Obviously they didn't win, but I think that their basic idea may have some
> new relevance at this point in the fight for single payer healthcare.
>
One point of contention: If we suppose ourselves to be engaged in a long-term struggle we're not going to win any time soon, why should it be for single-payer rather than a national health service? Presumably most of us actually want the latter and would consider it far preferable to the former, no?
-- "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað."