I just stumbled upon this trenchant analysis of the unraveling American healthcare system. Regardless of your opinions of Paul Krugman and neo-Keynesian economics (I admit being rather fond of both), this article provides a clear summary of the problem, how we've arrived at it, and what can be done to resolve it.

I can't summarize the article and do it justice, so please just read it. I know it's long, but you'll thank me later.

Krugman and Wells' overwhelming conclusion is that a single-payer system is the only one that is sustainable in the long-run. The fragmentation and excessive administrative costs inherent in the private health insurance market render it incapable of keeping pace with the rising costs of evolving medical technology, and the same rising costs put U.S. firms at a competitive disadvantage in a system of employer-provided coverage (just look at General Motors).

Yet single-payer seems politically untenable today. Despite the clear numerical evidence of cost-savings associated with government insurance, the free-market fundamentalists who run much of our nation refuse to concede that the private health insurance system in America has become a massive market failure.

I personally like John Edwards' healthcare plan because it will lay the groundwork for a single-payer system while appeasing free-market fundamentalists with illusory competition from the private sector. Edwards proposes to create a number of "healthcare markets" around the country. To participate in these markets, insurers would be required to offer comprehensive benefits to all qualified individuals, regardless of pre-existing conditions, etc. Individuals not otherwise covered by their employers could choose to purchase insurance from either these "healthcare markets" or from a government plan. In theory, if Krugman and his ilk are correct, the government plan would prevail, with lower prices and better coverage, and we would see a gradual progression towards single-payer care.

Of course, I find it sad that we must jump through these extra hoops to prove to the entrenched healthcare lobby and free-market freaks what the numbers clearly prove on their own. Yet such is the plutocratic American Empire, complete with its 120:1 ratio of lobbyists to voting politicians. I suppose I should praise Edwards for his creativity, yet I can't help but wish that we could fix the fundamental problems with our political process (and our healthcare system), rather than creatively evading its shortcomings.