Well, reducing restrictions on interstate sale of healthcare would certainly be a good idea but the cure (Federal intervention) is worse than the disease (braindead state regulations).
I guess my view of the healthcare debate is that getting into the percentages and numbers is a losing argument because you’ve already granted from the outset that it is possible, through debate and discussion, to determine a “best state of affairs” which is exactly central-planning. You lose. Then it’s just a debate over which state of centrally-planned affairs is the best or ideal. The free market is a more thorough-going rejection of this point of view. The problem is that the whole argument assumes that we can determine society-wide priorities when, in fact, we cannot. Everyone values things differently. Universalization imposes values onto people that they may or may not have. If you value healthcare more than other things, then UHC is a subsidy of your valuations. If you value a lot of other things more than healthcare, then UHC is an imposition of a high valuation for healthcare onto you.
Clayton -