I cited T.R. Reid's book via link recently. It is a good analysis of what is wrong with our system, particularly by comparing it to the systems in other nations. The link provides a good summary of the common myths of said systems, including the "socialized" medicine label. Reid, whose experience living in various systems helps add weight to his analysis, believes (as I do) that the core issue is moral. This is a major reason why other nations (as arguably does ours) protect it as a right with positive economic effects following.
It also seems a better selling point, given how successful Obama has been with idealistic rhetoric. Not only is a moral message harder to negate (oh, so you do believe young people should die, as they have, because of lack of coverage?) but because in the short term, it might cost more. A better health system is a long term investment, though an unified system (which might include one set of rules that are carried out by different providers) with universal coverage as well as non-profit financing in the long run will be cheaper.
The book is best seen as a window into different systems, including those in Taiwan and Switzerland which are relative newcomers to the European model. It provides introduction to the major models with a summary of how they were established in their countries (Germany, Great Britain and Canada leading the way). It points out to the problems with our system (which costs more to supply worse care) and includes a chapter promoting the importance of prevention, which our system in various respects does not encourage.
Unfortunately, and I don't know why for a book written in 2009, it does not talk about the public option (or immigrants, which is a major issue in this country and others). Reid seems even to not truly understand the contours of the public option debate here. A properly regulated system, apparently, in his view would not need a public option (which does not seem to match any of the models he discusses), but as with the immigration issue (a chunk of those uninsured are immigrants), it is an important matter to cover respecting getting a plan in this country. This includes as a first step to a better one.
Paul Krugman in his excellent book Conscience of a Liberal, which I was able to download for listening directly from my library, does deal with the public option. He argues that health care is a key first step for a new liberal 21st Century. It is important not only economically, but as a way to show that liberals can provide programs that promote equality. Again, though an economist, ultimately his message is a moral one. The book as a whole is a good summary of politics in the 20th Century, including the development of movement conservatives. And, the inequality they promote.
Both books are useful reading, especially as Talking Points Memo already is trying to depress us (as if Glenn Greenwald et. al. are not almost daily) about the 2010 elections.