IF -- and I'm only granting this for the sake of argument -- "something must be done to contain the costs," why is that "something" necessarily a public-sector initiative? Is increased health care cost driven by the same market constraints as any other commodity? Namely, demand? In the days when health insurance existed to cover catastrophic injuries or sickness, those costs were under control. But nowadays, when Safety Sandy takes Johnny to the doctor every time he scrapes a knee, costs are skyrocketing. Coincidence? I think not.
Secondly, the quality of medical care has increased substantially from the days when a doctor was a barber, and the best treatment he could offer was "cupping" or bleeding his patient. The new machinery and chemicals are expensive, and someone has to pay for them.
And yes, malpractice run amok has also contributed to exorbitant costs. Tort reform is an excellent start.
... according to the US Census (2000), 43 million Americans are without health care.
I suspect you mean that 43 million Americans are without health care INSURANCE. First of all, so what? How is it my concern whether people have insurance or not? Isn't that THEIR responsibility? Or did I suddenly adopt 43 million children I didn't know about?
Secondly, that number sounds grossly inflated. I recall reading an article that said many of these statistics include people who have had a lapse in their insurance in the last six months, but may be covered now.
And finally, the fact that they have no insurance doesn't mean they won't get the care. It may not be as extravagant as care given those who can pay for it, but that doesn't mean they'll be tossed out in the street to die.
Make no mistake: the "crisis" is fictional, invented by the same socialist ilk that created Social Security and other failed entitlements. Only this time it's our nation's health they're tampering with.
Something must be down to contain the costs - otherwise they will eventually bankrupt the country or at the very least the average guy won't be able to afford health care insurance. The "something" doesn't necessarily have to be a public sector initiative. My guess is that the solution will be primarily a market solution with some public sector tinkering at the margins. Yes, demand does drive the cost, but so does corruption, the overuse of technology, excessive lawsuits, antiquated and overstaffed billing practices, slothful, unhealthy lifestyles, and the cost of covering the uninsured.
You're right - I do mean the number of Americans without healthcare insurance. There are myriad reasons why Americans don't have healthcare insurance, and putting it down to a lack of responsibility is too reductionist.
I read somewhere that since 2000, the number of uninsured Americans has grown by about five million, so the 43 millions might be a conservative figure. You're right - they usually do end up getting care. But the taxpayer ends up footing the medical bill for the uninsured in one way or another, so that's one reason to be concerned about the fact that there are millions of these people. It is cheaper to intervene early than it is to let things go to the point that these people end up in emergency rooms at vast expense.
I don't think the crisis is fictional. The system needs overhauling. The question is, are the reforms going to market driven or state-centered?