health care
in [Golf]
|
From: assimilate on 21 Feb 2010 21:15 On 21-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >> That is the true cost, in raw dollars and as a percentage of gross > >> GDP. Since it's so easily verified, sane people generally accept > >> that the US has the most expensive healthcare in the world. Generally > >> the ideologues respond with the "if it's the most expensive it must > >> be the best" argument. Of course that argument is also highly suspect > >> in light of other easily verified stats, such as average life > >> expectancy by country. > > > > you will never get beyond stage 1 thinking it is clear. > > Oh, stage 1 is it? My, aren't we smug today! No, it is just clear that you don't think of the consequences of UH down the road. You cite superficial stats that have very little real meaning and conclude "it is cheaper" when in fact the dollar cost is only a partial cost. -- bill-o
From: John B. on 21 Feb 2010 21:18 On Feb 21, 8:29 pm, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: > On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 15:46:30 -0800 (PST), "John B." > > <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >Excluding food and medicine does not make for a progressive tax. > > For the poor it does. > > -- > "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, > than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace > to the legislature, and not to the executive department." > > - James Madison A tax cannot be progressive for some taxpayers and regressive for others.
From: assimilate on 21 Feb 2010 21:19 On 21-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > Please tell me how the Eurpean's opinion of anything is relevant to our > > healthcare debate. > > Because their healthcare systems are much better than this one. But what > I care about are stats, such as healthcare cost as a percentage of GDP > and average life expectancy. Superficial and meaningless stats. -- bill-o
From: assimilate on 21 Feb 2010 21:21 On 21-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >> The system absolutely needs an engine replacement if guys like him > >> are falling through the cracks. Even if he survives he will be dead > >> broke and won't be able to get insurance because of his now > >> pre-existing condition. He's a stand-up guy and he's fucked. It's not > >> right. > > > > Your premise, that some "reformed" system of the future could prevent > > such things is false. There isn't a system anywhere that will catch > > everyone. > > It's "false" is it? Explain yourself. any system designed and run by humans will fail some of the people some of the time. -- bill-o
From: assimilate on 21 Feb 2010 21:23
On 21-Feb-2010, "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Is there a system elsewhere in the developed world that doesn't > "catch" more than 40% of its population? I'm not sure where you get your figures but you are smart enough to know they are false. -- bill-o |