>I agree with Nathan's sentiment that he's more excited about the efforts to
>make Wal-Mart pay than he is about single-payer -- not because single-payor
>would not be a good thing, but because the efforts to make Wal-Mart pay
>involve a lot more people and are really on the agenda.
So Wal-Mart will be the piggy bank for universal coverage? A company with about $10 billion in profits, that, if evenly divided, could provide health insurance for about 2 million people? Who's going to cover the other 43 million?
While you're treating this as the realistic approach, if you run the numbers, it's more fantastic than single payer.
Doug