Thank goodness. The idea that the GOP is so obsessed with preventing Obama from having any success that they want to take away the health care that so many Americans depend on - without ever proposing a replacement during the former administration's four year run - makes me think that the party isn't just clumsy and unfocused, but actually cruel and elitist. Fuck them and their short-term, self-serving incompetence.

The opposition to a single-payer system (nationalized medicine) is mired in (1) those who benefit from a system that distinguishes between winners and losers, and want to continue so benefitting, and (2) those who have been duped, mostly by those in category No. 1, into believing that they will not just be inconvenienced by such a system, but adversely impacted by it, and/or that it somehow runs contrary to fundamental American values/ principles.

Take the very recent, tragic case of Charlie Gard, which has been cited by those against a single-payer system as a cautionary tale of what could happen to each of us if we were to be imprisoned by a single-payer system.  First of all, even if I were buying into all that those citing the Gard case were stating about that case and a single—payer system — which I am not — it would still constitute a case occurring on the margins — the far margins, at that. But here is the point I want to make about that: there are many, many individuals — children and adults — in the U.S. now, under our current system, who cannot get to the "first- class" medical providers who may have a remedy for their medical condition.  It happens every day.

Not everyone can be treated at the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, or Johns Hopkins, to name a few.  There are innumerable stories of folk who were told by their regular providers that there was nothing that could be done for them unless they could get into some of the clinical trials going on at the more elite institutions; many times, one does not even get that latter advice, just the former.  There are those who always can gain access to the elite care and there are those who, through a lot of diligence and some luck, manage to do so.  Those are the winners.  They are not the majority — not even close. So, this notion that under our present system, anyone can choose which medical providers he or she wants to treat them is a canard, a hollow "right."             

A system in which one has to be his or her own strong advocate, or have someone who can do so for them, to get the care that is needed is one that is seriously flawed. Yet we hear that all the time — you have to advocate to get the care you need . What an indictment!  A system that awards winners, and places the losers in a game of health care roulette, is inherently unfair.                   

*rant off* 

The opposition to a single-payer system (nationalized medicine) is mired in (1) those who benefit from a system that distinguishes between winners and losers, and want to continue so benefitting, and (2) those who have been duped, mostly by those in category No. 1, into believing that they will not just be inconvenienced by such a system, but adversely impacted by it, and/or that it somehow runs contrary to fundamental American values/ principles.

Take the very recent, tragic case of Charlie Gard, which has been cited by those against a single-payer system as a cautionary tale of what could happen to each of us if we were to be imprisoned by a single-payer system.  First of all, even if I were buying into all that those citing the Gard case were stating about that case and a single—payer system — which I am not — it would still constitute a case occurring on the margins — the far margins, at that. But here is the point I want to make about that: there are many, many individuals — children and adults — in the U.S. now, under our current system, who cannot get to the "first- class" medical providers who may have a remedy for their medical condition.  It happens every day.

Not everyone can be treated at the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, or Johns Hopkins, to name a few.  There are innumerable stories of folk who were told by their regular providers that there was nothing that could be done for them unless they could get into some of the clinical trials going on at the more elite institutions; many times, one does not even get that latter advice, just the former.  There are those who always can gain access to the elite care and there are those who, through a lot of diligence and some luck, manage to do so.  Those are the winners.  They are not the majority — not even close. So, this notion that under our present system, anyone can choose which medical providers he or she wants to treat them is a canard, a hollow "right."             

A system in which one has to be his or her own strong advocate, or have someone who can do so for them, to get the care that is needed is one that is seriously flawed. Yet we hear that all the time — you have to advocate to get the care you need .  A system that awards winners, and places the losers in a game of health care roulette, is inherently unfair.                   

*rant off*