tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6436224560193948046.post6184694010559428348..comments2008-10-27T15:02:27.277-04:00Neilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08797714666842395812noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6436224560193948046.post-82957031595340875322008-10-27T15:00:00.000-04:002008-10-27T15:00:00.000-04:00Neil--<BR/>Without wanting to tilt too much at windmills, this would strike me as one of the most compelling reasons for universal single payor health care. Such a delineation/apartheid can only be practiced when there are, in fact, differences in insurance status. <BR/>As long as economic incentives support concern with "payor mix" systems will strive to maximize their percentage of "privately" insured patients. They do because they can.<BR/>In that regard let me wish you the best in this effort. We all wish that "can" might go hand in hand with "but we shouldn't and therefore won't" the path to "won't" is often found just past "can't anymore".<BR/><BR/>Paul LyonsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com