Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Yep. And Americans bus into Canada to buy drugs they can't afford in America, and Canada provides at least basic levels of health care to everyone -- which is absolutely not true here inthe U.S. As you so fondly note, its all about choices.
|
You are making my point, and I thank you- I'd forgotten this.
Americans go to Canada to buy drugs since the Canadian gov't artificially keeps the price down. Ain't no drug research going on there- so if the drug companies can't pay for research here- Guess what? NO NEW DEVELOPMENTS.
Quote:
|
Yes, which is a perfectly rational and defensible policy approach for a government-sponsored health care system based on a basic social utility or cost-benefit analysis. Don't worry Hank -- those with the dough could still get treatment No. 1,877. Those without the dough probably aren't going to get it anyway.
|
Again, exactly. The problem is that currently those without extra $$$, but nominal coverage get to treatment no. 2243. YOU WOULD LIMIT THAT WHICH THE MIDDLE CLASS NOW GETS.
Quote:
What do you mean "very good" and "very high"? I'd wager that the correct statements are more like:
"Some" for "very high", and
"decent" for "most", and
"very good" for "a minority of the population."
{Qualitative judgments based on modern U.S. standard of care}
|
okay- all subjective- the point is your proposal gets to "worse" for most.
Quote:
|
Damn tough break. Sounds like that system needs some work. So fucking what?
|
the point is whats your predicator of sucess. A better educated country with a smaller percentage living in poverty and 1/10 the size of the States CAN'T PROVIDE ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE. The dems will do better? Do you double promise?
Quote:
|
Listen, you pathetic bitch --
|
I tried to make a reasoned analysis of some shortcomings in your ravings, and you hurl invictive? Was this a homage to Govenor Dean? If we can't have rational, non-personally insulting exchange of ideas, I'm not sure further conversation with you is in order.
Whatever- sell it and buy a yugo- take the money and give it to the poor, once you've done that you can ask me to risk my children's medical health on some hair brained campaign issue.
I must dare to challenge all is passed as "new ideas" but merely seeks to place our great country into the inevitable decline that is old Europe;
I must dare to challenge when you seek to risk my children's future, and the future to which our poor brethern citizens seek to work to attain, such that when they arrive that do not find you've ruined that future; and finally
I must dare challenge SAM when you lay out this poorly reasoned drivel- surely a client or reviewing partner would not have approved or paid you for similar "work" How would it be fair to you to let this pass?
