Nathan Saper writes:
In a recent WHO study, the U.S. was ranked (IIRC) 15th in the world
for healthcare (factoring in quality, availability, etc). This was
behind many socialized healthcare countries, such as Canada.
Did it ever occur to you that WHO might have an agenda of its own
that its
--
At 04:21 PM 10/25/2000 +0100, Ken Brown wrote:
This isn't really true. The NHS tends to be quite good at big
stuff, serious interventions.
Serious interventions, for example coronary bypass for the elderly, are
rationed. Furthermore they are corruptly rationed.
on the whole I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 12:04:20AM -0700, petro wrote:
From: petro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The point is that you are *forcing* me to part with my
productive labor to support someone else.
This makes me unhappy. Under your beliefs, you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 07:28:25AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Nathan Saper wrote:
Yes, it does. And I think we as Americans, as well as our government,
should do everything in our power to help. However, the first
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 08:37:42PM -0700, James A.. Donald wrote:
At 09:07 PM 10/22/2000 -0700, Nathan Saper wrote:
OK, granted, the government needs to be kept on a tight leash. Most
people will not want the government breaking into their
--
Nathan Saper[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 08:37:42PM -0700, James A.. Donald wrote:
You cannot provide cheap insurance by punishing insurers, any more than
you
can provide cheap housing by punishing landlords. It has been tried. A
law
--
From: Ken Brown[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 11:21 AM
To: Trei, Peter
Cc: Cypherpunks; 'Nathan Saper'
Subject: Re: why should it be trusted?
"Trei, Peter" wrote:
Nathan, hav
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 10:10:29AM -0400, Trei, Peter wrote:
Nathan Saper[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 08:37:42PM -0700, James A.. Donald wrote:
You cannot provide cheap insurance by punishing insurers, any more
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 09:55:52PM -0400, Me wrote:
From: "Nathan Saper" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a recent WHO study, the U.S. was ranked (IIRC) 15th in the
world
for healthcare (factoring in quality, availability, etc). This
was
behind many
From: "Nathan Saper" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maybe we're thinking of different studies. I'm pretty sure the
U.S. did better than 37th in the study I'm thinking of.
Prob; these rankings seem to be a fav passtime among many .ints.
I'll do a search of WHO's website, and if they don't have it,
I'll
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 10:59:51PM -0700, petro wrote:
That's true, but it is irrelevant. As long as insurance companies
and hospitals are privately owned, putting a requirement like this
one on them constitutes theft of their
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 11:08:48PM -0700, petro wrote:
Of course, in the libertarian ideal universe someone not
completely indigent who had a genetic condition that made them high risk
might still be unable to get any kind of catastropic
On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, petro wrote:
Of course, in the libertarian ideal universe someone not
completely indigent who had a genetic condition that made them high risk
might still be unable to get any kind of catastropic medical insurance
and might be wiped out of virtually all assets by
From: petro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The point is that you are *forcing* me to part with my
productive labor to support someone else.
This makes me unhappy. Under your beliefs, you can't do this,
as I have a right to be happy.
No dipshit, you have a right to TRY TO BE HAPPY.
That's true, but it is irrelevant. As long as insurance companies
and hospitals are privately owned, putting a requirement like this
one on them constitutes theft of their resources. If you want to
have them engaging in charity, set up a charity and solicit money
instead. ie, you
Of course, in the libertarian ideal universe someone not
completely indigent who had a genetic condition that made them high risk
might still be unable to get any kind of catastropic medical insurance
and might be wiped out of virtually all assets by a serious illness,
even one
- Original Message -
From: petro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The point is that you are *forcing* me to part with my
productive labor to support someone else.
This makes me unhappy. Under your beliefs, you can't do this,
as I have a right to be happy.
If this were an episode on the original
At 10:35 PM -0700 10/22/00, Nathan Saper wrote:
This is true in theory. However, from what I have read, it appears
that the care given to these people is far from the quality of care
given to those who can pay. Also, many diseases require very
expensive treatments, and I do not believe the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 10:59:51PM -0700, petro wrote:
That's true, but it is irrelevant. As long as insurance companies
and hospitals are privately owned, putting a requirement like this
one on them constitutes theft of their resources.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 11:08:48PM -0700, petro wrote:
Of course, in the libertarian ideal universe someone not
completely indigent who had a genetic condition that made them high risk
might still be unable to get any kind of catastropic
--
At 09:07 PM 10/22/2000 -0700, Nathan Saper wrote:
OK, granted, the government needs to be kept on a tight leash. Most
people will not want the government breaking into their homes.
However, I think most people would be willing to vote for a bill
that would guarantee insurance for
At 3:25 AM -0400 10/23/00, Dave Emery wrote:
On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 10:41:06PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
At 1:10 AM -0400 10/23/00, Dave Emery wrote:
Nobody dies without healthcare under our present system.
Actually, many people do. What planet have you been living on?
Many do
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Nathan Saper wrote:
So these people are entitled to something for nothing?
(or in this case, $1500 of treatment for $1000 of premiums)?
That's the whole idea of insurance, isn't it?
You're trolling, aren't you?
Insurance is a good idea for the insured because it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 12:33:39AM -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Nathan Saper wrote:
So these people are entitled to something for nothing?
(or in this case, $1500 of treatment for $1000 of premiums)?
That's the whole
At 08:12 PM 10/22/00 -0700, James A.. Donald wrote:
--
At 07:09 PM 10/22/2000 -0700, Nathan Saper wrote:
I think the government has a right to do whatever it needs to do to
maintain the health and well-being of its population. That is the
purpose of the government.
Then the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 08:12:45PM -0700, James A.. Donald wrote:
At 07:09 PM 10/22/2000 -0700, Nathan Saper wrote:
I think the government has a right to do whatever it needs to do to
maintain the health and well-being of its population. That
No Message Collected
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Anonymous wrote:
Crypto-anarchy is in fact not really anarchy, since it only addresses
some kinds of authority, ie government, and only in certain situations.
True anarchy involves the dissolution of other hierarchical relationships,
including those that spring from private
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
How does crypto-anarchy/libertarian/anarchy propose to deal with the
"tragedy of the commons" where by doing what is best for each persons own
interests they end up screwing it up for everyone (Overgrazing land with to
many cattle is the example
OK. So how about preventative care? It might well be that by insuring
everyone and keeping them in health, the total risk per dollars paid for
coverage actually goes down. Especially if infectious diseases can be kept
in check. Plus, the sum total of money paid by the insurees goes up as they
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 10:17:17PM -0700, petro wrote:
Even if they do (which I haven't heard of, but I could be wrong), the
trend right now is more corporate power, less governmental power. As
I said before, we are already seeing this
Two Things:
1. It sounds like to me that there is no room for human compassion in
crypto-anarchy.
(Seems like we will all end up sitting in our "compounds" armed to the
teeth and if anybody comes along we either blow'em to bits or pay them
anonymous digital cash
to go away).
There
At 9:11 PM -0500 10/18/00, Neil Johnson wrote:
Two Things:
1. It sounds like to me that there is no room for human compassion in
crypto-anarchy.
(Seems like we will all end up sitting in our "compounds" armed to the
teeth and if anybody comes along we either blow'em to bits or pay them
Another socialist simp-wimp heard from.
Lots of socialists to be dealt with and disposed of. I wonder who
will stoke the furnaces?
Not very many if enough of us "simp-wimps" gather enough e-cash to create
our own
"Imprisonment Betting Pool".
I think languishing in jail with life-mate
Tim May wrote:
At 11:38 PM -0400 10/18/00, Steve Furlong wrote:
At most, an insurance company would have some information Bob didn't
have. Bob could reasonably demand a copy of the results of his DNA test.
...
If the insurance company refused, he could shop elsewhere. Or
self-insure,
Most insurance companies are worth millions, if not billions, of
dollars, and they make huge profits. Insuring all of the people that
they now deny based on genetic abnormalities would still allow them to
make decent profits.
So? Where is it mandated that they cover those?
In
This is why the current American system where virtually everyone's
insurance pays for virtually every visit to the doctor is such a
bad idea. People should be paying for their ordinary, year-in
year-out health care. Insurance should only enter the picture if
The system only works
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Neil Johnson wrote:
But the Bob has no control of his risk (genetics), or at least not yet :).
The insurance company does.
Say What?! Sorry, no insurance company has the power to say who
is and is not born with particular genetics.
I don't have a problem with insurance
At 2:11 PM +0300 10/20/00, Sampo A Syreeni wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Marshall Clow wrote:
So these people are entitled to something for nothing?
(or in this case, $1500 of treatment for $1000 of premiums)?
Why?
Because keeping people operable longer makes for net savings for the
society?
From: "Nathan Saper" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So these people are entitled to something for nothing?
(or in this case, $1500 of treatment for $1000 of premiums)?
That's the whole idea of insurance, isn't it?
The point of insurance is to pool resources and spread risk; it
isn't a ponzi scheme.
If
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Oct 19, 2000 at 02:30:40AM -0400, Steve Furlong wrote:
Nathan Saper wrote:
On Thu, Oct 19, 2000 at 01:02:44AM -0400, Steve Furlong wrote:
Nathan Saper wrote:
Nathan seems to be arguing that insurance companies should be forced
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Oct 19, 2000 at 01:26:48PM -0500, Kevin Elliott wrote:
At 22:42 -0700 10/18/00, Nathan Saper wrote:
Coverage is most often less expensive than care. Therefore, one may
be able to afford the coverage, but not afford the care, if it ends up
At 9:11 PM -0500 on 10/18/00, Neil Johnson wrote:
How does crypto-anarchy/libertarian/anarchy propose to deal with the
"tragedy of the commons" where by doing what is best for each persons own
interests they end up screwing it up for everyone (Overgrazing land with to
many cattle is the
At 9:20 PM -0600 on 10/18/00, Anonymous wrote:
Crypto-anarchy is in fact not really anarchy, since it only addresses
some kinds of authority, ie government, and only in certain situations.
True anarchy involves the dissolution of other hierarchical relationships,
including those that spring
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 10:17:17PM -0700, petro wrote:
Even if they do (which I haven't heard of, but I could be wrong), the
trend right now is more corporate power, less governmental power. As
I said before, we are already seeing this
One of the points I believe is sorely missing in these discussions is how
important "improvements in algorithms" can be. In the narrowest sense, I
agree with your statements - but I have also seen what elegant alternative
approaches can do to systems that were presumed to be vulnerable only to
At 7:24 AM -0400 10/17/00, John Young wrote:
The question occurs: did PK crypto get leaked on purpose?
How was it done?
I'm not sure what your implication is, though I have some suspicion
you are insinuating that the NSA and Company knew PK was somehow weak
and so it leaked it.
Well,
It occurs to me that the NSA may in fact have a much easier time
of cracking most encrypted messages than is generally believed by
the people who use them.
We can rule out the idea that they may have computers capable of
solving the ciphers by a brute force key search or modulus factoring
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 02:43:14PM +0100, Ken Brown wrote:
Nathan Saper wrote:
Fine. My basis for my claim is that the NSA is the best funded and
best equiped electronic intelligence agency in the world, and they
have employed some of the
At 5:50 PM -0700 10/17/00, Nathan Saper wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 12:07:00PM -0400, David Honig wrote:
At 09:14 PM 10/16/00 -0400, Nathan Saper wrote:
When do cops take DNA at traffic stops?
Not yet. But I believe the UK takes samples of everyone
arrested (not necessarily guilty)
On Tuesday, October 17, 2000, at 08:19 PM, Tim May wrote:
At 5:50 PM -0700 10/17/00, Nathan Saper wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 12:07:00PM -0400, David Honig wrote:
>> Not yet. But I believe the UK takes samples of everyone
>> arrested (not necessarily guilty) of minor crimes, and some
>>
At 11:58 AM 10/16/00 -0700, Joshua R. Poulson wrote:
Isn't utterly obvious that the NSA, just any decent person,
compartmentalizes its security so that if one system were
broken, the other systems would not necessarily be broken?
Very well said. They also benefit from security via obscurity
At 2:34 PM -0700 10/15/00, Nathan Saper wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Oct 15, 2000 at 05:28:19PM -0400, Jordan Dimov wrote:
I don't know much about crypto politics, but... isn't it utterly
obvious that the mere fact that the NSA suggest a certain algorithm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 11:33:53PM -0400, Riad S. Wahby wrote:
Nathan Saper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Huh? Tarquin Fintimlinbin-Whinbimlim-Bus Stop F'Tang F'Tang Olé
Biscuit-Barrel?
Uh, what?
This is a reference to a Monty Python
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Oct 15, 2000 at 05:28:19PM -0400, Jordan Dimov wrote:
I don't know much about crypto politics, but... isn't it utterly
obvious that the mere fact that the NSA suggest a certain algorithm (say
Rijndael) for a national standard and
55 matches
Mail list logo
