Interesting! The OP must be against civilizing the healthcare system in this country. The link takes the reader to an attention grabbing headline in the Telegraph.UK which might leave the casual observer to conclude that our President Obama is somehow in favor of "rationing" that would force patients to suffer. Pure nonsense! I hope everyone will read the entire article to appreciate the benefits of having a publicly accountable system of health care. It's important to note that the UK has a transparent process that looks at risks, benefits, and a variety of therapeutic modalities; no patient in the UK is being denied access to assessment and treatment for pain. This fact is a far cry from the current reality that exists in our non-system of healthcare delivery that's run by the "for-profit" insurance industry in this country; a system that delays, denies, and excludes millions of patients based on "pre-existing conditions" and/or their ability to pay. Ours is a system that causes the highest rate of deaths from preventable/treatable illness of the modern industrialized countries in the world. Of note, ours is the only nation without a form of single-payer, universal health care from among that grouping of countries according to a study
by the Commonwealth Fund.
The majority of us in this country continue to hope that President Obama will demonstrate leadership by advocating for the elimination of private, for-profit insurers and replace them with a single payer system. Actually we already have a single payer system of health care that works in this country: Medicare. We need to improve it and expand it to cover everybody. The system will allow us to end the inhumane and uncivilized practice of denying medically necessary preventative and restorative care to those in need. The care would still be provided by our current system of non-profit, for-profit, and public hospitals and providers, so we're not talking about nationalizing the whole system, just the payment for the care. The savings that result from eliminating the waste of the insurance company bureaucracy, (read bonuses, marketing, advertising, dividends to shareholders, and overhead), is enough to pay for the system.
Obama in 2003
: "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program. ... A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we've got to take back the White House, we've got to take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House."
Obama in 2009: "For us to transition completely from an employer-based system of private insurance to a single-payer system could be hugely disruptive, and my attitude has been that we should be able to find a way to create a uniquely American solution to this problem that controls costs but preserves the innovation that is introduced in part with a free-market system."
From where most of us sit in this country, the only uniquely American "innovation" that has resulted from the insurance market is this: They do what they're supposed to do, which is maximize revenue, so they can pay their investors and their executives. Their profits are breathtaking and obscene! Insurers don't exist to provide healthcare. They are the most undemocratic and discriminatory institutions that are allowed to exist in this country; profit at the expense of the sick and injured has no place in health care. The NHS in the UK doesn't exist to make a profit, nor does Medicare in this country.
Obama is in danger of losing his credibility when it comes to health care reform. I'm disappointed that he hasn't demonstrated more leadership and courage in the face of the corporate backed assault on the public/social service model of health care. That's the fact that has me concerned about the "future" of "Obamacare."