive in a system where someone else is paying the bill. So given that consumers are going to accept whatever price is offered, what incentive do providers have to worry about productivity or cost control?
During WWII, the government imposed wage controls, effectively prohibiting employers from extending cash raises to employees. How did those employers continue to attract workers? By offering non-cash benefits, like health insurance. Competition among these companies pushed each of them to offer increasingly attractive policies - first-dollar coverage for routine ailments like ear infections and colds, and coverage for things that are not even illnesses, like pregnancy. People came to expect insurance to cover everything. Furthermore, tax breaks allow employers to purchase health insurance at favorable rates - so even if employees preferred less coverage, it made sense to buy increased coverage at a lower price.
Let me pose a theoretical question: what if automobile insurance covered all expenses associated with keeping your vehicle running? If it paid for your gas usage, you wouldn't care about how much you use, or how much it costs per gallon. If your insurance covered oil changes, mechanics could charge $100 and you wouldn't care, as long as the insurance covered it. Prices would skyrocket.
And unfortunately, that is why health insurance costs are as steep as they are right now. People have no incentive to get a good price for care, only to ensure that insurance will cover that price.
How will government reduce those costs? I don't have much confidence in the government as a prudent buyer ($800 hammers, anyone?). While I suspect there will be some savings in reduced paperwork costs, the real savings will come from the government deciding which procedures it will and won't cover. Once in charge of health care choices, the government can simply start denying procedures and care ("rationing"). This is in fact how costs are managed in most socialist medical systems. Worse yet, as the government will now be paying for your health care, they have incentives to tax or outlaw "unhealthy" behavior.
I personally believe the solution lies in eliminating incentive to purchase group coverage and allowing folks to buy levels of coverage in accordance with their needs. For me, that would be a high-deductable plan where I would pay out-of-pocket for most doctor visits. For others with greater needs, a lower deductable plan might make more sense. What doesn't make sense is forcing all Americans to purchase uniform coverage as selected by a few know-it-alls.
