health care
in [Golf]
|
From: William Clark on 21 Feb 2010 17:04 In article <h460o554btlbnp24gjs486nks1v0ogmboe(a)4ax.com>, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 07:47:45 -0500, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > >> > Please find a country on the planet that has higher cancer survival > >> > rates. > >> > >> Try Scandinavia, for a start. And for a fraction of the cost. > > > >Cite! > > No country in Scandinavia has a higher cancer survival rate than the > US, Take a look at the figures, Jack, before you blow off your usual smoke.
From: William Clark on 21 Feb 2010 17:05 In article <4b819f60$0$21448$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:41:58 -0800, Dinosaur_Sr wrote: > > > Universal health care screws the poor far more than current US system. > > Really? On what planet? His. You know, the one with the little green men.
From: William Clark on 21 Feb 2010 17:08 In article <1f1f533c-c3d7-457e-afb6-15074fb87e01(a)33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: > On Feb 19, 8:57�am, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Feb 19, 7:12�am, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > In article <4b7de8c5$0$4967$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > > nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > > > > > On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:30:41 -0500, BAR wrote: > > > > > In article <4b7dcb52$0$27203$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > > > > nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > > > >> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:24:00 -0800, John B. wrote: > > > > > > >>> I don't wany my access to all the above to be dependent on my > > > > >>> employment and how much my employer is willing to spend on health > > > > >>> insurance. If I were to lose my job, I wouldn't be able to afford > > > > >>> the medications I depend on. If I were to sell my house and take my > > > > >>> kids out of college so I could afford to buy my own insurance > > > > >>> policy, it wouldn't cover my meds because they would be deemed to be > > > > >>> for a pre- existing condition. What's your solution to that, Bert? > > > > > > >> Don't get sick. And if you do, die quickly. > > > > > > > Access to health care is not dependent upon employment. > > > > > > > If you were better at negotiating pay with your employer and you did a > > > > > better job saving money you would have enough money to pay for your > > > > > health care. Instead you have abdicated your personal responsibility > > > > > to someone else which has made you dependent upon their generosity and > > > > > goodwill. > > > > > > > When the teat is taken away you are lost and can't figure out where > > > > > your next meal is coming from. > > > > > > Thank you, but I've heard all this clueless propaganda before. I am in > > > > favor of universal healthcare because it is cheaper and more humane. You > > > > obviously do not know the first thing about it, and yet you are positive > > > > that you're right. > > > > > If you want Universal Health Care there are many countries around the > > > world that offer it and there is no one stopping you from emigrating to > > > any of them except you.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Every industrialized country on earth offers universal health care > > except the U.S., yet the U.S. is the only one of them that's embroiled > > in a debate about health care. > > Where has all the innovation and improvement in health care come from > over this period? Well. let's take one example. Hip surgery; the hip resurfacing operation, which is now considered the best option, especially for the young and active, came from the UK. Oops.
From: William Clark on 21 Feb 2010 17:10 In article <1d73o5luki6mtstpe25hmv0o3hrso76j1u(a)4ax.com>, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:30:28 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr > <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: > > >> And while you're at it, find an industrialized country whose health > >> care costs are as large a proportion of GDP as ours, or consume as > >> much of the federal budget as ours. > > > >Why is the cost such a big deal to you? Why does health care have to > >be reduced to a common denominator? > > The answer is that the government shouldn't have gotten into the > health insurance business in the first place. The major portion of > the US's financial crisis will come from Social Security, Medicare and > Medicaid. Obviously, it would have been better if these programs > never started in the first place. More nonsensical blather. The fact is that health care should not be provided on the basis of health "insurance", tied to employment. That is the nonsense - it makes no logical sense.
From: William Clark on 21 Feb 2010 17:11
In article <OU3gn.4113$Cw3.3473(a)newsfe21.iad>, assimilate(a)borg.org wrote: > On 20-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > > >> The fact that other OECD countries are not having a civil war about > > >> health care the way we are kind of suggests that they don't think > > >> they've jumped off a bridge. > > > > > > What they think about their situation is irrelevant. > > > > That's insane, a Bertism. > > Please tell me how the Eurpean's opinion of anything is relevant to our > healthcare debate. It's not their "opinion", it's the way they operate their system that counts. |