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: Archie Meeties who wrote (8532)	8/21/2009 12:02:36 PM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Wrong on the assumptions. More than 1/2 of all drunk driving crashes do not involve alcoholics. Facts, brother! Refocus time, brother. At issue is the validity of attributing alcohol-related accidental deaths to failure of the health care system. The only connection I could make, and did, between health care and alcohol-related accidental deaths was that alcoholism has recently been declared a medical condition. So drunk driving crashes involve non-alcoholics are irrelevant. We are only concerned here with that subset of alcohol-related accidental deaths that were caused by drunk alcoholics. The only role the health care system could possibly have in stopping deaths from drunk-driving crashes is to dry out alcoholics. Crashes caused by non-alcoholics are outside the scope. So your fact is irrelevant. Unless you want to accept my "straw man" and consider drunk driving a mental illness along with murder... <g> In this case, there is a cost effective intervention that reduces alcohol related trips to the er, even if they don't become abstinent. If it does, then that's great. Any micro-solution that can be found is a plus. I have no objection to your program. Sorry that I neglected to mention that during the course of our discussion. But I was in this discussion to deal with the issue of the role of the health care system in preventing accidents and the validity of the WHO data--that's my interest--and this program seems too small to be much of a factor. My interest in reading about it was only from the perspective of how it informed the issue on the table and I didn't find much. And now we can get back to the original question. Why do private health insurance co's not cover this and a whole slew of other public health measures? Well, I sure didn't think that the issue on the table was that. So if you would be so kind as to point me to where it became the "original question" so that I can find your context. Perhaps this discussion has gone on so long that I forgot from whence it came.