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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (522999)	10/23/2009 1:00:42 PM
From: bentway	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1580597

"A live, being-treated patient cost MORE than a dead and buried one. That's what this argument is about." So, you admit being pro-death? How much is a human life worth? Doesn't that stand against the cost? I don't think that's going to win your team many votes.

To: i-node who wrote (522999)	10/23/2009 1:15:57 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580597

Al has claimed, adamantly, that preventive care saves money. For months now I have been trying to explain it to him, that preventive care doesn't save money. Your main point is that people live longer and that costs are proportional to lifespan. But preventive care is a decidedly progressive topic...the NEMJ article that you lean on to support your position was widely criticized for failing to consider the effects of health education in the schools and communities, particularly in the south, where poor diet and smoking are so prevalent. Cause and effect of life styles on our health are still a topic the medical community treats as a mere side issue. Al