I see in the comments to this article, like so many on this topic seen on Common Dreams, a lot of single-track thinking, verging on closed-minded-ness. Single-payer?
Back in 2009 I heard NPR interview TR Reid, who had just published a book titled 'The Healing of America'. He did a world survey of health systems in the nations. Four varieties of health:
1. British system run by the government. The government runs the hospitals and the doctors are government employees.
2. Canadian system of single payer system.
3. Cont.Europe/Japan system of strict regulation/gov.organization of the insurers
and the industry.
4. Pay for it out of pocket. The way of 150 countries.
[Given the amount of Govt. involvement, How much do #1,2,3 differ?]
Reid said that America (2009) has each system.
1. Native Americans and Veterans get British healthcare. M*A*S*H is also British Healthcare.
2. The aged on Medicare get Canadian healthcare.
3. Typical employee gets #3 European care through their employer.
4. The rest pay out of pocket [except when they go to the emergency room.]
Author mentioned the most recent healthcare reforms.
A. Taiwan, having got prosperous, had a big debate and went from #4 to #3.
B. Switzerland had a problem -> uninsured population to 5%. Uproar and Switzerland
made a stronger #3, made the insurance industry non-profit.
Reid's bias was towards the Swiss "Non-profit Health." He spoke favorably of France: doctors et. al. can't make lots of money there, and accept that. [heard later: Britain has a big doctor emigration problem, with the result that resident British doctors tend to be less well trained doctors from the subcontinent.]
A lot of patients like the British-like single-provider Veterans Hospitals system. Except for the ones who get lost in the Kafka-esque queues to nowhere and never receive treatment.
Many people here speak of 'Healthcare is a right' ; a positive right.
If it is a right just as strong as a woman's right to an abortion (a negative right), or to a publicly-funded abortion that HR Clinton seeks to provide, then whatever a patient and a doctor decide is necessary for the patient's health, the bill gets presented to the Colorado State Treasurer, and the State Treasurer has to pay it.
You no doubt see the first problem with the concept. That the bills patients and doctors would submit could and would easily exceed the state's ability to pay them. That is the first thing that makes 'healthcare is a right' so hard to provide.
And people who call for 'Medicare for all' should note that they might receive 'Medicaid for all', instead.
(For those not familiar with the terms, a 'negative' right is one that the government can not deny, such as the First Amendment 'Congress shall make no laws...', etc. A 'positive' right says that government must provide someone with something. Entitlements are treated as positive rights. That tobacco farmers are entitled to a minimum price for their tobacco, etc. (Used to be true for tobacco. Still true for sugar, peanuts and many other crops.) And other entitlements, etc.)