health care
in [Golf]
|
From: assimilate on 24 Feb 2010 23:26 On 24-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >> Given a choice between being "forced" to pay $50, or having the > >> freedom to choose between $75 and $80, which would you take? > > > > Money isn't the only issue, and I would rather pay the 70 or 80 > > because the 50 from the govt will be for a cut rate service. How much > > health care costs isn't a big issue to me. > > Maybe in the coming reforms they can have a special price list for > suckers, to give them the illusion of choice that they have now. that would be the "public option" because it is definitely for suckers. -- bill-o
From: assimilate on 25 Feb 2010 00:29 On 23-Feb-2010, William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote: > > The stats are bogus anyways, as are most politically based stats. The > > costs stats don' t include the cost of the system and the cost of > > governance associated with that, only the cost of the "care". The life > > expectancy stats don't include everybody in places like France, and > > don't include the fact that the US is a gathering place of people from > > around the world, whereas France is for French only, and not too many > > other people want to go there. Funny that an alien in the US is > > failing to account for this. I wonder though, if Americans treated > > Mexicans the way the French treat Algerians, or the way the Italians > > treat North Africans, would the outcry not be deafening? > > What total apologist BS. Are you nuts? I'm sorry but one thing is accurate. The French treat Arab & African immigrants much worse than we do Mexican immigrants (or most other immigrants). Socially America has changed since the 50s, France not as much. -- bill-o
From: assimilate on 25 Feb 2010 00:38 On 24-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >>>> Given a choice between being "forced" to pay $50, or having the > >>>> freedom to choose between $75 and $80, which would you take? > >>> > >>> I would want the choice because a $45 choice may come along in a > >>> dynamic market. > >> > >> I enjoyed the inclusion of the word "may". > > > > you rail against "blind certainty" then laugh at "may." You can't have > > your cake and eat it too. > > I read it as an admission that your "free market" healthcare is in fact > much more expensive than universal healthcare. It's a small step, but > that's ok. you can "read" all you want and still not get what price and cost are. -- bill-o
From: assimilate on 25 Feb 2010 00:42 On 24-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >>>> So why do people keep bring up cost, if that isn't the objection? > >>> > >>> It is a red herring obviously. > >> > >> Oh, of course. How can efficiency possibly matter? > > > > It does matter, but efficiency and gov't are opposites. > > Really? Are you sure you're not being biased? BAR has related his gov't working experience, which matches my mother's: waste, fraud, abuse and dead-weight employees. -- bill-o
From: assimilate on 25 Feb 2010 00:42
On 24-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >>> It does matter, but efficiency and gov't are opposites. > >> > >>Really? Are you sure you're not being biased? > > > > I suppose it depends on whether the government is doing what I think > > it should be doing or what you think it should be doing. > > It is ridiculous to claim that government and efficiency are opposites. > It may often be true. It may even mostly be true. But it's not always > true. Is it? If all you have is that, then you haven't got much. -- bill-o |