And I think you really don't know what you are talking about. There is nothing naive or utopian about moving to a single payer system or a number of other plans being floated. They are not your so-called "greenfield" approach and you are just spreading useless FUD. Oddly enough, though, my doctors office is called Greenfield. Very forward looking folks. You could learn something from them.
Judah On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Gruss Gott <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Larry wrote: >> perhaps a Canadian single payer system, or a two-tiered system like >> Britain's may not be appropriate for the US. > > I think the problem is (and the cause of the length of this thread :), > is we're viewing moving forward. > > The framing of your post implies - for me, maybe just my opinion - > that the US can and should take a greenfield approach. > > My argument all along has been the US is not greenfield, nor is the > world greenfield. We have a working system both in the US and > globally that people have their lives invested in. > > So the question is not what's the best greenfield country-wide > healthcare approach for the US; the question is: > > What's the best "next-state" approach for US, given we operate in a > global economy? > > In other words, I'd say we've got "current-state", "next-state", > "future-state", and "final-state". > > I think the nationalized healthcare advocates that have posted to this > thread are not considering "next" and "future" and I think that's a > big mistake if we view it that way. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:289130 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
