From: Carbon on
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 02:15:47 +0000, assimilate wrote:
> On 21-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)> 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.

Cost here, life expectancy there. Are you suggesting that actual facts
in the form of verifiable statistics are somehow more "superficial" than
your and Bert's ideologically driven rants? You're kidding, right?
From: assimilate on

On 21-Feb-2010, BAR <screw(a)> wrote:

> Did you ask him why ignored the cyst? Being in a field where problems
> can go from very simple to full scale catastrophe quickly, I would put
> the onus on your friend for his medical problems.
> > Bert, this guy could be you. It could be one of your friends. The
> > current system is unjust.
> Sure, it could be anyone. But, I still don't see the solution being
> Universal Health Care.

any contractor or independant should have an HSA and major medical. It is
not expensice and tax deductible.

From: dene on

"Carbon" <nobrac(a)> wrote in message

> What would be best would be for the money to come out of sales taxes.
> That way even the slackers have to participate.

I think slackers should get hit hard with a tax penalty.....$1500 minimum.
Why should you or I pay for their irresponsibility?


From: Carbon on
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 02:19:40 +0000, assimilate wrote:
> On 21-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)> 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.

But only if they say things you find inconvenient...
From: Carbon on
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 02:21:49 +0000, assimilate wrote:
> On 21-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)> 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.

Obviously. Your point being?