There are useful approaches, ideas, and techniques we could learn from health care systems that are fairer, cheaper, and more effective than ours (pp. 44-45).

Most nations try to drop the Out-of-Pocket Model as they grow richer (p. 151).

In the process (of trying different reforms), the basic moral question that should drive reform --- do we want to give everybody access to health care? – gets swept aide… “The Clinton defeat,” argued political analyst Ezra Klein, “taught many that health care is simply too big, too complicated, and too dangerous to touch” (p. 163).

Both countries (Taiwan and Switzerland) decided that society has an ethical obligation – as a matter of justice, of fairness, or solidarity – to assure everybody access to medical care when it’s needed. The advocates of reform in both countries clarified and emphasized that moral issue much more than the nuts and bolts of the proposed reform plans. As a result, the national debate was waged largely around ideals like “equal treatment for everybody,” “we’re all in this together,” and “fundamental rights” rather than on the commercial implications for the health care industry… President Clinton emphasized economics. The moral issue that drove major change in Taiwan and Switzerland never got really moving in the USA (p. 182).

Whereas all other nations work from the time the line turns blue to introduce a healthy new person into their health care system, the United States first attends to its poorest mothers and newborns in the hospital on delivery day… Until we adopt a health care system that encourages it, preventive health care will remain largely inaccessible to far too many Americans (p. 202).

(Though there is legitimate debate re. the health care rankings of countries, this is clear and not in dispute): there is a coterie of developed countries that are providing quality health care, distributing it fairly and equitably – and doing all that for much less money than the United States is spending (from the conclusion, at end of appendix – p. 256).