Healthcare Reform - A counteragrument

The editiorial in the Wall Street Journal , http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124692973435303415.html#mod=djemWMP, argues that the Obama healthcare reform proposal will ration care like that which is done in the UK. I agree with the fact that any government managed healthcare program includes concepts of rationing service. This is, however, true of Medicare and Medicaid in the US and almost all healthcare programs in other countries around the world. We lived in the UK and used National Health. It was far from perfect, but it was freely available to all (including Americans living and working in the UK).

I disagree with the implied conclusion of this editorial that the US should not adopt Healthcare Reform because there would necessarily be rationing of service. I believe that the US would be a better society if all residents had a public option for healthcare. If an individual wanted to stay with her/his private health insurance, they could do that and receive the level of service (rationed or not) associated with that insurance policy. If a person wanted to have most every drug and procedure covered, and had the money, they could purchase that higher level of insurance. By the way, that is exactly what happens in the UK and other countries with some form of universal healthcare. So, the Obama proposed plan, like most other social programs (Social Security, Medicare, and others) gives everyone a humane level of service, even though that may be rationed. And the higher level of service needs to be paid by those who want and can afford that level of care.