Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (2789)	11/9/2007 9:16:12 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

<<<Health care doesn't equal longevity but health care has an influence on longevity. So you can't completely dismiss the statistics.>>> You can personally spend money on healthcare for a lot of different reasons (eg cosmetic, quality of life, etc..), but on a public policy level, life expectancy is the one measure that carries the least amount of political luggage and distortion. Even there however, you can't escape personal agenda. How can you ever relate healthcare spending and longevity to terrorism and invading Iraq. How is that closely analagous. Speaking of tortured logic.

To: Road Walker who wrote (2789)	11/9/2007 2:35:48 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

But to say there is absolutely no correlation is also false. You haven't shown it to be so. You just assume it is so. Look at some African countries where health care is rare or non-existent. Moving from near non-existent care to care like what we have in the US isn't the same as moving from American care to British or Canadian care. You can't reasonably assume that any change that happens from the first transition will also happen in the 2nd. The types of transitions are totally different. Your taking clearly bad care and moving to at least fairly good care, and then comparing it to perhaps more equal, but arguably worse care, and you think this is somehow supposed to be an effective argument? Even ignoring the logic of it I can't see how it would succeed purely as a matter of rhetoric. For that matter a large part, most likely the majority, of the difference in life span between Africa and the rich developed nations has to do with factors other than health care, so all your doing is providing another example to support your opponents arguments.