I think the "average working person" is slowly disappearing, replaced by the person with one, two or three no-benefit low wage jobs.
I expected nothing but sausage out of the government, particularly since the administration and the Dems were so set on getting an agreement, any agreement. It was theoretically possible for the two parties to have an honest debate and work toward an agreement that's good for citizens and uses taxes and other money efficiently, but in practice that would be impossible since their primary concern seems to be not agreeing to whatever the other side says.
It seems so plausible that we could have a much more rational and accessible health care system, however because health care is so expensive it can only be meaningfully underwritten by either or both of the government or insurance companies. The government is dysfunctional, and the insurance company's primary objective is to ensure least access to health care while still convincing people that they're a good buy.
Feh.
I dont know a simpler aggregate measure than life expectancy.
For the way that Americans live, the average life expectancy is nothing short of a medical miracle.
We don't rate at the top of the scale, but like everything, you have to take that in context - interesing argument here ->
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/why-does-th...
As for costs, it's not cheap, but it's not out of reach for average working people - especially when you're solution oriented as commentator above who notes catastrophic only as a solution.
My fundamental problem with this entire debate is that true national health care tugs heart strings yet there are clearly much more effecient proposals than what the gov't is proposing.
In my experience the US gov't - eg the largest employer in the world - has one interest, and that's expanding their business.