Barack Obama vient d'entrer dans l'Histoire américaine

Je ne vais pas faire un long article sur la réforme de Santé américaine. J'en ai déjà longuement parlé sur ce blog. Je fais simplement cet article pour vous dire que la réforme de la sécurité sociale américaine est un véritable pas en avant vers la sociale-démocratisation des Etats-Unis. C'est donc une victoire pour la gauche américaine mais aussi pour la gauche du monde entier surtout dans les pays moins développés qui prennent plus exemple sur les Etats-Unis que sur l'Europe de l'Ouest.

Voici un medley des retours dans les journaux internationaux :
The Independent, Grande-Bretagne : "Under the reform, every American citizen will be required to obtain health   coverage, or face penalties. All but the smallest employers must cover their   workers. A national marketplace will be created, giving people the chance to   buy into a government-run "public option" insurance plan if they   prefer.

It will become illegal for insurance firms to deny someone health insurance   because of pre-existing medical conditions, or to drop coverage when a   customer falls ill. They will no longer be exempt from "anti-trust"   laws that are designed to stop cartels of companies colluding to fix prices   at inflated rates."

Wall Street Journal, Etats-Unis : "If ObamaCare becomes law, every decision of what to insure or not—when an MRI can be used, or whether a stage-four breast cancer patient can get Avastin or some future expensive drug—will become subject to political intervention over moral disputes or budget constraints. Heretofore, these decisions have largely been made between a doctor and patient. This is the real "right to life" issue."

New York times, Etats-Unis : "House Democrats were forced to make major concessions on coverage for abortions to attract the final votes for passage — the speaker, Representative Nancy Pelosi, decided Friday to let abortion opponents try to tighten any use of federal money to fund the procedure — a wrenching compromise for abortion-rights advocates. Abortion-rights advocates hope to modify the amendment during negotiations with the Senate."

Blog du Wall Street Journal, Etats-Unis : "An analysis of the vote shows that 22 of the 39 Democrats who crossed the aisle to join Republicans in opposing the bill were members of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition, including three of the group’s four leaders. These Democrats, who oppose big government deficits, had expressed concern before the vote that the legislation called for too much federal spending."

Comments

[abadinte]

Je connais la position de Kucinich. Mais tu ne peux pas changer un système du tout au tout en claquant des doigts. Certes ça serait extra d'avoir une sécurité sociale totalement publique mais comme tu le remarqueras il n'y en a aucun dans les pays développés. Ceux qui ont une sécurité sociale 100% publiques sont la Corée du Nord (et encore) et Cuba. Même la France a une sécurité sociale publique et privée. Donc bon, je ne vais pas trop prendre au sérieux Kucinich.

[Christophe]

Abadinte,

Étayer ton propos (et peut-être te forger un avis) par le biais de la presse américaine dont on connait les limites, me semble quelque peu limité.

Voilà pourquoi, je partage avec toi la réaction d'un démocrate, tout ce qu'il y a "à gauche", pour te montrer un autre son de cloche, celui-ci, à la source (pour ceux qui ne parlent pas anglais, Kucinich explique que le contrôle par les compagnie d'assurance du système de santé américain n'est pas du tout remis en cause par Obama, au contraire, sa réforme leurs est profitable, ceci au détriment des américains):

Kucinich: Why I Voted NO


Washington, Nov 7 -

After voting against H.R. 3962 - Affordable Health Care for America Act, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today made the following statement:

“We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system.

“Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick.

“But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies — a bailout under a blue cross.

“By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal. The Center for American Progress’ blog, Think Progress, states “since the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option, health insurance stocks have been on the rise.” Similarly, healthcare stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a public option. Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that “money will start flowing in again” to health insurance stocks after passage of the legislation. Investors.com last month reported that pharmacy benefit managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush Administration policy.

“During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The “robust public option” which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies.

“Recent rises in unemployment indicate a widening separation between the finance economy and the real economy. The finance economy considers the health of Wall Street, rising corporate profits, and banks’ hoarding of cash, much of it from taxpayers, as sign of an economic recovery. However in the real economy -- in which most Americans live -- the recession is not over. Rising unemployment, business failures, bankruptcies and foreclosures are still hammering Main Street.

“This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America’s manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care. America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system. As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care.

“Notwithstanding the fate of H.R. 3962, America will someday come to recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit, single-payer health care system, which is good for the American people and good for America’s businesses, with of course the notable exceptions being insurance and pharmaceuticals.”