> > 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.
I disagree with this assumption. We do not have a working system. We have a severely dysfunctional system that scrapes by, over charges and is no where near adequate for the majority of cases. > > 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. so you're saying it ain't broke so don't fix it. I think that the evidence presented so far shows that its broke in more ways than one, and the cheapist fix is to look at the other systems available and cherry pick the best from them to create a better coverage system that is suited to the US. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:289141 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
