Ah, I see. Well, turnaround is pretty easy on this one. For something like 95-98% of us, the President's statement was correct, and for the other 5% (or less), well, the best that can be said for them was they were not paying attention. Because if they were, they knew minimum standards were coming.
So not sure where the foolishness really lies. Wait, yes I do.
Oh. And national healthcare? It seems that, well, just the entire rest of the Western, industrialized, world has a form of it and, get this, they (a) provide health care to their citizens at 20% or more LESS per capita than us; (b) their citizens are for hte most part happy with the care they get and (c) on the whole, their systems produce better results than ours.
It's more than 5%, and the president never mentioned "minimum standards". I guess it was in the 2100 pages that Pelosi stated we needed to pass so we could find out what's in it.
Most of the rest of the industrialized nations with nationalized healthcare are finding it unwieldy and unaffordable and are modifying it dramatically. Those patients that are "happy with it" are happy because they don't know any better. Those that can afford it go private. Their results aren't "better". Their health is better but that has more to do with social issues than with the quality. When I rotated at Oxford I was embarrassed to tell a patient they would be put on a waiting list for their total hip replacement and it would be 12-18 months. The patient was very accepting. In the US, that patient would have stormed out pissed as hell and gone to a competitor who would do it in 2 weeks. See how that works? Free market competition results in better service?
If you think the rest of the worlds health care systems are so great, you don't get out much and you haven't lived overseas. Access is sure good, but you might die before you get what you need. Of course, our govt is so smart I'm sure they'll figure it out:thumbsdown: