On Jul 8, 7:45*am, HK wrote:
Captain Zombie of Woodstock wrote:

"Congressional Democrats are between a rock and a hard place. They
desperately want to pass a bill they can label “universal coverage,”
but they have no coherent plan for making health-care provision more
efficient and less costly. Thus, expanding coverage with new federal
subsidies for a large segment of the population in the current cost
environment is prohibitively expensive. Presented with these facts,
the lead Democratic Senators could have chosen to write a more
sensible reform plan focused first on building a functioning
marketplace in which cost-conscious consumers would drive out
unnecessary costs. But, instead, they have decided to plow ahead with
their “universal coverage” plan, only now they want to impose the high
cost of it on struggling workers. Their only hope is that the bill
will pass before the public discovers what they are up to. "

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...IzNDYwZTQ1YTZj....

Wow...the National Review is not in favor of universal health coverage.
What a frippin' surprise!


i had to laugh at the national review when, a few days ago, they
posted a report of a women in ontario who went to a buffalo NY
hospital (paid for by the canadian govt) when no local hospital had
room for her.

i wrote a note to the 'national review online' (which they actually
posted on their blog) pointing out i've got a buddy who's a cop near
pittsburgh, and the only physical exam he's had in 30 years was one i
gave him when i was in nursing school. 'national review' was
shocked...SHOCKED to find out there are WORKING people in the US
without health coverage. after all, the US system takes care of
everyone...right?