Mr. Moore went on to argue that even if you concede that those in single-payer nations pay higher taxes, at least they enjoy the peace of mind that no matter what happens to them–whether they are badly hurt in an accident, suffer a catastrophic or chronic illness, or lose their jobs–they and their families have access to health care without worrying about shelling out additional dollars.

He also noted that single-payer systems eliminate the armies of clerical workers hired to battle over claims, saving billions in unproductive frictional costs.

Mr. Moore also addressed those, like me, who are critical of single-payer systems because of the long wait times those with serious health conditions must often endure to get care. He conceded the point, but argued that such waits are unavoidable because everyone in the country is covered and equally able to access care–the goal of any egalitarian democracy.

Here in the U.S., he noted, one reason care is delivered faster is that 45-to-50 million people cannot afford to get on line for treatment, whether they are insured or uninsured.

Anyone want to counter these points?

One problem with the U.S. is that we always operate in a vacuum. Rather than examining how other countries handle challenges–like how to provide universal health care–we maintain tunnel vision and stubbornly try to reinvent the wheel.

Can't we take an open-minded look at what Canada, England and France are doing and see if there is a way to adapt and improve upon their systems while closing gaps in our own?