The poor insurers Options

[Lancaster Online]

[UncommonSense]

Question for Gil and everyone else, myself included. When we talk about healthcare for all - be it universal coverage, single payer etc - is the focus on merely providing coverage? Or, is it on equalilzing coverage?

This may be a key component that we are not addressing. Is a society civil if it provides healthcare to all its citizens, but in fact the coverage is not identical person-to-person? I, thankfully, enjoy pretty decent insurance coverage through my employer. I have also invested heavily in my education and worked pretty hard to get to where I am at, and in part I do feel as though I have earned this.

Now, I don't balk at the idea of shouldering tax burden to provide medical coverage for those who do not have any, especially children - they are innocent in this. But, are we looking for the provision of healthcare services to all, or equality of coverage for all.

I don't know that I have a problem with either. However, if we go to equality of coverage then everyone who has a superior plan (hear me Pitts, Specter, Casey...) comes to the same level as others (hear me CEO of Godman Sachs, AIG....) this is a discussion that does not seem to be held, and I can't help but wonder why.