The problem I have the MA plan is that it requires everyone to purchase health insurance and provides subsidiaries for low-income folks, it does NOT provide health care for all. I think the law and the bill are misleading.
>>I'd say Jeremy Rifkin hit it dead on. I also think that many Americans are beginning to think more and more like Europeans in that sense. Perhaps in another 5 or 10 years we will be evolved enough in our thinking as a nation to institute national health care. It certainly will be more of a possibility if a Democrat wins the white house and the party controls the House and the Senate after 2008...
>
>Keep this in mind if Hillary wins the Presidency...It has been rather widely reported that Hillary and Newt Gingrich have been discussing health care legislation for a couple of years. Newt's ideas are strongly rooted in reform of the system to return it to the free market and away from 3rd party providers, be they insurance, HMO or government.
>
>On the Republican side, Mitt Romney signed 'health care for all' into law last April in Massachusetts.
.·*´¨)
.·`TCH
(..·*
010000110101001101101000011000010111001001110000010011110111001001000010011101010111001101110100
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates
Vita contingit, Vive cum eo. (Life Happens, Live With it.)
"Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away." -- author unknown
"De omnibus dubitandum"
