> > Well, I think that need was there. But that's a stupid reason to pass a reform that would have made it WORSE. And the simple fact of the matter is, although there is always room for improvement and we should not stop seeking ways to improve it, our health care system is about the best in the world. Other countries, such as France and Canada, that have universal government health care plans in effect -- health care plans for everybody sounds great, right? -- don't do them a lot of comparative good, when waiting lists are huge, the government prioritizes your need according to dubious criteria, and the quality of service you receive is correlated to a rubber stamped government capped cost.
>
> I find it interesting that you use Canada as an example of how you find universal health care to be a bad thing, and I notice that your complaints about universal health care match those that critics of the system here in Canada often voice. Sadly, I know too little about Canadian health care (having rarely needed to use the system) and nothing about US health care (except what I learned from ER, so I'll call it nothing), but I would be curious to see a debate about the differences between the two systems. Does anyone have any good books on the subject they could recommend? Is there anyone here who is knowledgable and pro-universal health care who could try to goad Sam into a debate (and good luck with that ;-) )?
>
> I suppose it isn't likely that I'll get much response from this, but it was worth a shot.
>
> Don Monkey

Well, I can do it from the point of view of the British health care system. Which is a great system in principle, but decidedly buggy in practice. But that's mostly due to the fact that they employ more accountants than doctors.

winter"But do I really want to go head-to-head with Sam?"mute