Overhaul All Of Medicine For 10 Million Americans?
Dr. Bala Ambati, Director of Cornea Research at University of Utah, blogs (and note the end line in paragraph one-- that's the kicker):

On the 47 million people without health insurance point, that too is a statistic where there is less than meets the eye. First, health insurance does not equal health care (there are not just emergency rooms but cash-based clinics, and conversely, a lot of people with insurance don't get good health care). Second, of that 47 million, 14 million are already eligible for existing programs (Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits, SCHIP) yet have not enrolled, 9.7 million are not citizens, 9.1 million have household incomes over $75,000 and could but choose not to purchase insurance, and somewhere between 3 and 5 million are uninsured briefly(<2 months) between jobs. That leaves about 10 million Americans who are chronically without insurance. Needless to say, extending the blanket of coverage to this group should not cost $1.5 trillion and require a wholesale overhaul of all of medicine.

...Is the likely Democratic plan a good idea?
I have to say no. Expanding Medicare & Medicaid for all (which is basically what it boils down) opens the door to government price controls, which will devolve into wait-lists, poor quality personnel, salaried staff (who by definition are incentivized to give minimum effort), increasing physician refusal to see Medicare & Medicaid patients, and underinvestment in research and facilities (see Great Britain, and Canada). The Australian system, where public hospitals are well-funded and physicians can choose to accept government rates or charge higher, might be a viable option. The VA system (which was held up as an example by Hillary Clinton) is good at certain things (electronic prescriptions, some routine elements in primary care, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury) but is poor at infrastructure maintenance, efficient clinic and surgical flow, and customer service; further, its costs are held down as much of VA health care is in reality delivered by residents. The proof of the pudding on the VA is that the vast majority of VA patients are enlisted personnel; the retired officers go elsewhere.

...What things should we keep in mind going forward?
As a society gets older and richer, it naturally will spend more on health care. Further, innovation and research cost money along the way - NICU care was probably not cost-effective 15 or 20 years ago, but is now. Neither of these points are in and of themselves bad. But we should allow patients the freedom of choice and with it, the responsibility to take care of themselves and limit unnecessary costs. Yes, in acute situations, it is unseemly and unfair to ask a patient, before anything else, what insurance do you have? And that is a great advantage of Canada that we can learn from. But some patients do abuse the system (refuse to take medications and then come in when they are really sick, or come in to the ER at 2 in the morning for itchy eyes which they've had for 2 weeks without pain or change in vision), and such behaviors should bear the costs.

We do not want to destroy a system that has led discovery and contributed so much to the world and led to unprecedented advances in life expectancy over the last century. As for profit, medicine should not be a business where the profit motive trumps all. Yet money does make the world turn; indeed, money from high-margin services helps support and allow the presence of charitable care, research, teaching, and humanitarian work (much as first class on airlines helps subsidize the rest of coach class). Removing money as an incentive for performance, R&D, and innovation would be stifling. Humans are naturally lazy, and greed can & should be harnessed to useful ambition. But corporate greed, market-distorting greed, and the greed of corruption and unnecessary services should be checked.

via McArdle, via Crid