The "single payer" debate -- two educational NY Times editorial articles

On April 7, 2009, the New York Times editorial column ran an editorial entitled "A Public Plan for Health Insurance?": http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/opinion/07tue1.html

The editorial covers a number of points raised in the debate and then concludes: "A new public plan is neither the cornerstone of health care reform nor the death knell of private insurance. It should be tried as one element of comprehensive reform. If, over time, a vast majority decides the government plan is superior, so be it."

On April 8, 2009, an op-ed guest editorial by Ramesh Ponnuru, a senior editor at National Review, appeared entitled "The Misguided Quest for Universal Coverage":
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/opinion/09ponnuru.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

The op-ed advocates private plans and starts with this opening paragraph: "AMERICA’S dysfunctional health care financing system needs to be reformed. But the goal should not be universal coverage. Reform should simply aim to make health insurance more affordable and portable."

The guest op-ed sounds a lot like the McCain plan and, of course, does not give a dollar estimate about the cost to the consumer of any of the plans hypothesized by the author.

Reading these two views gives a good preparation for the coming debate. There are seriously different GOALS for these two approaches.

Start thinking about combining approaches. To my mind, employers might either offer their own plans or contribute to a union plan (a good reason to stop opposing unions), those who could afford privately purchased insurance might get a tax credit (and possibly surrender or co-ordinate medicare benefits for seniors), and the rest might go on a "single payer" system (possibly with a contribution if on a payroll).

Thoughts?

because I'm headed out the door and don't have time to give a substantive, thoughtful response (but this issue is a major hot button for me) . . .

Any plan that keeps for-profit health insurance companies in the loop as anything more than a supplemental for 'cosmetic' procedures (cosmetic dentistry, liposuction, etc) OR as a 'top up' for coverage of 'unusual' meds or procedures (experimental treatments, for example) is not a plan I could support.

The for-profit element must be removed from the equation.

Well, what happens to that young guy who thinks he doesn't need health insurance when he's in an accident? Who pays?

nuff said.