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: spiral3 who wrote (9499)	9/14/2009 7:32:43 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

What makes you think that’s the question when it’s actually totally besides the point, an argument for a conclusion that’s completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, aka a red herring This thread talks about lots of things that are irrelevant. As do most threads. But even if the question someone puts on the table is irrelevant, it's still on the table. I was merely restating the question for focus. I posted: "explain by what logic you conclude the prevention will help the bottom line." Mary replied: "I am going to take a shot at that." Ergo, the question of how prevention affects the bottom line is on the table, no? What about that exchange would make you think that it isn't? Let me demonstrate by way of a recent example how the abovementioned is not always the case. And how, pray tell, is my clarifying the question an example of my inability to perform risk assessment? There is no risk in restating the question. It's simply an exposition device kind of like "tell them what you're going to tell them, tell them, then tell them what you told them." There's no risk to assess let alone get exercised over. The do nothing option implied in your question does not exist, so why assert it. I implied no such thing. I was just trying to explain the economics of living longer to counter the flaw in the assumption that prevention saves money. I wasn't proposing or debating any policy. your formulation does not correspond to any reality that I am aware of. Take a shot at my assertion if you like. Explain how the lifetime health-care costs for someone who lives longer before eventually dying would be less, if you can. The practical implications of the dying early option are not even a remotely viable proposition from any sort of political, medical or social pov. That's irrelevant to the question of whether prevention improves the bottomline. Now, if you want to put a different question on the table, please feel free to do so. Someone might be interested in engaging it. But don't try to tell me that the question on the table is irrelevant just because it's not the question you'd prefer.