health care
in [Golf]
|
From: BAR on 25 Feb 2010 18:05 In article <afc20bdd-1aff-4230-a85a- bf27b0bf14ea(a)t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says... > > On Feb 25, 5:14�pm, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > In article <6418d41f-7cb5-4c29-a4d0-57c7334ec205 > > @u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 25, 12:42�am, assimil...(a)borg.org wrote: > > > > On 24-Feb-2010, Carbon <nob...(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 > > > > > And what do you have, other than the anecdotal experience of your > > > mother? > > > > I have my real life experience working in a Democrat and Republican > > administrations. Both were fraught with waste, fraud and abuse. > > > > How many people did you see get fired over your entire government > > career?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > Exactly what waste, fraud and abuse did you witness? There is a question on the table. You answer the question and then I'll entertain your question.
From: BAR on 25 Feb 2010 18:06 In article <2079191f-d484-4def-b1ef- a83201ac6eeb(a)e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says... > > On Feb 25, 5:17�pm, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > In article <e3ee612a-bb96-4e34-beec- > > f86b2e143...(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > > > > > The government is answerable to the people. Insurance companies are > > > answerable to their stockholders. Profit is their No. 1 motivation. > > > They profit by taking money from you, �giving as little of it as > > > possible to your doctor, and keeping the rest. Under the current > > > regime, they can raise their premiums however much they want and > > > whenever they want and if you can't afford the increase, well, too bad > > > for you. You can cancel your policy and try to get a better deal from > > > another company, but if you have a pre-existing condition, well, too > > > bad for you again. How can anybody defend this? > > > > Where do you think pension funds are invested? > > Some are invested in government securities, but your question is > irrelevant. Most are invested in private business, like the evil insurance companies.
From: Carbon on 25 Feb 2010 19:11 On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 05:42:11 +0000, assimilate wrote: > 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. Ah yes, the hasty generalization. One of my favorites. I've only ever seen black dogs. Therefore all dogs are black.
From: Carbon on 25 Feb 2010 19:14 On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 05:42:58 +0000, assimilate wrote: > 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. Only that I caught you indulging in a logical fallacy.
From: Carbon on 25 Feb 2010 19:18
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 05:38:08 +0000, assimilate wrote: > 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. Please share with us. What are the price and cost? |