public insurance is simply more efficient. Medicare holds costs down better than private health insurance. The substantially public systems employed by every other industrialized nation cost less and cover more than the American model. So the question became how to marry the policy need for public insurance with the political need to preserve the status quo. Full Story »
Posted by Kaizar Campwala
A remarkably unsatisfying piece that reads like "Health Care Reform for Dummies." The author seems mostly motivated by his political agenda: though he is frank about favoring a strong public insurance plan, "create some kind of public insurance plan" seems to be his motto. Even the points he makes seem poorly supported. Nowhere in the article does he clarify that he is talking ONLY about public INSURANCE plans, not government-administered plans that operate differently and which constitute perhaps 80% of the excellent, time-tested alternatives we might put on the table. Too bad: the author could have used this opportunity to provide some perspective on the many varied plans already in force worldwide and the cost savings they offer--the excellent Japanese healthcare plan, for example, saves 40% relative to our current healthcare cost per capita, and it offers better care with better health outcomes, no rationing, and no waiting.
