I heard a different story from a friend of mine about Austria. I can't guarantee it's true, but he was talking to a wealthy Austrian business associate. What he said was that there was an explicitly two-tiered system. If you took the public route, there was definite rationing. If you paid an additional amount for private insurance, the care was much better. The example he gave was of someone getting a cancer diagnosis. In the lower tier, he'd be told that a bed might be available in a month or so, several hundred miles away. If he paid for the extra insurance, there'd be one nearby open in a few days.
I may have it wrong, but there's the germ of an idea here. Why not recognize that resources for medical delivery aren't infinite? Let's agree to provide a basic level of care, and if you want more, you pay for it. Face it, not everyone can afford a liver like Steve Jobs (although unfortunately it didn't save him).
What your friend was told makes sense, and at least the people who can afford it got a choice. When Hillary was trying to get the public option thru, we weren't going to be able to get service for pay. It was going to one size fits all, except the govt critters, of course. They would get only the best. But you know what? If it came down to a plan like Hillary's, and I believe Obama's is as bad or worse, eventually someone's ox would be gored that didn't plan on it or thought they were safe.
When the whole country/world goes to hell, s#!t happens. During the Russian, French, and other revolutions, many of the idealistic planners and instigators got caught up and died because disparate forces join and then one element gains supremacy and does in the other elements.
The Repub establishment had better wake up if their brains can stand the strain. This is NOT business as usual, and Romney would just be another tool for the Dems.
vaudine