As a candidate, Trump promised to replace "Obamacare" with a more generous, more comprehensive universal coverage scheme.
Two years later, at a council meeting, Carson suggested that, if insurance could be made more affordable, universal coverage could be achieved by fiat.
One plan achieves more or less universal coverage; the other, although it costs more than 80percentt as much, covers only about half of those currently uninsured.
Recall the debate about whether the Obama or Clinton proposal more quickly approved universal coverage.
Second, how much healthcare can be provided to all may well depend on the country's economic means, but whatever is affordable within a country's means can still be more effectively and more equitably provided through universal coverage.
Contrary to the assertion in your article, Senator John McCain's health plan is neither "radical" nor "more fundamental than the universal coverage" plan proposed by Senator Barack Obama.
But they're united in regarding employer-provided coverage as an unsustainable relic: a burden on businesses, a source of perverse incentives for the health care market and an obstacle to more efficient, affordable and universal coverage.
Mr. McCain's proposal, which he calls the Guaranteed Access Plan, would be part of a market-based restructuring that is in many ways more fundamental than the universal coverage proposed by Mr. Obama.
Some candidates have embraced bills that would take more incremental steps toward universal coverage, like lowering the age of eligibility for Medicare, or a Medicaid-type plan that would allow states to sell government-backed Medicaid plans on individual insurance marketplaces.
What's more, the Swiss have universal coverage, the healthiest population in the Western Hemisphere, and a government that spends a mere 2.7percentt of GDP on health care: about a third of what ours spends.
