At least as I see it, and I’m not an expert on this, but this is how I see it. Number one, you want to guarantee that all people have access to healthcare as you do in Canada, but I think what we understand is that unless we change the funding system and the control mechanisms in this country to do that. For example, if we expanded Medicaid, if everybody had Medicaid [inaudible] we would be spending such an astronomical sum of money that we would bankrupt the nation. So maybe you want to talk a bit about that – why in Canada, under their national health system, you can have access for all people and yet per capita, it is less expensive than the United States.

What It Means

This is a placeholder explanation generated by the low-overhead model. It interprets "At least as I see it, and I’m not an expert on this, but this is how I see it. Number one, you want to guarantee that all people have access to healthcare as you do in Canada, but I think what we understand is that unless we change the funding system and the control mechanisms in this country to do that. For example, if we expanded Medicaid, if everybody had Medicaid [inaudible] we would be spending such an astronomical sum of money that we would bankrupt the nation. So maybe you want to talk a bit about that – why in Canada, under their national health system, you can have access for all people and yet per capita, it is less expensive than the United States." in the context of "Speaking with Dr. Milton Terris, former president of the American Public Health Association, about the [[Canadian healthcare system (2 October 1987)]" to mean that wisdom is timeless.