This is a very good article. It is well written and important. Too many do not like single payer insurance and this makes sense. If the federal government covers major hospital stays and chronic diseases then insurance would cost less and cover preventive care and other less costly care.

Interesting short commentary by emeritus professor of health policy. He explicitly addresses political realities (likelihood of weighing down a plan with tons of goodies for established players) and practical necessities (a minimum of catastrophic coverage for everyone, and necessity for containing cost increases).

Superficially very good story, but support for the premise that only major medical should be covered, rather than covering preventive care, is only an analogy to car care. No mention is made of the cost savings that occur with preventive care. What is left out is too significant to consider this quality anything.

Written with urgency and a compelling tone, this essay by Dr. Luft outlines specifics to a compromise between many competing health care reform priorities. It addresses both the ethics and economics of the need to reform. Including links to any relevant studies or sources would would have been helpful and provided needed factual support.

This article tries to pinpoint what it feels need to be the major achievements of health care reform, and some of the steps that need to be taken to achieve them. I am not familiar enough with the statistics and technical issues to understand whether his formulation is correct. And I'm not sure Medicare is so dysfunctional (I'm on it) that it can't be a model - or that the VA system can't.