The WTO? Don't the other WTO members have much better public health systems than ours? Other than conspiracy theories, I don't see why the WTO would be an obstacle to health care reform in the U.S.

The health care, insurance companies, and other big businesses with a stake in the status quo will be much harder rocks to move. If a Democrat is elected, he or she will almost certainly give health care reform a shot. It won't be easy. This is a pretty old battle. People tend to think it took place in the first Clinton administration (which was 15 years ago) but in fact health care reform has been proposed at least as far back as President Truman.

>http://www.citizen.org/documents/PresidentialWTOreport.pdf
>
>...and the crucial part so far (still reading):
>
>In the mid-1980s, global trade negotiations coincided with the Reagan-Thatcher “revolution” attack against
>the role of government in regulating economies and providing essential services. Corporate lobbyists,
>laissez faire think tanks and GOP politicians with varying agendas but common extreme policy proposals
>were being stymied by opposition in Congress and the public. Simultaneously, the framework was being
>developed for the Uruguay Round General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) negotiations. Past
>GATT talks had focused on tariffs cuts and drew little public, press or policymaker attention.
>In contrast, these GATT talks were transformed into establishment of a new global commerce agency, the
>WTO, which could serve as a global delivery mechanism for an experiment in imposing the very “neo-
>liberal” policies that were being rejected in democratic fora domestically. Often called the “Washington
>Consensus,” this policy package became the core of the WTO, and included establishing a framework in
>which services like health were treated not as rights but as new commodities providing new opportunities
>to expand business opportunities and profits. Many of the 17 agreements enforced by the WTO redefined
>government regulations promoting environmental and consumer protection to be “barriers to trade” to be
>strictly disciplined or eliminated. “A lot of services that have traditionally been done by the government,
>such as education, and social services, may become something that we’ll have to deal with in international
>19
>commerce,” argued one health insurance executive that had a leading role in advancing this notion.
>
>Which means that no matter what the politicians may say, they pretty much can't do a thing, because they'll be shot (physical or character assassination, whichever is handier) if they propose leaving, redefining or disbanding the WTO.
>
>So here's a bet: whoever wins in November, will end up doing something spectacularly expensive, profitable and eventually ineffective. Health will not be more affordable for anyone but the system's pets.