Health Care Costs and Freedom

Health-Care Experts Say Reform Should Stress Structural Changes Over Cost - washingtonpost.com: "In the past, Congress has framed health reform as a moral imperative to cover everyone. The Obama team approaches it as an economic issue, noting that $1 of every $6 spent in America goes to health care. If nothing changes, it will be $1 of every $5 by 2017.
'The evidence is clear that the biggest threat to our fiscal future is rising health-care costs,' Orszag said."

What I would like to know is whether or not lost business opportunities as a result of bad breath from extended warfare might cost the US a lot of money as well? However, stressing cost over morals might be an attempt to get bipartisan action on the health care bill. Social Security was passed bilaterally in 1935 as was Medicare and Medicaid thirty years later. This year it is more reasonable to assume that it is going to be solely a Democrat affair.

Many are saying these days that the health care reform is stalling and one question is whether this is because of the lack of focus on the moral issue of universal coverage? Or is the Mars over Venus issue relative Europe the reason that more Americans are willing to take risks with their coverage? As I said before I find it difficult to understand why universal coverage would limit freedom. It should increase freedom. Give peace of mind. Perhaps Europeans define freedom differently from Americans?

Another issue, which is paradoxical, is the unwillingness of Americans to take risks with terrorists compared to Europeans. Risking your life towards disease vs. risking your life from attacks by terrorists. It is phrased differently as standing up for freedom but it could also be expressed as less tolerance to risk. Freedom for the European is to live in peace--with a certain risk--whereas the American can't accept this risk. The risk might of course be greater for the US with its more forward position in global business. However, in reality the risks might be quite comparable. Compared to earth quakes in many areas of the world they are quite small. Learning to live with a risk is apparently more biological according to an American biologist acting as a consultant for the US Congress.