Daniel H. Spitzberg, rather than making a case against universal heath care, actually helps to make the case for it [in his April 6 viewpoint column].
With health care costs approaching 17 percent of gross domestic product in the United States in 2008, compared to 7.8 percent in Britain, (which, incidentally includes dental care as well,) the British system of universal health care is a bargain compared to ours. With 48 million people without health insurance in the United States, coverage in Britain is a real bargain.
Given the differences in costs, it would seem that, with American ingenuity, we can achieve universal health care coverage without the bloated administrative costs found in our system of private insurance companies. Medicare has an extremely low cost of administration compared to the private sector. (So much for the efficiency of the private sector compared to the government, as it relates to health care.)
In my admittedly limited contact with doctors, I have found that those with whom I have discussed the subject, (most recently, my cardiologist), are ready for universal coverage administered by the government, so they can practice medicine, unimpeded by bureaucrats in the private sector, whose only job appears to be to fight the judgment of physicians.