Debating the question of whether or not the U.S. should nationalize healthcare could go on forever because there are worthy considerations for and against it. This is your chance to land a knock-out blow for one side or the other. I'll present a portion of both sides as I see them, and you defend or attack as necessary.

Why we need nationalized healthcare

The overwhelming reason is that some 65 million Americans in the world's wealthiest country have no health insurance whatsoever. These are not all indigents but rather single working parents, the recently unemployed, numerous others knocked off their financial feet by conditions beyond their control. Unhealthy people can quickly become poor people, and poverty breeds poverty. Nationalized healthcare could be the safety net that keeps families from falling into poverty and the first wrung on a ladder that lets them climb out.

It would be good for the economy because it would relieve companies from exorbitant health costs and distribute the load more evenly. One auto magazine suggested that GM shells out some $2,300 per car for health care and benefits. The transplant auto companies, in contrast, have little payouts for healthcare because their work force is younger and they have few retirees.

There could be two systems, one government sponsored and the other private. The private system, supported by people willing to pay directly for health care, would probably have access to more recent procedures and newer equipment. That's OK because this private system would encourage development of the new equipment which would eventually find its way to the offices and ORs of the national plan. The national plan might also be an opportunity to shackle personal injury lawyers from filing frivolous lawsuits.

Why we don't need it

A national health plan would be outrageously expensive. When there is no profit motive, organizations are run badly and government organizations are notoriously inefficient. Profit is one indicator that a company is running well. What indicator can show whether Medicare or the FDA is working efficiently?

And when government planners do get the urge to cut costs, they will shortchange patients. In a few years, equipment will likely be out of date or malfunctioning. The British system is frequently lampooned for this shortcoming.

One indicator that national health plans work poorly came recently from the president of the Cleveland Clinic. He remarked that the largest foreign population treated at the Clinic is Canadian, a country with nationalized medicine. Canadian patients come to the Clinic because they are not willing to bet on their slow-moving national services in races with diseases.

National health plans are the source of many horror stories. A recent one came from a medical contract-engineering firm. It had received complaints from Europe that a pen for marking surgery sites was prematurely running out of ink. How could that be? The pens came in a one-time-use surgical kit and had enough ink for many operations. After a few questions, it became clear the hospitals could not afford to discard equipment after one use. Disposable parts of the kit were used several times, presumably after being “refurbished”. Catheters and hypodermics were among the most reused equipment. This activity is encouraging an outbreak of preventable infections. It has probably happened already. But you won't hear about it because hospitals carefully guard those statistics.

It's your turn.