I think he is generally right - a moral argument is more effective than technicalities. I will only add that historically, the opponents of universal health care stated their argument in moral terms (anti-government sentiments, mostly) and won over the technical details of the advocates.
I wonder, however, what kind of moral argument is going to fly in this country. Europeans used two broadly defined kinds - appeal to social solidarity (societies have obligation to look after its own members' well being) and appeal to national defense (lack of proper health care weakens the strength of nations, esp. their armies.)
I am not sure if any of these would fly here. Solidarity is not highly regarded in this individualistic society. National defense might work if we had conscript army, but with all volunteer army - it is a non sequitur. I a do not know what other moral argument can be mustered in support of universal health care. Cost saving /efficiency? Maybe, but it sounds to much like technical mumbo jumbo that can be easily trumped by the moral argument of the opponents (anti-government sentiments) which worked well in the past.
Wojtek
--- On Wed, 7/29/09, Julio Huato <juliohuato at gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Julio Huato <juliohuato at gmail.com>
> Subject: [lbo-talk] The Moral Case for Health Care
> To: "Lbo Talk Lbo Talk" <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
> Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 7:50 AM
> A propos of the recent discussion:
>
> http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/07/what_happened_to_the_moral_cas.html
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>