(lost track of who wrote what)
But if you repeal ALL government mandates, you'll wind
up with lots of policies that appear to cover everything
a consumer might want, but are actually full of loopholes
so that the insurer need not pay for standard treatments.
That seems the opposite of
Jeffrey S. Flier is Dean of Harvard Medical School. In the Journal of
Clinical Investigation article referenced below, Flier offers his
ideas on health care reform.
http://www.jci.org/articles/view/41033
Flier identifies three root causes for the symptoms of America's
health care ills:
| First
Bruce wrote:
What exactly *do* you propose as an alternative to public-option health
care
for people who aren't fortunate enough to be able to afford health
insurance that
will actually cover treatments?
You didn't ask me; but I thought I'd actually propose something that makes
sense. First
The Democrats can't close debate in the Senate. Republicans have no incentive
to compromise. U.S. health care reform is dead.
Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Andrew
Crystalldawnfal...@upliftwar.com wrote:
Either it will have a higher premium to cover pre-existing
conditions, or it only covers things not caused by the pre-existing
condition.
That is not how health status insurance works. It is insurance against
an
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Trent Shipleytship...@deru.com wrote:
The people outside the boundary are not my responsibility. They are not
my people. Furthermore, they don't participate in my moral economy.
The status of the poor in my country has an immediate effect on me. I
may be
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Trent Shipleytship...@deru.com wrote:
So insurance could charge someone with type II diabetes more, but not
someone with type I diabetes. You could charge more to people who,
smoke, are over weight, who don't exercise, or who practice un-safe sex.
You
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Lance A. Brownla...@bearcircle.net wrote:
The analogy between auto and health insurance fails in one regard: Most
of the time, a 5x increase in auto insurance premiums is a direct result
of decisions by the covered person. Many of causes for increases in
Original Message:
-
From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 23:21:45 -0700
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
Another good reason for heath status insurance
John, you realize what you are arguing, don't you
On 18/08/2009, at 12:11 AM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
What you are searching for is akin to trying to find an even prime
number.
It's really easy to find one...
...but then you go looking for another...
Charlie.
But There's One, So There Must Be Another Eventually Maru
On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:18, John Williams wrote:
If the government is going to interfere in the insurance market, it
seems to me that it would be simpler just to directly subsidize those
who cannot afford to pay health insurance premiums, and leave the
insurance market to function rationally.
On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:03, John Williams wrote:
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Andrew
Crystalldawnfal...@upliftwar.com wrote:
Either it will have a higher premium to cover pre-existing
conditions, or it only covers things not caused by the pre-existing
condition.
That is not how
On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:18, John Williams wrote:
If the government is going to interfere in the insurance market,
You call it interference, I call it participation.
Well, at least you don't try to hide your bias.
Dave
___
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:11 AM,
dsummersmi...@comcast.netdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
There is a reason why there isn't affordable long term insurance.
Yes, government interference and people who would rather spend other
people's money for their own insurance.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew
Crystalldawnfal...@upliftwar.com wrote:
Of course that's how it works. It's in the interest of insurance
companies not to pay out. Your shilling for corperations is amusing,
but not based in reality: insurance allways takes into account risks.
No,
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Dave Landdml...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:18, John Williams wrote:
If the government is going to interfere in the insurance market,
You call it interference, I call it participation.
I'd agree with forced participation.
Here's an example of
health insurance premiums, and leave the
insurance market to function rationally.
That is extremely expensive, for all it's simpler.
Actually, studies have shown that consumer driven health care reduces
costs, and does not decrease preventative care.
http://www.actuary.org/pdf/health/cdhp_may09.pdf
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:11 AM,
dsummersmi...@comcast.netdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
Original Message:
-
From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 23:21:45 -0700
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
On 17 Aug 2009 at 12:51, John Williams wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew
Crystalldawnfal...@upliftwar.com wrote:
Of course that's how it works. It's in the interest of insurance
companies not to pay out. Your shilling for corperations is amusing,
but not based in reality:
to directly subsidize those
who cannot afford to pay health insurance premiums, and leave the
insurance market to function rationally.
That is extremely expensive, for all it's simpler.
Actually, studies have shown that consumer driven health care reduces
costs, and does not decrease
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Andrew
Crystalldawnfal...@upliftwar.com wrote:
On 17 Aug 2009 at 12:51, John Williams wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew
Crystalldawnfal...@upliftwar.com wrote:
No, considering pre-existing conditions is not how health status
insurance works. It
that consumer driven health care reduces
costs, and does not decrease preventative care.
Except you're not proposing consumer driven health care, you
propising that the government pick up an lot of expensive healthcare
costs. More, it doesn't create incentives to increase prevenative
care
to have copious
amounts of free time to respond ad nauseum.
Did someone say John's been on this list for 10 years? Did I misread that??
I don't remember being this prodded to respond for many years -- probably
since JDG was here =+)).
Anyway, John, you said health care was an emotional issue for me
On 17 Aug 2009 at 17:06, John Williams wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Andrew
Crystalldawnfal...@upliftwar.com wrote:
On 17 Aug 2009 at 12:51, John Williams wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew
Crystalldawnfal...@upliftwar.com wrote:
No, considering pre-existing
in a large increase in cost of
health care, and many of them are not correlated. Having a heart
condition is not likely to lead to prostate cancer, for example.
So it magically constantly decreases costs? No, read it again - the
trend is that it will be 3-5% cheaper than a PPO plan.
Interesting
Do you think you're fooling anyone with this schtick?
I hope not. It is certainly not my intention to fool anyone.
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
?
Competition for consumer business.
Is there some way in which consumer-driven means something other than
unregulated?
Is health care so unimportant that it deserves no regulation?
Is health care so unimportant that people should have to compete with each
other (that's the other side of the equation
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Nick Arnettnick.arn...@gmail.com wrote:
Is health care so unimportant that it deserves no regulation?
We are starting from different worldviews, I think. I believe in
freedom for people to make agreements with each other as they choose
-- that is my starting
Did someone say John's been on this list for 10 years? Did I misread
that??
I told John many of us had been. Maybe that got mangled. Maybe by me. :-)
Dan M.
myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and
,
my
panties are riding up after trying to talk to you about health care,
like
his did about pollution regulation.
He did not try to discuss pollution regulation with me at all -- I
would have been happy to discuss it with him, and to clear up the
apparent question that he had about me
The Atlantic has a thoughtful article by David Goldhill on health care
and health insurance reform. It is long, but I think well worth
reading. I've also included below a few paragraphs that I thought were
particularly interesting.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200909/health-care
At 02:51 AM Sunday 8/16/2009, John Williams wrote:
The Atlantic has a thoughtful article by David Goldhill on health care
and health insurance reform. It is long, but I think well worth
reading. I've also included below a few paragraphs that I thought were
particularly interesting.
http
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:05 AM, Ronn!
Blankenshipronn_blankens...@bellsouth.net wrote:
I'm only a little way into the article, but I take it Semmelwies is no
longer mentioned in the medical school (or pre-med) curriculum?
I think that the guidelines Goldhill refers to are more systematic and
One thing that is often discussed in reference to health insurance is
that if someone is unexpectedly afflicted with a chronic condition,
their health insurance premiums will usually increase drastically.
Health insurance for someone diagnosed with a chronic condition might
go from $2,000 a year
When you reach a point where the suggested solution to ridiculously
overpriced health insurance is to take out an insurance policy on your
insurance ... perhaps it's a sign that you ought to consider some
other system.
Patrick
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 12:24 PM, John
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Patrick
Sweeneyfirefly.ga...@gmail.com wrote:
When you reach a point where the suggested solution to ridiculously
overpriced health insurance is to take out an insurance policy on your
insurance ... perhaps it's a sign that you ought to consider some
other
John Williams wrote:
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Patrick
Sweeneyfirefly.ga...@gmail.com wrote:
When you reach a point where the suggested solution to ridiculously
overpriced health insurance is to take out an insurance policy on your
insurance ... perhaps it's a sign that you ought to
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote:
I'd guess that Patrick is expecting health insurance
to have health status insurance already built into it.
One would think the whole point of health insurance is to provide you
with health care (more precisely, the funds
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote:
It does strike me as a kludge, though. To continue
your example of car insurance, I don't believe that
anybody markets insurance against having your car
insurance premiums rise dramatically.
I do not think there is a as
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Patrick Sweeneyfirefly.ga...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote:
But if I do fall ill, for the insurer to raise my rates rather than
provide the agreed-upon care seems like dirty pool.
That is only true if
On 16 Aug 2009 at 14:08, John Williams wrote:
New ideas can be difficult to get used to. Perhaps they could be
bundled together for those who prefer it. But it would be a bundle --
the two types of insurance are fundamentally different, since one pays
a lump sum or equivalent (like life
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Andrew
Crystalldawnfal...@upliftwar.com wrote:
Many people won't go for checkups if they have to pay out of pocket,
and they will ignore dangerous conditions for too long.
Did you read the article, or just the excerpts I posted? This was
discussed in the
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Andrew
Crystalldawnfal...@upliftwar.com wrote:
And immediately you're creating the concept that as aoon as anything
happens, your insurance will go up, because the risk to the insurer
that you'll not be paying them anymore has been pushed to another
party.
I
On 16 Aug 2009 at 14:44, John Williams wrote:
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Andrew
Crystalldawnfal...@upliftwar.com wrote:
Many people won't go for checkups if they have to pay out of pocket,
and they will ignore dangerous conditions for too long.
Did you read the article, or just
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Andrew
Crystalldawnfal...@upliftwar.com wrote:
Yes, you're simply refusing to accnowledge the actual results of the
policys proposed...
What exactly am I refusing to acknowledge?
to be charged (as their status insurance can be cancelled,
Health status
On 16 Aug 2009 at 15:52, John Williams wrote:
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Andrew
Crystalldawnfal...@upliftwar.com wrote:
Yes, you're simply refusing to accnowledge the actual results of the
policys proposed...
What exactly am I refusing to acknowledge?
That you'd simply once
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Andrew
Crystalldawnfal...@upliftwar.com wrote:
, so if you're a bad
health risk or have prexisting conditions you're very unlikely to be
able to get status coverage at a deacent price or at all in the first
place,
That is not the way health status insurance
On 16 Aug 2009 at 16:30, John Williams wrote:
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Andrew
Crystalldawnfal...@upliftwar.com wrote:
, so if you're a bad
health risk or have prexisting conditions you're very unlikely to be
able to get status coverage at a deacent price or at all in the first
John Williams said the following on 8/16/2009 5:08 PM:
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote:
It does strike me as a kludge, though. To continue
your example of car insurance, I don't believe that
anybody markets insurance against having your car
insurance
Lance A. Brown wrote:
John Williams said the following on 8/16/2009 5:08 PM:
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote:
It does strike me as a kludge, though. To continue
your example of car insurance, I don't believe that
anybody markets insurance against having
because of the belief that
everyone should have a chance to live and be healthy, then why not
focus on redistributing wealth from people in the US to the people in
the world who have far worse health care than those in the US?
Why not?
The basic reason is that people are both tribal and self
, did you have an HSA or a health care flexible spending account?
Flexible spending accounts have a pre-selected amount of pre-tax
dollars set aside that you can then spend on non-covered medical
expenses. Those funds expires at the end of the calendar year. I
thought all HSA accounts allowed you
, with another on global threats and
national security, one on the environment, and one on strengthening
family life, which would include health care, education, and
retirement. I also think there should be one on parts of speech and
sentence structure. And one on fractions. -- Toby Ziegler
in the US to the people in
the world who have far worse health care than those in the US?
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin
redistribute wealth from people in
the
US to the people in the world who have far worse health care than
those
in the US.
But there are charities. And the ambitious (and/or extremely wealthy)
can start their own organizations. Why must your desired method
involve government?
It mustn't
, the topic *I'M* discussing is health care in the US.
I think these sorts of details should be up to each consumer to decide
upon.
And I wonder how much of a believer you would become should you, your
partner, you children, your parents, etc. be suddenly injured or struck with
a long-term/life
[Lance] wrote:
Jo Anne, did you have an HSA or a health care flexible spending account?
Flexible spending accounts have a pre-selected amount of pre-tax
dollars set aside that you can then spend on non-covered medical
expenses. Those funds expires at the end of the calendar year. I
thought
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Chris Frandsenlear...@mac.com wrote:
My generation has become noticeably stingier as our balance of trade swung
around from crazy black to very red, starting with Nixon. Now it appears
some do not even think we can care for our own people
Our own people? Who
$120 billion into less
developed nations, just for health care, in 2006, the most recent year I
came up with doing a quick search.
Ignoring the existence of foreign aid for health demonstrates either being
hopelessly out of the loop in terms of international politics or deliberate
omission
People on this list have argued for the advantages of a free market system
for health care and health care insurance. I have thought about it, and
decided to apply what we know from other markets that have considerable
less government intervention.
For example, big screen TVs. If you have
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 8:50 AM,
dsummersmi...@comcast.netdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
People on this list have argued for the advantages of a free market system
for health care and health care insurance. I have thought about it, and
decided to apply what we know from other markets
from people in the US to the people in
the world who have far worse health care than those in the US?
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
to ObamaCare
Eight things we can do to improve health care without adding to the deficit:
Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of
high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts
(HSAs).
Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance
and individually owned
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/08/consumer-drive-health-care-plans.html
Alex Tabarrok wrote:
|For about the last 10 years the United States has been experimenting
|with consumer driven health care plans. CDH plans typically combine
|a high-deductible insurance policy
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:32 AM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote:
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/08/consumer-drive-health-care-plans.html
Alex Tabarrok wrote:
|For about the last 10 years the United States has been experimenting
|with consumer driven
cover.
...
Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what
health-care treatments cost.
...
John--
Going by the present state of things, the two
bullets above seem to contradict each other.
I can see why one might object to some government
mandates that insurance must cover certain
not
focus on redistributing wealth from people in the US to the people in
the world who have far worse health care than those in the US?
Straw man.
--
GPG Fingerprint: 409B A409 A38D 92BF 15D9 6EEE 9A82 F2AC 69AC 07B9
CACert.org Assurer
___
http
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 12:15 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote:
John Williams wrote:
Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies
must cover.
...
Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what
health-care treatments cost.
...
Going by the present
that
everyone should have a chance to live and be healthy, then why not
focus on redistributing wealth from people in the US to the people in
the world who have far worse health care than those in the US?
Straw man.
I understand why that question makes you uncomfortable. It makes me
dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
People on this list have argued for the advantages of a free market system
for health care and health care insurance. I have thought about it, and
decided to apply what we know from other markets that have considerable
less government intervention
not
focus on redistributing wealth from people in the US to the people in
the world who have far worse health care than those in the US?
Why not?
The basic reason is that people are both tribal and self-interested.
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin
that
everyone should have a chance to live and be healthy, then why not
focus on redistributing wealth from people in the US to the people in
the world who have far worse health care than those in the US?
Why not?
The basic reason is that people are both tribal and self-interested.
Would
John Williams wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 12:15 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote:
John Williams wrote:
Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies
must cover.
...
Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what
health-care treatments cost.
...
Going
because of the belief that
everyone should have a chance to live and be healthy, then why not
focus on redistributing wealth from people in the US to the people in
the world who have far worse health care than those in the US?
Straw man.
I understand why that question makes you uncomfortable
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:26 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote:
How on earth is
the average consumer going to check that their policy is
NOT full of loopholes?
First, I'll point that I know of no system to ensure that there are
not loopholes or other problems with a product or service.
wealth to improve healthcare because of the belief that
everyone should have a chance to live and be healthy, then why not
focus on redistributing wealth from people in the US to the people
in
the world who have far worse health care than those in the US?
Why not?
The basic reason is that people
Hello Group --
This discussion about health care is driving me a little crazy, as a retired
nurse. I agree with Dan, Nick, David and everyone else who sees the need
for some sort of universal risk pool. The one thing that irks me about
talking about high deductibles and health savings accounts
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:33 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote:
This is an old kind of argument that is usually used
to support not taking action. It asks How can you
worry about A, when B is so much worse?
That was a question, not an argument. And I am not being flippant. My
point is
information. I agree,
that would solve the problem with policies that appeared
to cover things and actually didn't.
There are other reasons to have universal health care,
but there would have to be an element of coercion to
the implementation. You seem to be against even taxation,
as a matter
in the world who have far worse health care than those
in the US.
But there are charities. And the ambitious (and/or extremely wealthy)
can start their own organizations. Why must your desired method
involve government?
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman
Compassion, folks. IAAMOAC.
I agree with your points Jo Anne, and welcome hearing from you.
mail2web LIVE Free email based on Microsoft® Exchange technology -
http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE
family would favor a policy with a
lower stop-loss. I think if the government reduced most of their
interference in the health care market (see some of John Mackey's
points in the article I linked to earlier), that there would be a lot
more choice for consumers as to what type of health care plan
Compassion and government are strange bedfellows. I'd prefer to
express my compassion without government.
I understand. But, since you expressed it as I am not my brother's
keeper, that's what most folks would call no compassion. You are free to
express itbut we are free to disagree.
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:43 PM,
dsummersmi...@comcast.netdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
I understand. But, since you expressed it as I am not my brother's
keeper, that's what most folks would call no compassion. You are free to
express itbut we are free to disagree.
Why do we always
To: dsummersmi...@comcast.net, brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:43 PM,
dsummersmi...@comcast.netdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
I understand. But, since you expressed it as I am not my brother's
keeper, that's what most folks would call
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:08 PM,
dsummersmi...@comcast.netdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
Well, when you quote Cain as a fudmental moral position, you write words
that result in a straight reading of the text leading to that conclusion.
Which has now thoroughly been taken out of context, and
the power to compel people at gunpoint to do
as they say. Government lawmakers do. That is a huge difference.
So is the difference between criminal and civil law. So put away your
gun-toting straw men - nobody is talking about criminalizing private health
care. They're not even talking about making
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 9:21 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote:
I have posted articles that list a number of state mandates for health
care plans. If a provider were to dare to sell a policy to a willing
buyer, and that policy did not, for example, cover acupuncture in
certain
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Dan Mdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
How did you get 1.2 trillion for Medicare and Medicaid?
I meant to write that Medicare and Medicaid _and other
government-related health care spending_ make up more than half. The
biggest additional component is the tax
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 9:21 PM, Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The alternative might not seem any better, but for the money I'm
pretty sure it couldn't be much worse, and I think its high time we
try something else.
Your experimental system is highly inefficient. Don't you think it
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Williams wrote:
If less government regulation is better, why do are national health
systems prevalent in many parts of the world?
Why are wars prevalent in many parts of the world?
Why do women love shoes?
3
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 9:27 PM, Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would it have to be restricted to a numerical scale? Couldn't you
be polled on a range of issues to determine where the government was
succeeding and where it wasn't?
Did you read the original post? A decision is made
Not even if they asked and you told them?
How happy are you on a scale of 1 to 10? No, I don't think
I'd trust my answers on that. Compared to what? Myself
in the past? That would be hard to judge. Other people I
know? Even worse (how do I know how happy they are?).
And how to know how much of
From: John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: Democracy (was Health Care / The same damn topic all f-ing
week!~)
Not even if they asked and you told them?
How happy are you
At 02:26 PM Monday 11/3/2008, Wayne Eddy wrote:
From: John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: Democracy (was Health Care / The same damn topic all f-ing
week!~)
Not even if they asked
Ronn! wrote:
So what do you do if the present system is badly flawed but the only
proposed alternative does not seem any better?
(e.g., the named in the previous subject line)
If you're talking about heath care, maybe having tried the one system
and pretty much universally come to the
John Williams
How happy are you on a scale of 1 to 10? No, I don't think
I'd trust my answers on that. Compared to what? Myself
in the past? That would be hard to judge. Other people I
know? Even worse (how do I know how happy they are?).
And how to know how much of the happiness is due to
John Williams wrote:
If less government regulation is better, why do are national health
systems prevalent in many parts of the world?
Why are wars prevalent in many parts of the world?
Why do women love shoes?
Doug
non sequiturs r us
___
John Williams wrote:
1) Why trust the government with measuring something as abstract as
happiness, if it can be measured at all? I don't think I'd trust even my
closest friends and family to measure my happiness.
Not even if they asked and you told them?
Doug
Ronn! Blankenship said the following on 11/1/2008 12:24 AM:
At 11:05 AM Friday 10/31/2008, John Williams wrote:
Lance A. Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Instead, we are faced with actors who will collude with each other to
manipulate markets, subvert systems, and for the short term gain without
1 - 100 of 272 matches
Mail list logo
