Anyone wondering about the criteria and methods...

for determining who's first and who's worst?

(Yawn..............)

My healthcare is just fine the way it is, and I don't need someone else yammering about how badly I need another government-run boondoggle to strap me with even more onnerous taxes while promising that it's all gonna get better for everyone.

These studies boor the living shit out of me, and anyone who takes the majority of them seriously needs to call Dr. Phil in regards to some serious compensation issues.

That is all.

Update: The Commonwealth Fund, on its home page, just now, says,

"Report Sees Major Savings by Combining Universal Coverage with Health Reform Options"

It's a charitable foundation, you see, with high goals and aspirations like,

"promot(ing) a high performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society's most vulnerable populations. These populations include low-income, uninsured, ethnic minorities, young children, and elderly adults. The Fund carries out this mandate by supporting independent research on health care issues and making grants to improve health care practice and policy. An international program in health policy is designed to stimulate innovative policies and practices in the United States and other industrialized countries."

Yeah. Heard this all before. This isn't anything more than a hammer looking for a nail.

Fucking media swine are more than willing to publish a dipshit hit piece such as this.

I'm still wondering why it is that the U.S. is getting so many foreigners coming here for such things as timely cancer treatment? Why, if the healthcare is so much better, in say, Canada?

It doesn't matter, really. Just keep repeating the same lie and eventually it becomes truth. Typical Marxist doctrine at work.

Move along.