So, you should go back to your echo chamber and we will keep our lonely vigil at the Progressive Pulse. I’m willing to invest my time here because I believe that the country is moving towards an increasingly progressive agenda. If I’m correct, the policies we advocate here will become more relevant, while yours will become less so. We’ll see.

As to partisan politics…I have definite opinions on that subject. None of which you will like, but I’ll share them soon anyway.

Government already pays for half of health care costs in the U.S., so it is misleading to say our system is private.

People have a right to refuse public education and “mandatory” vaccinations, they should also have a right to refuse insurance — national defense is a public good, not in the same category as the other items.

Why do you keep going back to partisan politics instead of debating the policy itself?

There are about ten of us who read this blog. Seriously, let’s have this debate in front of a bigger audience.

Let’s analyze your points.

1. We agree. How to get there is where we disagree. I would submit that France has equal or better quality than the US, with much better access. At half the price.

2. Pure anti-government boiler-plate ideology. You’re entitled to your opinion, but don’t state it as fact. Particularly when there is ample evidence to suggest otherwise (again France, Canada, UK, Veterans Administration…all operate much more cost efficiently than private sector US).

3. In a free country we acquiesce everyday to things our government has deemed valuable ( public education, mandatory vaccinations, defense spending, etc). Why draw a line in the sand over health insurance?

4. I’m not against experimentation to try to determine the best way to deliver healthcare efficiently (as long as it’s part of a comprehensive universal coverage plan). Again, though, you need to ask yourself why the Republicans didn’t experiment with any of the ideas you mention when they had the chance. If they really cared about “ever-increasing quality available to an ever-increasing number of people” they were free to experiment with every idea you have mentioned. Why didn’t they? And why should Democrats, assuming they consolidate political power, experiment with your ideas when they have different ideas of their own?

I’m still waiting for you to back up your “moral obligation” talk by opening up that free clinic.

To piggyback Joe’s comment, the focus on “coverage” for everyone is a distraction. The reality is “coverage” does not equate to health care.

http://redclaycitizen.typepad.com/redclay/2007/10/universal-healt.html

“In a world in which resources are limited always and everywhere, single-payer “coverage” cannot guarantee health care, and “universal coverage” is a mirage.”

Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute laid out the following principles that explain the club’s opposition to “universal coverage”:

1. Health policy should focus on making health care of ever-increasing quality available to an ever-increasing number of people.

2. To achieve “universal coverage” would require either having the government provide health insurance to everyone or forcing everyone to buy it. Government provision is undesirable, because government does a poor job of improving quality or efficiency. Forcing people to get insurance would lead to a worse health-care system for everyone, because it would necessitate so much more government intervention.

3. In a free country, people should have the right to refuse health insurance.

4. If governments must subsidize those who cannot afford medical care, they should be free to experiment with different types of subsidies (cash, vouchers, insurance, public clinics & hospitals, uncompensated care payments, etc.) and tax exemptions, rather than be forced by a policy of “universal coverage” to subsidize people via “insurance.”

Hi Brian! I saw 28 patients yesterday; hopefully I made a small difference in the lives of at least few of them. And you? Have you freed anybody today from the coercive actions of the state from your cubicle at the Institute of Irrelevant Magical Big Ideas?

Anyway, Steve couldn’t have said it better. I’ve asked it before and I’ll join Steve and ask it again. Where is your plan – even one to cover 100% of kids in NC? We’ve proposed one, complete with actuarial studies and a framework. We got part of it passed in the last legislative session (sliding scale premium basic coverage for kids in families between 200% and 300% fpl) and we’ll get the buy-in at full cost for all parents in a future session.

Do you have a real plan for insuring all kids in NC? No. Much less any realistic plan for coverage for other groups. I’m open to any realistic solutions that result in broad coverage. What I have no patience for is lame proposals put forward without cost estimates or actuarial studies for the sole purpose of scoring political points.

When you aren’t addressing the realistic concerns of millions of Americans, people start to catch on. We see that with the 80% approval ratings (70% among Republicans) for the SCHIP expansion on the table. I’m happy for you to join the slide into irrelevance. Your side wasn’t for our SCHIP program when it was first proposed. You aren’t for this expansion. You aren’t for universal coverage. Well, what are you for? I’d be very afraid that question will become academic after the next election.

As for “a legitimate comprehensive plan,” I must have missed Adam’s and yours. I don’t think single payer is legitimate and “universal coverage” will always have people who opt out so it’s not really comprehensive. On the other hand, having faith in the market means trusting that there are a few people out there who understand a small part of the puzzle enough to make money, so we don’t really need a comprehensive plan which I doubt anyone is smart enough to be able to devise anyway.

Good attempt at ducking, but your premises are wrong. Try again.

So, when are you opening your free clinic in southeast Raleigh to provide immediate access for the uninsured? After all, it is your “moral obligation” and there is “no middle ground.”