On 08/14/09 04:38, Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:17:08 -0500, Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieeeorg>  wrote:
>
>> 	They're not opposed to *national* health care (we already have that).
>> They're opposed to *universal* health care.
>
> Could you explain the difference between universal and national to a Brit?

	Universal means that everyone should be covered (through public or 
private means).

	National just means, um, national. We have Medicare and Medicaid (one 
for the poor, one for the elderly, I think). To be eligible, assuming 
you're not an older person, you have to be poor. If not, then you're not 
covered unless you purchase insurance (or your employer does).

	And currently, having insurance is not much of a guarantee of anything. 
It's easy for the insurance company to deny coverage.

-- 
Doctor to patient: Although it's nothing serious, let's keep an eye on 
it to make sure it doesn't turn into a major lawsuit.

Post a reply to this message