Healthcare Reform

...and whether or not a government can properly run one. My government does. There's precedent.

Try to understand.
 
American government is not equivalent to Australian government. Universal healthcare is also not equivalent across countries that have adopted it. Each have their own set of problems and challenges.

Precedent or not, you are comparing two unlike things.
 
the ability of an overly burdened bureaucratic non profit system to run a quality national medical system...

seems pretty standard.
 
What kind of quality are you referring to? A specific figure? Are you claiming that the Austrailian system is universal (100% of the population is covered)?
 
I plan to provide an objective interpretation of government computer security in my next post. Depending on the department being examined, the government can be regarded as incompetent with regard to computer security.

I look forward to seeing this.
 
What kind of quality are you referring to? A specific figure? Are you claiming that the Austrailian system is universal (100% of the population is covered)?

100% of the australian citizenry can sign up. Those with a decent income though choose not to. Our Private Insurers actually cover hospital costs and the costs of expensive exams, tests and treatments, they just charge quite a bit. Those who rise in income generally go for the Private option.
 
http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/media/PDFs/Reports/FY2007FISMAReportCard.pdf

8th FISMA scorecard. Most recent one seems to be a 'C'. While there is a general trend towards improved grades, several agencies continue to receive failing grades (some are repeats as well!)

http://blog.sciencelogic.com/government-sent-home-with-a-c-on-fisma-report-card/08/2008


Also a new link about the IRS' role in the new proposed healthcare system.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...rm-means-more-power-for-the-IRS-56781377.html

What does everyone think of the IRS being involved in healthcare enforcement?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top