"I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter because, frankly, we historically had a employer-based system in this country with private insurers, and for us, a transition to a system like that [ed. to a single payer system] I believe, would be too disruptive."(I guess he figured that out from all the hullaballoo the public is making.)
But, in fact, he DID say previously that he was a single-payer supporter. According to Kelly, Obama said in 2003, "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program." See video.
I heard him say with my own ears that a public tax-supported option in the healthcare system would be competition to bring prices down. But it's not fair competition considering that gov't is tax-subsidized without paying taxes. Oddly, today he cited the U.S. Post office as an example of a public service that is losing out to the private competition. Indeed! The Post Office is an example of how gov't does NOT work effectively or efficiently without continually raising the costs. The P.O. and Medicare/Medicaid being in the red are reasons to NOT have anymore gov't healthcare than we already have. If doctors and hospitals had to rely solely on gov't income, THEY would operate in the red, too. (After all, the litigious lawyers and their clients have to make a living, too! What will they do when no one can afford to insure gov't doctors?) So how do we put the whole country on medicare/medicaid and suddenly operate in the black??? He does a lot of double-talk to answer that question, but none of it sounds like a guy who has ever run a medical business --or any business, for that matter.
As for the so-called "death panels," Obama was right to say today in Colorado that conservatives have also said we couldn't possibly provide all that is technologically possible for all people at gov't expense. It's true that insurance companies now deny some care --and for sure, Medicare/Medicaid already refuse to pay the price tag for care. (My mother on Medicare had to pay at least $1500 out of pocket for a recent hospital visit.) We've been told by democrats that all people should have all the care they need provided for them--and conservatives have said it is impossible for gov't to pay for ALL the care that is possible to sustain people with very serious problems without our entire tax revenue going for healthcare.
That's why private insurers are the way to go; they have a profit incentive --but they also compete for our business. So people pay for the kind of care they can afford --and want to pay. Some people want to gamble and not pay much for insurance; they should get the results of their gamble --the minimal care they were willing to pay for --which is what gov't care will become --MINIMAL! Granted, however, we don't let the indigent and the children suffer.
Meanwhile, for whom will doctors work? the insurance that pays them the most --or the gov't that pays them the least?
They can't afford the malpractice settlements and attorneys if healthcare isn't profitable.
He clarifies that we would not be "forced" to use the gov't programs. Sure, we can always pay a lot on top of taxes for private programs. But once again, people will complain that the wealthier get better care because they pay for it --and so, socialists will always push to close private options and raise taxes to equalize poor care for all. (For all except the politicians --who already have the best plans and unlimited care.) Just like the Communist state and party.
Now about the so-called DEATH PANELS: According to Kelly, the president's medical advisor, Ezekiel Emanuel, "touted the fiscal benefits of physician-assisted suicide" in a 1998 New England Journal of Medicine article. He said the following this past January -- which contributes to concerns about "death panels": he explained his "principles of allocation of scarce medical interventions: when implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughtly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated" [decreased, weakened, reduced.] Sounds to me, like Dr. Rahm is suggesting we may pull the plug on Grandma after all!
We know that England does not provide any extraordinary remedies for people in their 60's and above --and Canadians must wait until it's too late for essential care.
Again, we need to have some healthcare and social security reforms or watch Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security (our biggest budget items) further sink the financial U.S. ship--but we also need tort reform to get the lawyers off the doctors' backs --and that will be a major cost saver.
STIMULATE YOUR AILING ECONOMY, DR. OBAMA! INFUSE IT WITH TAX CUTS! THEN, LET'S TALK ABOUT PANACEAS FOR WHATEVER ELSE AILS US!
And one more thought: If you are so bent on taxing the wealthy, why are you letting corporate leaders get their millions in benefits before paying back the tax-payers who bailed them out????
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible