I don't know what to think about this. those lame commercials are pretty convincing.
I don't know what lame commercials you speak of, but I suspect you're referring to the recent move for health care reform. In that regard, it seems that all parties basically agree that reform is needed. Democrats want a public plan to supplement the current set up. Republicans on the other hand want tax credits and so forth to give more money to those in need to pay for their own health insurance. The health industry is also conceding that reform is needed, but it looks like that's mostly because they want in on the discussion since they're bottom line is largely at stake.
So, everyone seems to agree on reform, but what's the best way? In that regard, I don't think people in general realize how many different ways health care can be administered. Usually, I think people believe this to be an all or nothing proposition. To wit, let the private sector dominate like in the US or let the central gov't dominate like in Canada or the UK. But there are different health care management models out there. For instance, there's Japan where it's employee based so to speak. Certain employees get full coverage through their work, certain employees get their employee coverage supplemented by the gov't, some self-employed people pay special taxes for their type of coverage, some get full coverage through the gov't, e.g., elderly. There are also other types of universal care where it's very market oriented. There's Spain where, iirc, it's guaranteed by the central gov't, but run by the provinces. And in some of these models, individuals can opt out, and get private insurance, or can rely on them as a supplement. I think these are important alternatives that must be considered.
In addition to the different models, there are so many different levers that affect the health care machinery. Health of the population, e.g., obesity, mortality rate, population growths in general, e.g., baby boom generation, and on and on. Apart from those numerous considerations, it seems to be a point of fact that health care is extremely expensive, and will severely tax any nation regardless of the health care model. Deficits are the rule, not the exception. I don't envy the lawmakers at all in this herculean task that they're up against.
So what do I personally think? Quite frankly, I'm not all too sure. But there are several factors that I'm just flat out puzzled by. In the 'richest country in the world', there are 45 million uninsured people in the US. There are also about 25 more underinsured people in the US. In other words, one significant medical issue will likely severely hamper an un/underinsured individual's ability to keep his/head above water. That just doesn't make sense to me. It seems a bit uncivilized to be honest.
To that end, it seems that the Republican model isn't really realistic in filling in that gap. And to be even more frank, I'm not altogether sure that I can trust the Republicans considering that they're often times bedfellows of the health care industry, which desperately wants to do everything they can to protect their $2.5 trillion dollar industry. See e.g., Medicare Act of 2003.
I think we can learn a thing or two from the different models from Germany and Japan for example. And I would enact a law that addressed costs and access at the outset, not after the fact.