er individuals susceptible to high healthcare costs (i.e., those with catastrophic physical illness; mental illness; the frail elderly; new mothers and infants), period. The outcome of such a system would be to spiral into category 1 – No healthcare programs – (mediated by a very few insurance companies) wherein the richest segments of society would be able to access services. The irony is, the richest citizenry often require much less healthcare than others. The upshot is this: there is an increasing disparity in the number of people who are able to access healthcare in the face of age and cost escalations. One needs to question the current and future success of these social systems.

4. Combinations of Above: Combinations of the above become extremely complex and difficult to assess. There are certainly advantages and disadvantages, as well as incentives and disincentives for a hybrid of the above systems. Each of these advantages and incentives (or lack of) are inextricably connected to the socioeconomic class you and your family belong to or are transitioning into as well as a host of external and internal factors. A government funded universal system provides healthcare to everyone, including those who are disadvantaged and could not possibly access care without subsidization. It also provides care to those who are charged by some who would abuse care (though unclear who this group might be as people do not consume unlimited healthcare once they are well). Alternatively, the system dominated by large insurance companies provides very high quality, responsive care to individuals who can pay or who are insured by corporations who in turn can pay. This system works well where individuals insured are reasonably healthy and young. A problem occurs when the population of employees becomes older and insurance premiums are either hiked to cover extraordinarily high costs (insurers will only cover healthcare costs where the profits of covering healthcare costs actuarially calculated costs) or removed entirely. Countries in which no healthcare programs exist (presuming healthcare is available) results in costly but accessible services for the very few. There is no need to get into the obvious personal suffering and strife in this latter healthcare system.

To summarize the four systems discussed:

1. The richest members of society will continue to receive care regardless of the system in place.

2. The poor will suffer the most in instances where there is either no system in place or where insurance corporations are the primary arbiters of healthcare delivery.

3. The government funded universal system provides care to the greatest number of individuals in society, despite any shortcomings.

4. Profit motive and linkages to incentive to constrain services and limit accessibility becomes increasingly prevalent as the workforce ages (and healthcare benefits supplied by employers become accessed more frequently).

5. Societal Success entails providing the opportunity for wellness for the greatest number of people that make up the society.

In conclusion, the success of a society is correlated with the individual and collective wellness of that society. Wellness of the society is inextricably linked to the overall health of the population within that society.

Societies that provide healthcare to the highest number of individuals to an established floor (as opposed to ceiling) level of care (inclusive of the most downtrodden and indigent) are successful. A ceiling level of care is redundant when referring to healthcare, since, with the exception of only an extremely rare and unusual incidence, people only access healthcare up to the amount which will result in wellness. For instance, unlike other goods or services (e.g., Ferraris, Rolex watches, massages, Gucci handbags), obtaining healthcare in excess amounts is both redundant and ridiculous and counterintuitive to human nature.

It is therefore reasonable to suggest that a system of care which provides for the greatest number in society (e.g., everyone), the most vulnerable in society; as well as those at the highest rungs of the socioeconomic ladder and everyone in between could reasonably be argued as the most effective. To those who would charge or decry a system that would benefit everyone as inefficient or unaccountable and therefore untenable, it is important to ask where they, themselves, fit into the healthcare-socioeconomic landscape. Secondly, are they interested in the societal success, will their approach move the society toward success, or are their own parochial interests – however they are justified - masquerading as societal success. You be the judge.

In essence, evangelizing capitalism to the exclusion or minimization of societal success as measured by population health is tantamount to cutting off your nose