I guess some readers are a little shocked by this statement:
I see no problem with the wealthy having access to better care than the less wealthy.
It seems to me that this is equivalent to saying: I see no problem with living in a free society. Even if Michael Moore achieved his dream of corralling us all into a British-style healthcare system, private medicine would still endure in America. In fact, you'd have to make it illegal to prevent the wealthy having access to better care, newer drugs, faster service, better doctors. I know some leftists would gladly prevent the successful from getting better healthcare, but it won't happen in a free country.
So the choice we have is simply whether it's better for the government to provide a basic safety net and let the private sector do the rest, or whether government should manage almost the entire healthcare sector as a public good and let the wealthy opt out if they wish. Either way, the wealthy get a better deal. That's what happens in Britain: you get taxed to pay for mediocre, rationed healthcare, and then you have to pay privately if you actually want, say, an operation on time, or a procedure not yet planned for in the bureaucrats' latest five-year plan. As I said, I don't see a huge threat to good healthcare from a Romney-style reform, that tries to bring in more people into the system. I'd like to find ways to help many more of the working poor to afford insurance. But there's a creeping logic here. Once the government concedes it has an obligation not only to provide healthcare for the truly needy, but for everyone, and everyone equally, the floodgates open. When the market for something is infinite - and who doesn't want better and better health in an era of technological advance? - rationing is essential. Either the market rations it, or government does. I know which one I trust more.