re: #87 researchok

Single payer is the way many countries go but in the it isn’t ideal (Canada and the UK, for example) with lesser services- and may say quality of care- now the rule of thumb. That’s why I like Obama’s one size does not fit all idea, allowing the states to craft their own versions (as in populated states versus less populated states having different needs). I believe acknowledging single truth will help get him re elected. That both sides are curiously silent tells me he hit the mark.

Also, the original idea was to make sure 33 million uninsured had access to health care.

I do wonder if we wouldn’t have been better offer starting with insurance reform, disallowing insurance companies from offering coverage to anyone. From there we could have moved on to health care reform, absolutely necessary given demographic trends.

What bothers me most is how both sides want to reduce the conversation to slogans as opposed to having a serious discussion.

Have you seen the LGF page on ideas for health care reform? Some really good stuff in there.

Everybody in the UK has better access to the full healthcare system than an insured american with Catastrophic Coverage only.
Everybody in the UK has better access to healthcare than people in the US with no insurance.
Employers in the UK are in a considerably better position to ride out the economic problems because they are not saddled with paying for healthcare plans.

Theres a canard that quality of care is nlower - when for even many insured americans the care they need isn’t even an option - let alone the quality of it to be a consideration.

I’ve needed several referrals to consultants recently and all my care has been prompt and of a very good standard - which is the oevr whelming experience of the in the UK healthsystem.

And - if people don’t wan to use the NHS, they can go private. Simple.