Universal Health Care?

Rarely do I agree with anything that is posted on the opinion page of the NY Times, but having lived exactly what he's described ever since I left my job to come back to school, this piece really hit home:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/11/opinion/11krugman.html?ref=opinion
I can't imagine what I would have done during the past 6-7 years if something really terrible would have happened to my wife since she hasn't had any health insurance. I know that we've had similar conversations about taking her to the ER, especially with some women's health issues that she deals with (Yes, I know that I should go to the doctor, but we can't afford it). I couldn't agree more that something needs to be done. In this great country, with so much opportunity and affluence, we should do better than we do. I've taken solace in the fact that our situation is temporary and that soon we'll be covered and she can finally get sorted out, but I think that I would really be in despair if there was no end in sight. Being the land of opportunity, it was my choice to leave a job/health insurance and continue my education for the hope of a better future for my family. Rarely do I consider the government the best option to solve a problem, but I can't think of anything better. I think a comprehensive program that included not only health care, but also preventative measures, such as avoiding smoking, alcohol, obesity, and others, would be very beneficial to this nation. Free-market competition has not led to cheaper health-care, but it sure has made a lot of insurance company executives, attorneys, and physicians wealthy. Part of any health-care plan must include provisions to severely punish frivolous lawsuits, which in my opinion is the main reason things are so out of control. I saw another study, which used the Mayo Clinic as a prime example of what to do correctly, in which doctors are paid a salary for their work. Top notch care was received, even some of the best in the nation, but for almost half of the cost that patients at John's Hopkins pay for treating similar ailments. The difference in cost? Doctors at John's Hopkins are not paid a salary, but by the amount of procedures/tests/etc... that they perform. So, at Mayo, doctors do everything they think is relevant to help patients. At Hopkins, doctors help patients, but also are padding their paychecks by doing more than may be necessary. In my mind, it's time for a change. It's time every American has access to affordable health care. It's time we stopped smoking, drinking, and overeating our way into deadly circumstances. It's time that lawyers started getting charged for bringing damaging lawsuits against hard-working physicians. It's time that Americans stop wanting to make a quick buck on anything, especially at the expense of the doctors who provide such a valuable service. For those without health insurance (which some estimates are as high as 40% of adults), something must be done.

Abstinence

I've been thinking about this topic for awhile, wanting to approach the topic from a completely secular viewpoint. I will do this in detail eventually. For now, this is a really good start:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/magazine/30Chastity-t.html
?_r=1&ref=magazine&oref=slogin

http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/tlr/