It seems that the U.S. is proposing a system where a government run option runs side by side, so to speak, with private options, whereas the European examples provided so far have a government mandate that private companies operate on top of, so to speak. Thus, the competiveness question would not be answered by such examples.

What am I misunderstanding here?

This brings me to my second thought. I think one of the reasons that some in the public are afraid of a big government health care program is that they think the government is corrupt and incompetent. If I recall, you yourself have blogged on government corruption before. Which raises the question, if government is corrupt (and/or incompetent) why entrust it with health care? I think there is at least a tension here.

To repeat, I support government run health care, but I think that those who oppose it are not necessarily pro-insurance lobby hacks. They are people who think the government should not be allowed to get control of health care.

I have asked a few questions about health care in a post below, if you have time to reply before it disappears, I would be grateful. At least, I think I can count on you not calling me dishonest (see thread for details).

The second question sought to find out if there is a major alternative proposal floating out there other than 1) Public option, 2) Single-Payer, 3) the status quo. How is that loaded?

The third question had to do with a genuine puzzle for me, one that was important in health care debates I have with my conservative business-type neighbors. ALL OF THEM admit that businesses should not be in the business of providing health care, something that I with which I agree, and having agreeded with them, then ask why they don't support reform. When I heard that the plans in Congress still focused on business provided health care, I was confused.

Look. I like to think that I am not a knucklehead when it comes to public policy. A general sign for me that the public discussion of an issue is not going well is when I cannot understand what the heck is going on, even when I have made a little effort to figure it out myself.

My reply to Fred was both sincere in its gratitude and sincere in the desire to continue the conversation.

What is to be gained by impugning my honesty in this conversation?

Does my breath smell?

Second, other than France, can you identify other countries that blend a public option with private insurance? Do any of these other countries NOT begin with a government plan that covers everyone (thus being like France).

Third, all of this is to say that your answer to the competitiveness question dramatically changes the playing field, such that private insurers no longer provide primary care coverage, but only expansions on a government run primary package of insurance. In other words, if things become French-like, insurance companies would have to completely change what they offer, and in the process lose the product from which they currently make the vast majority of their products. Thus, if I follow you correctly, in order to "compete" private insurance companies would essentially have to die and then be reborn as something very different from what they are now. Have I misunderstood something?

To be clear, I am asking these questions because they are the questions that I would ask if someone were to defend health care reforms on the terms you present. Thus, if I am to run with your answers, I need to anticipate such questions. I am entirely in favor of finding a way to provide coverage for all and to prevent making health care something where making a profit is more important than providing needed care. I'm just not clear in my own mind how to do this.

Again, your reply is really appreciated.

What is that purpose? My money is on -- wherever possible, include. Philosophers sometimes call this maximize unity and diversity. The point is to gather in diversity without destroying uniqueness. I think we find this purpose all over the place, including democracy, art, and even the periodic table of elements. Ultimately, I think this is my faith. I hope to blog on some of these ideas more in the near future.

The problem with good being objective but not God (something that I think requires much more discussion than I can give it here) is that the good is relative to the future; in human terms, the good is always a measure of the best possible immediate future state of affairs. In this respect, the good must be "personal," willing, we might say, the best future. We do good when we act to make that best future real; we do bad when we act to thwart the realization of that future.

Human understandings of the good will certainly be perspectival with respect time and place, and so in this sense they are relative, but they either have a perspective on nothing, in which case calling them good is meaningless, or they have a perspective that more or less true on the real Good.

Off to the weeds and mulch!