. . Subject: Re: What constitutes a fair health care system? 5 Criteria for a standard. . . . . . . . . . . > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... I know I shouldn't ask americans questions about economics, but what WHAT IF we where talking about Sweden or Ireland - relatively small and therefore manageable nations where the people stand some chance of reducing Government corruption in principle and by that reason to keep Government run entities functional - isn't it possible then to have a nationalized health-care system that offers, say, 5 packages at increasing prices, where the cheapest at least covers basic medical care that people - however pretence tough they want to play when they are healthy - will want badly once they are sick ? Again, this is not a system for the USA, which is an empire and therefore a disaster on everything (once the money bosses get their way with Europe we will eventually also see the heavy corruption that the USA sees, and that other great empires like China and India have, moderated somewhat by the average person its behavior). You might want to realize too that in the USA there is probably more money going on in the larger private insurers then there is in all of the Dutch medical system ? But the Dutch medical system is at the forefront of national politics, whereas the public knowledge and control over a private insurer in an empire (or not for that matter) is all but absent. (This is not about Obamacare. Obamacare can never work untill the states become sovereign and the Federal Government is destroyed. Until then it is useless to talk about health care in the USA. It is like you're talking about how to rig the sails on a sinking boat, to which the proper answer would be: there is no way to rig them right, until you can stop the boat from sinking first.) > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ...