In a simple world where limited resources is not an issue -- "Everyone is covered, period."

This comment popped up over at "Something or nothing":

the government insurers aren't any less troublesome to deal with than private insurers
But they would be under this plan. There'd be no possibility of denying coverage. Everyone is covered, period.

Good intentions to do Something good quickly turn into just another opportunity to limit liberty, either a Little or a Lot. The trick is understanding the methods one has available to choose from to bring about the good intentions. There are winners and losers from the "public policy choices."

Here is the comment I had prepared to post over at that site but it would surely be too long and the commenters routinely slip into lazy ideological affiliation statements at the expense of reason:

Government sanction of monopoly pricing is the ultimate abuse of monopolistic power.

John Stossel has a note on "Schwarzenegger's Folly"; (the same as Dave Reinhard's compulsory insurance purchase folly).

Guaranteeing profits to any private entity is straight forward graft -- coopting the taxing power of the state. Guaranteeing a no-loss deal for non-profits is almost identical too to fully government owned and operated.

Here is a thought: If we had a sales tax, would we have an exemption for food and medical care? I pose this because mandatory purchase is a tax that is specific to the medical care -- but still at monopolistic prices.

Here is a post that has application here: "By the end of this post you will know more about economics than the Venezuelan government...." Just look at the elementary charts and Chavez's Price Control line, and move it above the equilibrium and give it the label of Price Support. At the higher price the suppliers here will offer more services, but the market would demand less at that price. The medical community knows that they can sell MORE services at HIGHER prices (for a combined double-whammy reward for their lobbying dollars), but only with the active assistance of the government to wield some sort of power that no private outfit can in the private market. Theoretically, the dollars that would be thrown at the problem would result in more actual services, specifically to meet the needs of folks that cannot afford even an equilibrium price, at the equilibrium price. But, sadly, it is hard to divine an equilibrium price in a vacuum (as the Soviets genuinely and routinely attempted for many market segments) or to tie public assistance to medical providers with any limits, even for limits that are in EXCESS of the equilibrium price without being scolded as though you were insisting on a price that was below the equilibrium price -- like Chavez.

See Becker and Posner.

HSAs are not tailored to the problem of unaffordability of health care for the poor. They do however blunt the impact of price-supported above-equilibrium prices for folks with disposable income, and marginally exacerbate the pricing excess with all the economic logic of Mr. Chavez. It is "politically feasible," where health care is nothing but yet another excuse for a tax break.

A slight rise in the standard deduction, without targeted spending, would not distort the price of health care upward but would allow a few more poor folks (at the margin) the ability to obtain some health care and and/or health insurance. But this would not be "politically feasible."

Edwards' 6 percent employee wage tax (given, again, a basic supply demand relationship and an equilibrium) is a tax on the employees even if the employer is charged with the duty of collecting it directly from the employee for transfer to the government. It acts like a Chavez price control on employee labor, but where the politicians can do like Chavez and blame the businesses if they do anything to respond to the lower profitability condition, such as take it straight from the employees as it so obviously is a cost pegged to labor. A plan to decouple the employer from private health care decisions would not impose so drastic and narrow a burden particularly on labor. (See an example from CATO)

Link to NYTimes' note on Edward's plan.

Thomas Sowell has some thoughts too: Watchout for Hillary "Health" Care.

There should be one simple rule that is applicable here: The superior bargaining power of the combined force of the insurance companies and the medical community (even if they have disagreements between them) in the private sector will simply carry over to the public policy arena for any legislation.