Ronald Reagan once said, “government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.”  
In the Healthcare forum, this should be more than a warning, it should be a guiding principle.  Our government is not, and should not be, first in line to insure or care for Americans.  To believe otherwise, and to create a right for the citizen, is to focus on the possibility that government might help but won’t harm those in need.  No matter how benevolent the intention, this is a perverse view of our Constitution.
Our healthcare delivery system is currently configured to guarantee emergency care regardless of ability to pay.  The standard is one of stabilization, built on the compassionate view that no human should be abandoned in their greatest hour of need based on station or income.  This is not true in other parts of the world. In Britain, just this August, a pregnant woman was refused an ambulance and had to walk to the hospital, giving birth outside on the sidewalk.  She was told that “they were not sending an ambulance” and she “had had nine months to sort out a lift.”  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1207151/Woman-gives-birth-pavement-refused-ambulance.html.
Socialized medicine, on the other hand and of necessity, places its focus on preventative care.  It must attempt to keep as many citizens out of the hospitals, out of the waiting rooms, out of their doctor’s sight as is possible.  It extends the franchise to citizens, immigrants, aliens, and illegal aliens alike.  Socialized medicine then, because of its reach and scope, begins to heavily tax other medical resources of its community, state, or country.  Don’t believe me?  Check out this bit from Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.  http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=1878506&sponsor.  Pay attention to the fact that it is government officials determining that the number of surgeries will be cut, not doctors, not patients, not insurance companies.  Instead, you will be subject to the shifting winds of political opinion.  Or if you’re looking for a closer to home analogy, check out how Hawaii’s experiment turned out.  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,440561,00.html.
The problem with our system is not our priorities, it is with the costs of the system and the ability of everyday families who seek care, but cannot afford that care.  In our district, any low-income family already qualifies for state-subsidized insurance.  No one is pushing for insurance for the rich, they can buy their own.  It is the family in the middle that needs the reform and it is their situation that must be advanced.  The solution is not to revamp the entire system and have government dictate availability of access to healthcare.
I cannot advocate any solution that puts the central government into the market in competition with insurance companies.  Instead reform must target those areas central to the runaway nature of medical costs.  At the top of the list is Tort Reform and the litany of unnecessary tests run by doctors in their attempt to avoid a costly malpractice allegation.  Hospitals, doctors, and insurance companies have enormous compliance costs imposed by the same government that laments the high price of care.  The limited compensation under SCHIP, Medicare, and Medicaid passes more costs to America citizens.  And yet other areas of needed reform question whom is accessing hospitals and what regulations will provide needed protections to hospital.   If legal aliens cannot provide proof of a HSA, they should be denied entry into the United States.  We must begin to place the direct cost of healthcare accessed and consumed by aliens where it belongs and not on the average American family who already struggles to pay for their own care.
What will not work is minimizing opposing solutions and soundbites.  Pres. Obama has already expressed, “If there’s a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half price for the thing that’s going to make you well?”   His flippant attitude ignores reality.  Medicine interacts with the chemistry of patients in different ways.  Price is only one measure of a pills effectiveness.  Some pills are harder on a patients’ system than others.  Some pills cannot be taken by certain patients, some patients believe one pill is better, etc, etc.  If one pill works just as well in every respect and the price difference is substantial (half in this example), the situation will not last very long, market forces will push down the price of the higher priced pill.  And, all the while, the patient still has the choice between the two.  Do you really want some administrator deciding your future?  Don’t allow Washington to determine which services you can obtain and which treatments your doctor can employ.  Keep the choice in your hands.  That is what an American would do.