From: Carbon on
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 02:04:24 +0000, assimilate wrote:
> On 22-Feb-2010, Howard Brazee <howard(a)> wrote:
>>> The objection centers around loss of freedom. There is no way a govt
>>> delivered system can provide the options a private system can.
>> 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?
From: Carbon on
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 02:11:03 +0000, assimilate wrote:
> On 22-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)> 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.

I enjoyed the inclusion of the word "may".
From: Carbon on
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 02:12:49 +0000, assimilate wrote:
> On 22-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)> 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

Please share your specific objections to the methods used by the World
Health Organization. Aside from the fact that they arrive at totals that
you don't like.

>> 2. Average life expectancy by country.
> Again irrelavent. Lifestyle determines LE more than healthcare.

Other than things like out and about rhyming with boot, Canada is very
very similar to the US in diet, in culture, standard of living, etc. Yet
Canadians have an average life expectancy several years greater than
Americans. What could possibly account for this startling difference?
From: Carbon on
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 02:16:43 +0000, assimilate wrote:
> On 22-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)> 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.

But much of your criticism centers on the alleged difficulty in firing
people. It has nothing to do with universal healthcare.
From: Howard Brazee on
On 23 Feb 2010 02:05:53 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)>

>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.

Certainly. We are big cowards compared to previous generations -
look at how bin Laden manipulated us.

One kidnapping in a city of 5 million terrifies 5 million who see the
crime in their living rooms on the 6 O'clock news.

"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