If you think the entire premise of "universal
healthcare" is ill conceived and leads to bad results take a
lookhereandhere.(h/t RedState) AsNationalReviewpointed out
some time back when urging rejection of universal coverage as a
goal: "Deregulating health insurance would make it more affordable,
and thus increase the number of Americans with coverage. But to
achieve universal coverage would require either having the
government provide it to everyone or forcing everyone to buy it.
The first option, national health insurance in some form or other,
would either bust the budget or cripple medical innovation, and
possibly have both effects. Mandatory health insurance, meanwhile,
would entail a governmental definition of a minimum package of
benefits that insurance has to cover. Over time, that minimum
package would grow more and more expensive as provider groups
lobbied the government to include their services in the mandate."
It seems the Massachusetts experience -- the best real life example
of the folly of universal coverage -- has proved this empirically
true. Rather than ask about New Year's resolutions at the next
debate perhaps we could ask which of the candidates share these
sentiments--might be something voters would want to consider in
evaluating the candidates. (And a simple show of hands would NOT
suffice.)