US health care

A co-worker and I had had a brief, friendly debate about the subject of universal health care, but our differences are microscopic, in the end. Ultimately, we agreed that this should be an argument about how we should do it vs. whether or not we should do it. (Andrew Sullivan let's a reader opine here about the the French health care system, and it's pretty well done).

The United States is at or near the bottom of the barrel amongst industrialized countries when it comes to infant mortality, overall health, heart disease, percentage of wages put into health care, etc. If such is the case, why should we be so thankful for America's gems of health care? What good does it really do for our country?

Andrew's concern--as is mine and that of my aforementioned co-worker--is that the excellence of America's medical profession may be lost in the process. That the breakthroughs in medical and pharmaceutical innovation may become casualties of, well, democracy. Democracy and capitalism did it to architecture, for certain (poetry, painting, sculpture, and music are--perhaps arguably--similar casualties). The world of medicine in the US may well suffer.

However, if the current system results in more dead babies, more unhealthy people, more people in bankruptcy, what are we really gaining in US medical excellence? The argument could (or at least should) never be that easy. But isn't that a general framework from which to start with? Should it not be "what could we be prepared to sacrifice for a better health care system?"? There is an argument to be had. Let's hope we have it.