Here's a thought... Given the formidable task of enacting rational, effective, and affordable healthcare reform, and the fact the insurance industry would fight to the death to defeat any initiative that would truly reduce healthcare costs, I wonder if a State-based system might be our best bet. It would take a leader to forge the way (California?), but could start a movement where some states offer rational, universal coverage. Businesses would flock to those states, I assume, and their economies would thrive. Those who resist (Mississippi, Texas, Kansas...) would see their citizens looking longingly across their borders. Eventually the political climate would shift to embrace a rational national approach. Or perhaps I'm just dreaming. 

Out hiking today, a friend mentioned how the current Supreme Court review of health care in the US, and specifically the concept that everyone should have access to needed care here, as they do in all other developed countries, tracks with one of the core themes in VYJN. In the story, Jonathan is forced to take a job to get health care for his critically ill son, Josh. The question is - should our access to health care be tied to our employment? At a time when people change jobs regularly, when large numbers of employers don't provide health coverage, and when many employees are working part-time, multiple jobs, or as "contract workers", does our current approach make any sense at all?