Gar Lipow wrote:
Assertion unbacked by evidence - for discussion purposes: Single payer health is better than a National Health Service under capitalism, because a National Health Service is more vulnerable to conservative sabotage.
This doesn't sound right to me. When he was finance minister in the mid 1990s, Paul Martin cut the budget for the Canadian single payer system. In England, Thatcher did the same to the National Health Service. Both systems seem equally vulnerable to the vagaries of budgetary politics. What distinction are you making that leads you to believe otherwise? Joel Blau
