Should the Government Ration Health Care?

According to this article, "yes": http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html?_r=1.

I find myself struggling to disagree, but that's probably because the author of the article is about eight-billion-times smarter than I am. As a conservative, though, I have to ask myself the question: is public health care good public policy?

Every single time I ask myself that question, I think "yes".

My thoughts on the matter are simple. I cannot reasonably force a private health insurance company to provide coverage for someone. With time and effort, however, I can try to persuade a politician -- and maybe others -- to go ahead and have a certain treatment added to the list of acceptable treatments under a public health care policy using cost-benefit analysis. The motivation for a private company is profit; the motivation for a public entity is to provide the greatest amount of public goods to the most people.

Health care is out of control in this country. It's one of the reasons that we must constantly borrow money (as a nation) in order to continue operating. The dream of eliminating the United States' debt within my own lifetime is infeasible unless health care costs are introduced. Unfortunately, the private sector has not yet learned how to do that on its own. That means the government must step in to save the nation's economy.

It can, and does, work. The statistics show that socialized medicine can, and does, work for more people, and for less money. I've looked at the numbers myself, and I understand why this is possible. As a fiscal conservative, the decision should be instinctual: if a program can lower costs in the long run for the public and private sectors, then it ought to be implemented. Public health care will cost the average person more money (in taxes), but will likely lower costs for businesses (who no longer have to cover 80 to 90 percent of their employees' premiums) and fulfill important health care goals (covering the young, the elderly, the infirm, etc.). Hospitals may operate without having to worry about whether a private insurance company will bail on the bill because the patient failed to disclose material facts.

What's there not to like?