Interesting Point on the Health-Care Debate

I often find myself browsing for news on the web-pages of "The Economist". It's a clearly business biased news publication, but happily it seems to avoid being a 'corporate' biased magazine. They bias towards capitalism, but are often willing to admit and even argue for social concerns as well.

While I don't always agree with The Economist positions, I find their 'news' to be apolitical, and a refreshing break to most of the major US news outlets.

Recently, they had an article about the US Senate health-care bill, and opened a 'discussion thread' on the topic, which I read through. So often the opponents of a Public-Option solution give arguemnts that are Red-Herring diversions, and at any rate thoroughly unconvincing. Occasionally I come upon one that makes some sense.

So it was with the following entry. I don't know if the author "OpenYourMindQuaid" is opposed to a Single-Payer Public-Option solution or supportive of it. Interestingly for his comment, that doesn't matter.

An exquisitely interesting point made, I have copied the entire entry here, and made BOLD the sections most significant.

OpenYourMindQuaid wrote: Nov 23rd 2009 6:04 GMT.
To even begin contemplating the passage of such a bill with the current debt boggles my mind. Don't people realize that debt approaching the total value of annual GDP is a serious problem?
The money that would fund this bill is not based on real value, so we can expect to see a substantial boost to inflation as a result. As if explicit taxes were not enough, implicit inflation taxes will now hurt every American.
I encourage people to ask why we got to this point where health care is such an issue and to not discount the relationship of any factor.
Consider this: If corn was not subsidized, then cheap, unhealthy food would not be as accessible. Healthy food would be relatively cheaper and perhaps the high rates of obesity and obesity-related illnesses would not be as prevalent.
If oil was not subsidized, then walking, biking, and less fuel-intensive modes of transportation would be relatively cheaper, so people would probably exercise out of necessity more often.
These two economically unjustifiable government subsidies add to the health problem, inevitably leading to increases in premiums paid to health insurance companies.
I encourage all to think about the interplay between governmental actions (and inaction) and supposed free market capitalism in the realm of health care. If something can be done to address the root of the problem instead of the symptoms, we should enact meaningful reform in those identified markets that adversely affect those reliant on health insurance. But continuing to throw illusory money at a problem whose depth anyone has yet to comprehend is a grossly oversimplified treatment of a much deeper problem.
I am deeply disturbed by this state of affairs. How dare anyone even consider spending money that doesn't exist on a problem they don't understand.