> 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:289122 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
