Yes, Obama care, a compromise deal made with the industry and modeled after the Republican plan, needs to be revised. That is step 2.
The public by 75% wanted the choice of a public option. That would be the first thing to add, even if only at the state level (that is how Canada got its excellent system (at half the price)).
Of course single payer, Medicare for ALL, is the proven best system in all 35 advanced nations. Other nations all get better health results (Iive longer, less sickness, lower childhood mortality) at half the cost (as in Canada,Austrailia, Japan, and Europe) and in some places (with the best results and the freest economies, according to the WSJ Index) at 1/3 the cost. We waste about 500 billion a year on private health insurance, which adds zero to either health or healthcare.
The best systems have single payer (govt administers at 2-5% overhead, compared to 15-40% overhead for private insurance, including 100 million salaries for top CEO's) and either have government (and private) doctors and hospitals, as in the UK or the VA or use private doctors and hospitals, as Medicare does.
But so long as the wealthy corporations control government, single payer, proven over 6 decades in 35 rich nations and many poor nations, as the cheapest and most effective system, will be "off the table."
The US rates just below Costa Rica and Cuba in average healthcare results, based on objective criteria (longevity, infant mortality, etc).
We rank 47th, tho we pay 100 to 200% more than ALL other nations with universal, comprehensive systems.
High healthcare costs costs jobs, as auto assembly is moved across the bridge from Detroit to Windsor, Canada because, given equal wages, cars can be built for $1500 less in Windsor, due to the cheaper healthcare costs of their national system. Also, with universal coverage under single payer, business is spared the huge expense of workers comp, as an injured worker is treated with his prepaid med card as the only qualification. This increases profits for business.
It's like we know the answer, we have the solution, but the 1% are in control and have brainwashed the public into thinking that the American system is "the best." It isn't. It's terrible: it costs twice as much and leads to poor results. But it is good for the 100th of 1% who pull down the millions for administering a program at a rate 300-1000% more expensive than government programs like Medicaid, which spends 98% on healthcare, not the 60-85% that the private insurance corps pay.
Also, single payer cuts costs by preventive medicine, early detection and early treatment, which saves hundreds of billions and improves health and worker productivity and thus profits for business.
Healthcare, according to the UN, the Catholic Church, all 35 peer nations, and many very poor nations, is a human right. Does an injured child whose parents have no money have the right to medical treatment. If you say no, you are a monster; if you say yes, you are affirming that healthcare is a right. That said, wouldn't it be smart to
pay 6- 9% of GDP, as in all other nations, instead of the 18% that the US pays, leaving 50 million uncovered, and with lower life expectancy than Slovenia and Cuba, and 3 times more dead babies than the other nations? Where are the pro-lifers on this? It's one thing to abort an embryo; it's another to have 3 times more infant mortality than France or Japan or Hong Kong. Pro-lifers! National healthcare programs save tens of thousands of children's lives by providing timely medical attention. Join the rest of the human race!