--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debbi asked-
snip
My other concern is that holding the costs ends
to be a reactive
philosophy. Some posters have already noted that
preventive measures can
have good return on investment.
Could you expand on this?
Let me try a few angles on
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debbie asked-
[actually, it was Ronn]
OTOH, where *does* one¹ hold the line on health
costs?
This is a doozie to work through, maybe we can start
this one bit at a time
and try an international flair. So far to date
(after some schooling and
thinking) I
At 09:21 PM 12/19/02 -0800, Deborah Harrell wrote:
My real objections here are in the case of severely
limited resources, frex organs for transplant, going
to people who caused their own problems (Mickey Mantle
and David Crosby getting livers, after years of
alcohol and alc/drug abuse). No one
Debbie asked-
OTOH, where *does* one¹ hold the line on health costs?
This is a doozie to work through, maybe we can start this one bit at a time
and try an international flair. So far to date (after some schooling and
thinking) I like the Australian System best. Philisophically I figure
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debbie asked-
[actually, it was Ronn]
OTOH, where *does* one¹ hold the line on health
costs?
This is a doozie to work through, maybe we can start
this one bit at a time
and try an international flair. So far to date
(after some schooling and
thinking) I
