That being said, my limited experiences with actual socialized medicine have been excellent and I do believe we need government-owned health care providers, a public pediatric clinic in every public school district, etc. But that’s a separate issue from how we change the insurance system.

It’s immoral to say, “I like our system, because the wait is shorter”, because 1 in 6 Americans aren’t allowed to wait in line. The wait lines might have been shorter in segregated restaurants in the Jim Crow south too.

Secondly, Americans need to get these serious, complicated procedures more often than our European and Canadian peers because we don’t pursue the preventative health that’s needed. Checkups, regular doctor’s visits, availability of cheap rX drugs, etc., in the long run lower the need for serious surgeries and procedures.

Government isn’t getting bigger; by having the government as the single insurer we are streamlining the system, cutting through layers of paperwork and bureaucracy and saving time, money and lives. We are replacing a system built upon profit with one built upon solidarity.

And we do need more general practitioners and fewer specialists.

In all seriousness, I like this piece. The public option needs to be on the table, and it’s pathetic that so-called Democrats are not willing to fight for it.

I actually think some degree of dialogue is a good thing, but I do think Obama (and many of his rather naive followers) don’t realize the nature of their oppoisition (if, as you point out, they even acknowledge that they have true adversaries). Bipartisanship IS needed, but Republicans aren’t even willing to play the game.

I will say, though, that I’m not sure the debate is only being shaped by narrow self-interest. A good number of Americans hate and fear “big government” and anything that smacks of it. Even I, an ardent advocate of universal healthcare, have to admit that it’s not perfect. One thing I always struggle with is when opponents of my preferred policy say something like: “But in France and England (etc.), you need to wait for months to have a heart operation….” From what I have heard from friends in countries like those (and Canada), this IS actually the case.

Personally, I prefer a system where everyone is covered by the same insurance, and thousands are not dying needlessly or going bankrupt because of costs spiraling out of control. Yet, critics DO have a point that seeing a specialist is harder under some single-payer systems.

What is the talking point on this one?