James Surowiecki makes it sound like we're up against an impossible choice. I agree with his general argument but not with his conclusion.
... This is the fundamental dilemma: we’re unhappy about the rising cost of health care, but we’re also unhappy about what we would have to do to curb it. The ideal system, for most voters, would guarantee all seniors reasonable health care, stop the debt from getting out of control, and keep paying health-care providers as before. The problem is that you can only do two of those things at once. The debate between Ryan and Obama is a debate over which of the three we’re willing to give up.
The final choice is obvious. We've been overpaying health-care providers for years, decades.
No, we don't need to axe that warm, fuzzy GP and the nice nursie. No, but wedo need to go after pharma, for-profit health insurance providers, and the administrative hell that dooms our health care as a perpetual loser. Stat. Single payer isn't just some cuckoo idea. It's far and away the most practical and effective cure for the metastazing cancer that we've been calling "health insurance" for years.
