The real impact of 'universal' care is B.S.

Reading “The real impact of ‘universal’ care,” (East Valley Tribune, 8/19/07 pg. F3) I’m not sure if the same Dr. Marc J. Rosen who wrote the first three-quarters is the same person who wrote the conclusion. In any case, the editorial board should have given Rosen a better lead.

Cherry-picking problems with universal care does nothing to address this simple fact: people in countries with universal care are healthier than we are. Does it matter that “elective” hip replacements are limited in Canada? Not when those who need them for non-elective reasons can get them whenever they need them. This is an important distinction you will never hear universal care opponents mention in public.

Although I am certain Dr. Rosen wants better health care for his patients, he spends time in his op-ed worrying whether the “multi-billion-dollar health insurance industry will survive.” Not that I understand the link between their survival and the birth of IBM or the implied link between universal care and Nazi Germany. But why worry whether insurance will find something else to insure against? Somehow I think they'll find something. So much for that conservative belief in a “free-market” allowing firms to live or die based on conditions of the day.

Physicist Thomas Kuhn wrote in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” that significant and meaningful change in just about anything originates as the result of crisis and usually comes from people who do not buy into the majority way of thinking. Other countries have thought outside of the box and have determined that universal care makes more sense and their citizens are healthier and happier as a result. The reason folks like Dr. Rosen don’t get it is because their paycheck depends on them –not-- getting it. At least he admits it while, at the same time, complaining about it.