certain members of the democratic caucus within congress have taken up obama's mission to provide health care for all americans. as senators and congress people debate and brain storm how best to transform our health care system, a writer for the New York Times points out that, "[t]he industry went a step futher (after promising to accept all applicants regardless of illness) last week, offering to end the practice of charging higher premiums to sick people int eh individual insurance market." yet even this measure does not guarantee that health insurance would be afforable to all americans. "The government cannot require people to have insurance if they cannot afford it, so lawmakers must decide: who would get subsidies? How much? And if the government subsizes insurance, should it also prescribe the items and services that must be covered - the specific benefits or their overall value?" apparently, offering subsidies may be unnecessarily complex and ineffective. it would seem that government provided universal or 'socialist' coverage seems to be the only option then. therefore hillary's plan for government provided health insurance seems necessary. however, as the article later poitns out, the cost for putting together a remodeled health care system could cost by conservative estimates up to one trillion dollars over the next ten years. in light of this fact, a health care insurance system does already exist in america and it might make more pragmatic, that is culturally and historically american sense to utilize this pre-existing structure. the existing health insurance industry might cost less to restructure and could produce greater revenue, greater economic stimulation. however, a more socialist approach could be more efficient and has historical precedents for realization in several western nations. i don't know what i think now, except that a socialized system may not require as much trial.
question: am i actually doubting socialism?