Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
Wait, in addressing how best to provide health care services to a diverse population with a vast range of economic, racial and religious variations - all of which can impact on the choice, needs and costs of health care provided, it is irrelevant that most social/universal health care systems don't need to address the diversity or size of our population? You believe that a comparison of signifcantly smaller, basically homogenous populations is of significant value to extrapolate to our society?
I would agree there is some value in such comparisons and information but would suggest that such would be minimal given the inherent and substantial differences between the US and the countries you name.
|
Diversity has nothing to do with it and last time I checked these countries also struggle with poverty issue though some not as bad. Health care is strictly a monetary issues...those that can afford it and those who can't. The difference is their poor can walk into a hospital or clinic and get treatment and ours can't.
Honest, I can't quite comprehend what difference diversity makes in the field of health care? Care to elaborate with something more than "it has, don't you think," specifically why you think it does. Also, France is very good example of a diverse country with a successful universal health care and relatively low poverty rate.
Quote:
|
Now, if France, Germany and England had a joint universal health care system that actually worked, then I would be very interested.
|
Are you intimating universal health care at the state level might be a better solution than a federal one?