As a supporter of universal health care, I applaud William Vaughan Jr. (“Reality of universal health care worth examining,” Jan. 26) for joining the conversation about it and agree there would be at least “several problems” with developing and implementing such major reform. However, I don’t find either of the two problems he offers compelling.

First, that “the British National Health Service relies on rationing to stay afloat” is hardly relevant to the universal health care model discussed by the three commentators he cites in his letter. They aren’t talking about the British model of socialized medicine, in which the government owns all the facilities and employs all the providers. And, in view of every country’s limited resources, every country has to ration, the NIH through waiting times and administrative hurdles, the U.S. through prior authorizations, denials, prices and demographic preferences.

Second, saying that universal health care is problematic because people who don’t have healthy lifestyles would have to be treated means we should continue tolerating the anguish and early death, not only of strangers but of family members and neighbors who, for whatever reason, don’t have access to care. Healthy lifestyles are certainly important but that’s like saying universal national defense is problematic because that means defending people who don’t pump iron and maintain private arsenals. 

No, if we’re going to discuss problems with universal health care — which we should — let’s first define the term, then focus on how that system would affect cost, savings, patients, providers, workers, employers and taxpayers compared to how our system affects them now.

Daniel Bryant
Cape Elizabeth