health care
in [Golf]
|
From: Carbon on 22 Feb 2010 21:05 On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:56:10 -0500, William Clark wrote: > In article <k3c6o597n4l0agusrmmtfcjtqusgp0jq8s(a)4ax.com>, Howard Brazee > <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: > >> I'm not sure most Americans are willing to have young children taking >> public transportation even if it were adequate for the task. > > There's safety in numbers and habit. Where I went to University in Canada, the police didn't carry guns. Given that there was about one murder every ten years or so in a population of 500k, they didn't seem to need them. But then shows like America's Most Wanted and Cops became popular, and after much lobbying the police won the right to carry guns. The murder rate is still very low. People seem to feel less safe than in generations past. I wouldn't have even considered the possibility of danger in getting a bus across town when I was a kid. But I guess people have learned to be afraid.
From: assimilate on 22 Feb 2010 21:05 On 22-Feb-2010, "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I think slackers should get hit hard with a tax penalty.....$1500 > > > > minimum. > > > > Why should you or I pay for their irresponsibility? > > > > > > -Greg > > > And who is to decide who's a slacker and who isn't? > > > > the market > > > > -- > > bill-o > > So, the government should slap a punitive tax of $1500 or more on > "slackers," who would be indentified as such by "the market." Sure, > that makes perfect sense. no the tax penalty is a bad idea, the market usually handles slackers pretty well -- bill-o
From: assimilate on 22 Feb 2010 21:11 On 22-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > Moreso than in Canada, where the govt dictates prices. You know, if > > Americans stop paying the bulk of the cost of pharmaceuticals and > > related research, people like Canadians will have to pay more. That is > > an injustice, IMHO, that could be redressed here. Pharmaceutical > > research is declining in at least parts of the US. like say Michigan. > > 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. -- bill-o
From: assimilate on 22 Feb 2010 21:12 On 22-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > So you keep saying. Funny, you haven't produced even the slightest > argument as to what could be wrong with: > > 1. Cost of healthcare per capita as a percentage of GDP. Irrelavent: it does not represent the real cost, especially in UH countries > > 2. Average life expectancy by country. Again irrelavent. Lifestyle determines LE more than healthcare. -- bill-o
From: assimilate on 22 Feb 2010 21:16
On 22-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > As usual with things economic, you are wrong (does it get old?). The > > heavy cost of new hires, a large portion of which is the SECU (their > > UH) payroll taxes, coupled with the near impossibility of terminating > > the employee once hired means that French employers will not bring on > > new employees unless said will be a large contribution to the bottom > > line. This means low skilled, low educated job seekers are SOL in > > France. As usual the policies sold to help the poor actually punish > > them. > > Your causal connection between universal healthcare and crime is tenuous > at best. You've written an opinion piece. perhaps, but the unemployment of the young due to the cost of hiring is a hard, verifyable fact. -- bill-o |