The point of the article is priorities. Both candidates speak of expanding health care to encompass everyone. Doing so now would be expensive, and would later develop into a crises thanks to already projected increases in cost.
Our candidates speak adamantly about expanding health care, it sells votes and it's the "right" thing to do, but realistically they should first focus on cutting cost and increasing efficiency. In other words, changing the system. Occasionally being forced to tell people that the operation with a 5% chance of success will not proceed. That definitely wouldn't sell votes, and is "wrong". So it doesn't get done.
However, increasing general efficiency is also the point of the article. Also not addressed by candidates enough because it's not as romantic as expanding health care.
Also, people point to European counterparts as examples of how Health Care could work for the US, but this is flawed for two reason. First, people are living longer. Longer life expectancy has already increased cost. Second, high taxes (and generous unemployment benefits) have depressed economic output in these countries.
Correlation (the US has a better economy) does not prove causation (the US economy is stronger because its taxes are lower) but it fits the logic of basic economics, and there is little other explanation.
And now I will predict the future. Someone will reply to my comment saying that the economies of European nations (and Canada) are superior, without providing any kind of evidence.
Discuss