(And my comment which probably is more salient here: from Reason.com - "Stop the Car, Larry. I Want to Get Out", excerpt: "While the folks at Cato would respond to special-interest lobbying by reducing the size and scope of government so less of life is politicized and there is less to lobby about, Lessig would respond by amending the Constitution to restrict freedom of speech.")
You have to ask yourself are you looking at fixing systemic causes or merely putting a bandaid on a flawed system.
We shouldn't be arguing about which one-size-fits-all health care plan should be enacted at the national level (and it's extremely hazardous for an entity which can print money to be doing anything of that nature anyhow); we should be letting the lower jurisdictions work it out. (If you don't think states are large enough to do that, go look at actual stats; many states are larger than entire major European countries and nothing would prevent states from banding together or adopting each other's systems once proved, it's not like poor Rhode Island would have to come up with their own de novo plan. In fact such sharing mechanisms already exist to some extent.)
It is also a trivial exercise to show this permits a much larger set of people to get the much more of the things they desire out of their government, whatever those things may be (including "less things" if that's what the people want).
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/art...
The folks at Cato believe that corruption is a Constitutional right. Lessig believes it should be a crime. Of course, this is yet another application of the libertarian golden rule: he who has the gold gets to take the liberties.