The cost question

I'm not entirely sure about a portion of this article ...

Speaking to a mostly liberal crowd of about 150 at the Ciné movie theater, panelists also did not hesitate to challenge a few of the left's misconceptions, such as that no one will be denied care under the Obama plan, or that the plan won't cost any more than the current system.

The public-option plan Obama has proposed, like Medicare, will not always approve the drug a doctor might want to prescribe, local physician David Jarrett said.

OK, I'm not aware of either of these things being hards truths hammered home by progressive reform advocates. For instance, the Congressional Budget Office has scored the various bills coming out of Congressional committees and presumed the coverage to be less than universal, but considerably higher than the existing level of coverage.

So, I don't think anyone is arguing this plan will cover everyone or that it won't cost money. The difference, however, is these reforms will cover vastly more people than the current system. That means if it has a comparable or slightly higher overall cost than the existing system, then it is ultimately achieving some measure of savings by providing more coverage with greater efficiency at equal expenditures.

We currently devote 1/6 of our nation's economy to health care expenses and 44 million people lack insurance while we languish in the middle-to-bottom of the pack of several key health indicators. This system, which is being structured to be revenue neutral through a variety of spending cuts and cost offsets, will cover many more people for, in essence, the same price.

Furthermore, private insurance is rationed every day, it's just that it isn't called rationing. Insurance companies limit the doctors you can visit. They establish co-pays, deductibles and caps to foster self-rationing. They deny coverage for certain medicines or treatments. They refuse to offer coverage to certain individuals who have pre-existing conditions.