Speaking to the American Medical Association last month, President Obama waxed enthusiastic about countries that "spend less" than the U.S. on health care. He's right that many countries do, but what he doesn't want to explain is how they ration care to do it. Full Story »
Posted by Derek Hawkins
This completely misrepresents what Obama has called for in a health care reform bill. There isn't the slightest chance that the bill that comes out of committee will include provisions to create a single-payer system, nor has Obama asked for that. Whatever your views on health care reform, this is simply not true. That said, it seems unnecessary to point out that for all the Journal's criticism of NICE, in America private insurers have a proclivity for dropping people when they get sick...
I can't believe the willful ignorance -- and in some cases, distortion -- among the opponents of government sponsored health care. There's nothing wrong with arguing against it, but to say or imply that Obama has endorsed a single-payer system is false.
The NICE precedent also undercuts the Obama Administration’s argument that vast health savings can be gleaned simply by automating health ... More »
A standard conservative argument about government health care. That Obama isn't proposing a single payer system seems a fact consistently forgotten in these kind of arguments. There's one thing the author could have done to make this a more successful piece. Include a thorough comparison about accessibility to the drugs and treatments denied in Britain with real accessibility in America. In a sampling of Americans, can all or most of them also have access to these drugs?
The WSJ attempts to draw strong parallels between problems with a health care review organization in the U.K. (acronym: NICE) and possibilities in the Obama health reform plan. Its argument doesn't stand on two levels: (1) there is absolutely no sourcing to any outside links that would support what the WSJ writes (even though it mentions at least one Guardian report from 1998), and (2) it only hints that the Obama/Democratic plan would include a NICE-like organization, instead of quoting an actual fact or article that would support its take. This editorial is not informative, and its ambiguity serves to confuse and possibly mislead rather than clearly make a compelling, alternative viewpoint.
For the WSJ this is an amazing opinion of untruths. Stating that the American Obama plan will mirror NICE is just not true. I will no longer rate WSJ a 5!!
Amazing even as an opinion I am shocked at the Wall Street Journal. This is just wrong and should be called a Fear Mongering article. Sorry to ask this; but is the writer an extreme right republican?
The article ignores the key point that health care in the U.S. is now rationed by health insurance companies, and affects the position that government (assumed democratic) would be worse than sociopathic insurance corporations who are required by law to maximize profits. The rationing by way of denying applicants and pre-existing conditions is not mentioned.
Quite misleading since many of the systems that save the most money relative to the United States DO NOT RATION HEALTH CARE! The French system, for example, is far more generous than the American system, yet costs only 60% of the American tab. The Japanese likewise do not ration healthcare, and they readily offer MRI's and other advanced treatments that Americans have to fight for--yet they spend only about half what we do. Until conservatives start telling the truth about the problems with national systems abroad, they deserve to be ignored in the current debate.
This article focuses on the British system, emphasizing rationing and limiting access to medications and procedures. But it makes judgments about both that may or may not be scientifically supported. And it doesn't discuss any benefits of British health care - or go into systems in use in other Western European countries. It just aims to be negative.
Retrieving Comments
