The least Dr. Rosenbloom could have done was mention other countries' experience!

There's a decent argument in this piece, but it's flaw in a) not aknowledging that there's a problem with the private system today, and b) not proposing an alternative solution.

I got the feeling that the author went in search of things that would support his conclusions. He also seems to make (what are to me) unsupported statements. As an example he says:"Private primary health insurance has become all but impossible for persons over 65 to obtain." but does not state why that is--he just implies it is the governments fault--with out supporting documentation.

This is the most biased story siding against the Private option that I have ever read. Not one word of a positive effect.

A lot of discussion in a semi rational tone, of problems said to be associated with government funding of health care. It draws conclusions that really stretch - e.g., is it really Medicare that prevents seniors from getting private insurance? Is it government price fixing that prevents insurance companies from overcharging for what procedures they deign to pay for? Of course, when they don't pay it isn't rationing, it's business.

While well written interms of style, this is not quality journalism. certain facts and elements of the problem are gathered and arranged to arrive at an already determined conclusion.