Luke posted on his blog:
I am outraged that there are so many people that cannot get basic health care . . . This should be fixed. I'm afraid though that fixing it may even the playing field, but also somehow lower the quality of the best levels of care. Here is where I'm being selfish. I'm not in that 20% and I have been able to secure incredible care and innovative treatment for my son. . . . we were able to have Nathan operated on by the single most qualified surgeon in the world for the procedure that he needed. Can the system be fixed without removing the framework that allows for such incredibly talented people and innovative care to flurish?
I don't think a medicare-for-all type system would affect this at all, either for better or for worse. I haven't thought this through fully yet, so the details are sketchy. We would need some method for providing a stratified system. I think it would be a good thing if there were specialists who could command higher fees, and I don't have a problem with practices which cater to rich people, offering more attention and more convenient and personalized services for higher fees. Furthermore, Canada's system, which has many many benefits, has a huge downside: physician compensation is capped by the government, which removes the entrepeneurial incentive and has resulted in an exodus of canadian docs to the US. I would not want to see a similar situation develop here.