We do agree that removing the employer from the equation has a lot going for it, though.

Now – the only thing I think you can adopt is the attitude or the position that there should be, somehow, universal health insurance. That’s one agreed-upon starting point that most Western European nations share. Beyond that, though, the implementation and success varies widely. In fact, I’ve argued for a system much more like that of the Netherlands. Why is that radical whereas arguing for something more akin to the UK or Canadian systems (not that HR3200 is either of those) sane or rational or what-have-you?

Implementation is everything. If we implement health care reform poorly it could become very expensive with very poor results. That’s what I’m worried about. I’m also pro-reform as I see the current system as wholly unsustainable.

What’s really kind of odd – and maybe it’s not “conservative” or maybe it is (who cares?) – is this idea that a set of ideas that work in Canada, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and so on would definitely not work here because we’re so incredibly different. That’s just preposterous.

(Leaving aside the degree to which those places have different systems than we do, it remains the case that bills like HR 3200 would move us closer to the median European model than we are now. Which, I would argue, is basically the only relevant issue here.)

The reason state-sponsored single-payer health care appeals to me is that versions of it seem to have had pretty decent and steady results in other countries. And it’s a lot cheaper then what we have going on in America. That’s about all I need to hear.

I don’t particularly understand how you can have “principled objection” to a policy that basically works fine and still call yourself conservative. Aren’t you just an ideologue when you cross that line?