But there we have two problems, one short-run and one long-run. The short-run issue is that we can’t mint new MDs as fast as we can offer everyone free health care. The latter takes only the stroke of a president’s pen. The former takes years of training. The long-run problem is even more troublesome. As demand explodes, so will costs of all types, and government will be left to find some way to stem the tide of ever-rising prices. It’s only a matter of time before that means price controls. And price controls only exacerbate supply problems. Throw in the certain steady stream of proposals to reign in costs by regulating what we eat, what we do with our spare time, etc. , and you have a perfect storm of petty interference with everyday freedoms and incoherent economic policy.

All of this is in addition to a simple fact: we can’t afford universal coverage. Even now, we can barely afford Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The last of those three is essentially bankrupt; the trust fund is filled with worthless IOUs and the boomers’ retirement can’t be funded by the current generation of workers, absent massive tax increases. And yet we propose to more than double the amounts of these entitlements? I kind of doubt the Chinese and Saudis will have a big enough appetite for Treasury notes to finance that largese. We’re already leveraged to the hilt.

I must admit that it doesn’t really matter how intensely I desire universal healthcare, if we enter into a healthcare system in this country where my family, friends or I have to wait over a year to see a doctor, I’m gonna be displeased.

My main concern with this post is that when politicians and the media focus only of the end game (”universal healthcare” we are collectively jumping to the finish line and ignoring many of the problems that could be addressed today. Shouldn’t we be asking and acting on what can be done now to increase the number of doctors in this country, so that the nation isn’t one day stuck in the same uncompromising position of MA?

I’m obviously no expert, but discussing only the end result of universal healthcare seems to be ignoring many of the existing issues that makes this policy simply unpractical today or tomorrow. I hope lawmakers see MA as a test case and try to address the problems today (like fewer doctors) that are a lot less flashy than a cry of “universal care for all!”. While it may not insight the public passion of an all-inclusive healthcare system, these smaller steps would also encounter less resistance in a country where that end-game has become so controversial between the two main political parties.

And if universal healthcare *isn’t* the answer…? i.e. Going without treatment provides some sort of alternative? I know you don’t think non-treatment is a solution, but the problem with this whole debate is that it often gets phrased in terms of universal healthcare somehow causing problems like not enough doctors. When in fact there already aren’t enough doctors, but those with insurance notice less because of the number of people left out of the system. You see this in the NY Times’ headline: “In Massachusetts, Universal Coverage Strains Care.” Um… really? How about “In Massachusetts a Shortage of Doctors Strains Patients”?