BWP,

Some good words there my man. I've heard from sources I thought credible that as affluent as we are as a nation, we really can't afford (on top of all the other national expenses we deem essential) the same high quality of health care that the middle class and up receive for every American and eligible alien. Yet our laws preventing the non-treatment option push health care costs to the brink of disaster.

I still think there's room among rational thinkers (currently estimated by me at about 5% of the nation's population -grin-) for a national plan that approximates what Oregon tried to do in the early 90s. The effort was led by a doctor turned state legislator. They prioritized every medical treatment on a list between 500+, with preventative measures at the top and "comfort" treatment for terminally ill, like AIDs and cancer patients. The plan required all of the state's health resource budget plus its share of federal Medicaid. Congress said no, so the plan went no where. But it's the closest to a viable universal health care plan anybody in the US has ever tried to advance. It acknowledges the broad social benefit of providing health care to all citizens, and that preventive medicine is the most cost effective medical treatment, and realizes that we cannot prevent people from dying, but can make them comfortable when they are. Clearly such a humane and cost effective health plan is out of synch with the majority of Americans who will only accept something that's not feasible, socially or financially, or remotely realistic.

Oregon has shown us that there is a smarter way to do universal health care, but it's so smart it lacks appeal to the irrational American majority.

Sg