>First off, I don't consider Colin Powell an expert on health care reform, any more than I viewed Jean Kirkpatrick an expert on domestic issues. Both individuals were often spot-on when it came to foreign policy issues but less so when came to domestic issues.
>
>Government-controlled health care will not work in the United States.
>
>A perfect example is what occured in Massachusetts a few years ago,when the state had a "bipartisan" health care law (sponsored by Romney) that aimed to reduce health care costs and increase coverage across all state residents.
>
>Well, it failed. Why did it fail? Costs went up anywhere from 25-50%, because of the political issues of what constituted an acceptable policy. Special interest groups lobbied politicians to include "special" benefits as part of a government approved plan. As a result, the state required patients to purchase 43 benefits (including in vitro fertilization, alcoholism therapy benefits, etc.) that were were useless, benefits that would not have been required in a truly free market system. Even the state government had to acknowledge that this ultimately cost far more than intended, and had to subsidize far more than they expected.
>
>Guess who also winds up getting shafted? Well, the physicians, of course, as some doctors and hospitals had payments cut. Additionally, the Cambridge Health Alliance (a provider to poor patients in the Boston area) had to reduce staff and services because of rising costs.
>
>Overall, in a span of 3 years, overall insurance prices in Mass. rose far above the national average. So across the board, a big failure.
>
>And yet despite all the evidence, you still have idiots in Washington who confuse quantitative "coverage" with actual medical care. Health care is a good/service...it is an economic commodity - which the government has no business regulating. The Mass. plan had as its underlying premise, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", which is the basic premise of socialism.

No price control killed that one. And I might add that the doctors do very well under real medicare. The Canada/USA Family Practitioner salary comparison, after accounting for the lesser valued Canadian dollar, is about the same. There is also a cap on the amount that may be awarded in a malpractice issue, so doctors are not grossly over charged for insurance, which is a cost that is also passed on to American patients.

I am a Conservative, but what we are talking about here is not only health, but maintaining the tax base. Healthy people are more likely to have a job/income and therefore be a revenue source for the government. For many in the USA medical care, including just a visit to the family doctor is out of the question making them a good source for the spread of some serious diseases. How many people with TB or phneumonia etc. are walking the streets untreated because they can't afford to be diagnosed and treated? There is a good argument for national or even global medicare.