(lost track of who wrote what)
>> But if you repeal ALL government mandates, you'll wind
>> up with lots of policies that appear to cover everything
>> a consumer might want, but are actually full of loopholes
>> so that the insurer need not pay for standard treatments.
>> That seems the op
Jeffrey S. Flier is Dean of Harvard Medical School. In the Journal of
Clinical Investigation article referenced below, Flier offers his
ideas on health care reform.
http://www.jci.org/articles/view/41033
Flier identifies three "root causes" for the symptoms of America's
h
Bruce wrote:
>What exactly *do* you propose as an alternative to public-option health
care
>for people who aren't fortunate enough to be able to afford health
insurance that
>will actually cover treatments?
You didn't ask me; but I thought I'd actually propose so
The Democrats can't close debate in the Senate. Republicans have no incentive
to compromise. U.S. health care reform is dead.
Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
gt; all
>> > un-bunched up because that could be pretty uncomfortable. Unfortunately,
>> my
>> > panties are riding up after trying to talk to you about health care,
>> like
>> > his did about pollution regulation.
>>
>> He did not try to discuss pollut
>Did someone say John's been on this list for 10 years? Did I misread
that??
I told John many of us had been. Maybe that got mangled. Maybe by me. :-)
Dan M.
myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
> Is health care so unimportant that it deserves no regulation?
We are starting from different worldviews, I think. I believe in
freedom for people to make agreements with each other as they choose
-- that is my starting point. You appear
if there is to be a
> >
> > Howso?
>
> Competition for consumer business.
Is there some way in which "consumer-driven" means something other than
"unregulated?"
Is health care so unimportant that it deserves no regulation?
Is health care so unimportant that people should
> Do you think you're fooling anyone with this schtick?
I hope not. It is certainly not my intention to fool anyone.
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
ase in cost of
health care, and many of them are not correlated. Having a heart
condition is not likely to lead to prostate cancer, for example.
> So it magically constantly decreases costs? No, read it again - the
> trend is that it will be 3-5% cheaper than a "PPO" plan.
Interest
On 17 Aug 2009 at 17:06, John Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Andrew
> Crystall wrote:
> > On 17 Aug 2009 at 12:51, John Williams wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew
> >> Crystall wrote:
> >>
> >> No, considering pre-existing conditions is not how health stat
o don't seem to have copious
amounts of free time to respond ad nauseum.
Did someone say John's been on this list for 10 years? Did I misread that??
I don't remember being this prodded to respond for many years -- probably
since JDG was here =+)).
Anyway, John, you said health care
> > That is extremely expensive, for all it's "simpler".
>>
>> Actually, studies have shown that consumer driven health care reduces
>> costs, and does not decrease preventative care.
>
> Except you're not proposing "consumer driven health care&
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Andrew
Crystall wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2009 at 12:51, John Williams wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew
>> Crystall wrote:
>>
>> No, considering pre-existing conditions is not how health status
>> insurance works. It takes into account the risks of healt
it would be simpler just to directly subsidize those
> >> who cannot afford to pay health insurance premiums, and leave the
> >> insurance market to function rationally.
> >
> > That is extremely expensive, for all it's "simpler".
>
> Actually, stu
On 17 Aug 2009 at 12:51, John Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew
> Crystall wrote:
>
> > Of course that's how it works. It's in the interest of insurance
> > companies not to pay out. Your shilling for corperations is amusing,
> > but not based in reality: insurance allways
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:11 AM,
dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>
>
> Original Message:
> -
> From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com
> Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 23:21:45 -0700
> To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
> Subject: Re: A Real Free Market in Healt
to pay health insurance premiums, and leave the
>> insurance market to function rationally.
>
> That is extremely expensive, for all it's "simpler".
Actually, studies have shown that consumer driven health care reduces
costs, and does not decrease preventative care.
http:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Dave Land wrote:
> On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:18, John Williams wrote:
>
>> If the government is going to interfere in the insurance market,
>
> You call it interference, I call it participation.
I'd agree with forced participation.
Here's an example of government force
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew
Crystall wrote:
> Of course that's how it works. It's in the interest of insurance
> companies not to pay out. Your shilling for corperations is amusing,
> but not based in reality: insurance allways takes into account risks.
No, considering pre-existing co
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:11 AM,
dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
> There is a reason why there isn't affordable long term insurance.
Yes, government interference and people who would rather spend other
people's money for their own insurance.
___
http:
On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:18, John Williams wrote:
If the government is going to interfere in the insurance market,
You call it interference, I call it participation.
Well, at least you don't try to hide your bias.
Dave
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman
On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:03, John Williams wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Andrew
> Crystall wrote:
>
> > Either it will have a higher premium to cover pre-existing
> > conditions, or it only covers things not caused by the pre-existing
> > condition.
>
> That is not how health status insu
On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:18, John Williams wrote:
> If the government is going to interfere in the insurance market, it
> seems to me that it would be simpler just to directly subsidize those
> who cannot afford to pay health insurance premiums, and leave the
> insurance market to function rationally.
On 18/08/2009, at 12:11 AM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
What you are searching for is akin to trying to find an even prime
number.
It's really easy to find one...
...but then you go looking for another...
Charlie.
But There's One, So There Must Be Another Eventually Maru
_
Original Message:
-
From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 23:21:45 -0700
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
>Another good reason for heath status insurance
John, you realize what you are arguing, don&#x
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Lance A. Brown wrote:
> The analogy between auto and health insurance fails in one regard: Most
> of the time, a 5x increase in auto insurance premiums is a direct result
> of decisions by the covered person. Many of causes for increases in
> health insurance pre
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Trent Shipley wrote:
> So insurance could charge someone with type II diabetes more, but not
> someone with type I diabetes. You could charge more to people who,
> smoke, are over weight, who don't exercise, or who practice un-safe sex.
>
> You couldn't charge mor
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Trent Shipley wrote:
> The people outside the boundary are not my responsibility. They are not
> my people. Furthermore, they don't participate in my moral economy.
> The status of the poor in my country has an immediate effect on me. I
> may be among the poor,
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Andrew
Crystall wrote:
> Either it will have a higher premium to cover pre-existing
> conditions, or it only covers things not caused by the pre-existing
> condition.
That is not how health status insurance works. It is insurance against
an increase in health insu
lth to improve healthcare because of the belief that
>>> everyone should have a chance to live and be healthy, then why not
>>> focus on redistributing wealth from people in the US to the people in
>>> the world who have far worse health care than those in the US?
>&g
Lance A. Brown wrote:
> John Williams said the following on 8/16/2009 5:08 PM:
>> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Hobby wrote:
>>
>>> It does strike me as a kludge, though. To continue
>>> your example of car insurance, I don't believe that
>>> anybody markets insurance against having your
John Williams said the following on 8/16/2009 5:08 PM:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Hobby wrote:
>
>> It does strike me as a kludge, though. To continue
>> your example of car insurance, I don't believe that
>> anybody markets insurance against having your car
>> insurance premiums ri
On 16 Aug 2009 at 16:30, John Williams wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Andrew
> Crystall wrote:
>
> > , so if you're a bad
> > health risk or have prexisting conditions you're very unlikely to be
> > able to get status coverage at a deacent price or at all in the first
> > place,
>
> T
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Andrew
Crystall wrote:
> , so if you're a bad
> health risk or have prexisting conditions you're very unlikely to be
> able to get status coverage at a deacent price or at all in the first
> place,
That is not the way health status insurance works. A pre-existing
On 16 Aug 2009 at 15:52, John Williams wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Andrew
> Crystall wrote:
>
> > Yes, you're simply refusing to accnowledge the actual results of the
> > policys proposed...
>
> What exactly am I refusing to acknowledge?
That you'd simply once again reduce the num
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Andrew
Crystall wrote:
> Yes, you're simply refusing to accnowledge the actual results of the
> policys proposed...
What exactly am I refusing to acknowledge?
> to be charged (as their "status" insurance can be cancelled,
Health status insurance "cancelled"? Not
On 16 Aug 2009 at 14:44, John Williams wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Andrew
> Crystall wrote:
>
> > Many people won't go for checkups if they have to pay out of pocket,
> > and they will ignore dangerous conditions for too long.
>
> Did you read the article, or just the excerpts I po
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Andrew
Crystall wrote:
> And immediately you're creating the concept that as aoon as anything
> happens, your insurance will go up, because the risk to the insurer
> that you'll not be paying them anymore has been pushed to another
> party.
I do not see how this f
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Andrew
Crystall wrote:
> Many people won't go for checkups if they have to pay out of pocket,
> and they will ignore dangerous conditions for too long.
Did you read the article, or just the excerpts I posted? This was
discussed in the article.
> Sure, evidence is
On 16 Aug 2009 at 14:08, John Williams wrote:
> New ideas can be difficult to get used to. Perhaps they could be
> bundled together for those who prefer it. But it would be a bundle --
> the two types of insurance are fundamentally different, since one pays
> a lump sum or equivalent (like life in
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Patrick Sweeney wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Hobby wrote:
> But if I do fall ill, for the insurer to raise my rates rather than
> provide the agreed-upon care seems like dirty pool.
That is only true if you had an agreement with the insurance co
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Hobby wrote:
> It does strike me as a kludge, though. To continue
> your example of car insurance, I don't believe that
> anybody markets insurance against having your car
> insurance premiums rise dramatically.
I do not think there is a as large a risk of
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Hobby wrote:
> I'd guess that Patrick is expecting health insurance
> to have health status insurance already built into it.
One would think the whole point of health insurance is to provide you
with health care (more precisely, the funds to a
John Williams wrote:
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Patrick
Sweeney wrote:
When you reach a point where the suggested solution to ridiculously
overpriced health insurance is to take out an insurance policy on your
insurance ... perhaps it's a sign that you ought to consider some
other system.
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Patrick
Sweeney wrote:
> When you reach a point where the suggested solution to ridiculously
> overpriced health insurance is to take out an insurance policy on your
> insurance ... perhaps it's a sign that you ought to consider some
> other system.
Actually, char
When you reach a point where the suggested solution to ridiculously
overpriced health insurance is to take out an insurance policy on your
insurance ... perhaps it's a sign that you ought to consider some
other system.
Patrick
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 12:24 PM, John Williams wrote:
> One thing tha
One thing that is often discussed in reference to health insurance is
that if someone is unexpectedly afflicted with a chronic condition,
their health insurance premiums will usually increase drastically.
Health insurance for someone diagnosed with a chronic condition might
go from $2,000 a year to
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:05 AM, Ronn!
Blankenship wrote:
>
> I'm only a little way into the article, but I take it Semmelwies is no
> longer mentioned in the medical school (or pre-med) curriculum?
I think that the guidelines Goldhill refers to are more systematic and
comprehensive than anything
At 02:51 AM Sunday 8/16/2009, John Williams wrote:
The Atlantic has a thoughtful article by David Goldhill on health care
and health insurance reform. It is long, but I think well worth
reading. I've also included below a few paragraphs that I thought were
particularly interesting.
The Atlantic has a thoughtful article by David Goldhill on health care
and health insurance reform. It is long, but I think well worth
reading. I've also included below a few paragraphs that I thought were
particularly interesting.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200909/health
put about $120 billion into less
developed nations, just for health care, in 2006, the most recent year I
came up with doing a quick search.
Ignoring the existence of foreign aid for health demonstrates either being
hopelessly out of the loop in terms of international politics or deliberate
omission of
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Chris Frandsen wrote:
> My generation has become noticeably stingier as our balance of trade swung
> around from crazy black to very red, starting with Nixon. Now it appears
> some do not even think we can care for our own people
Our "own people"? Who would that
[Lance] wrote:
> Jo Anne, did you have an HSA or a health care flexible spending account?
> Flexible spending accounts have a pre-selected amount of pre-tax
> dollars set aside that you can then spend on non-covered medical
> expenses. Those funds "expires" at the end of
causing a population explosion that we now have to deal
with. That aside, the topic *I'M* discussing is health care in the US.
> I think these sorts of details should be up to each consumer to decide
> upon.
And I wonder how much of a believer you would become should you, your
partn
which I can "redistribute wealth from people in
the
US to the people in the world who have far worse health care than
those
in the US."
But there are charities. And the ambitious (and/or extremely wealthy)
can start their own organizations. Why must your desired method
involve "gov
people in the US to the people in
the world who have far worse health care than those in the US?
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/lis
licy, with another on global threats and
national security, one on the environment, and one on strengthening
family life, which would include health care, education, and
retirement. I also think there should be one on parts of speech and
sentence structure. And one on fractions."
ar.
Jo Anne, did you have an HSA or a health care flexible spending account?
Flexible spending accounts have a pre-selected amount of pre-tax
dollars set aside that you can then spend on non-covered medical
expenses. Those funds "expires" at the end of the calendar year. I
thought al
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:08 PM,
dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
> Well, when you quote Cain as a fudmental moral position, you write words
> that result in a straight reading of the text leading to that conclusion.
Which has now thoroughly been taken out of context, and been repeated
several t
00
To: dsummersmi...@comcast.net, brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:43 PM,
dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
> I understand. But, since you expressed it as "I am not my brother's
> keeper", that's what most folks
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:43 PM,
dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
> I understand. But, since you expressed it as "I am not my brother's
> keeper", that's what most folks would call no compassion. You are free to
> express itbut we are free to disagree.
Why do we always end up with such sill
>Compassion and government are strange bedfellows. I'd prefer to
>express my compassion without government.
I understand. But, since you expressed it as "I am not my brother's
keeper", that's what most folks would call no compassion. You are free to
express itbut we are free to disagree.
ld be up to each consumer to decide
upon. It sounds like you and your family would favor a policy with a
lower stop-loss. I think if the government reduced most of their
interference in the health care market (see some of John Mackey's
points in the article I linked to earlier), that there w
Compassion, folks. IAAMOAC.
I agree with your points Jo Anne, and welcome hearing from you.
mail2web LIVE Free email based on Microsoft® Exchange technology -
http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE
__
people in the
> US to the people in the world who have far worse health care than those
> in the US."
But there are charities. And the ambitious (and/or extremely wealthy)
can start their own organizations. Why must your desired method
involve "government"?
___
agree,
that would solve the problem with policies that appeared
to cover things and actually didn't.
There are other reasons to have universal health care,
but there would have to be an element of coercion to
the implementation. You seem to be against even taxation,
as a matter of principle.
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:33 PM, David Hobby wrote:
> This is an old kind of argument that is usually used
> to support not taking action. It asks "How can you
> worry about A, when B is so much worse?"
That was a question, not an argument. And I am not being flippant. My
point is that I am not
Hello Group --
This discussion about health care is driving me a little crazy, as a retired
nurse. I agree with Dan, Nick, David and everyone else who sees the need
for some sort of universal risk pool. The one thing that irks me about
talking about high deductibles and health savings accounts
healthcare because of the belief that
everyone should have a chance to live and be healthy, then why not
focus on redistributing wealth from people in the US to the people
in
the world who have far worse health care than those in the US?
Why not?
The basic reason is that people are both tribal
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:26 PM, David Hobby wrote:
> How on earth is
> the average consumer going to check that their policy is
> NOT full of loopholes?
First, I'll point that I know of no system to ensure that there are
not loopholes or other problems with a product or service. The
government ca
that
everyone should have a chance to live and be healthy, then why not
focus on redistributing wealth from people in the US to the people in
the world who have far worse health care than those in the US?
Straw man.
I understand why that question makes you uncomfortable. It makes me
uncomfortable
John Williams wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 12:15 PM, David Hobby wrote:
John Williams wrote:
Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies
must cover.
...
Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what
health-care treatments cost.
...
Going by the present
lief that
>> everyone should have a chance to live and be healthy, then why not
>> focus on redistributing wealth from people in the US to the people in
>> the world who have far worse health care than those in the US?
>
> Why not?
>
> The basic reason is that people
then why not
> focus on redistributing wealth from people in the US to the people in
> the world who have far worse health care than those in the US?
Why not?
The basic reason is that people are both tribal and self-interested.
___
http://mc
dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
> People on this list have argued for the advantages of a free market system
> for health care and health care insurance. I have thought about it, and
> decided to apply what we know from other markets that have considerable
> less government
because of the belief that
>> everyone should have a chance to live and be healthy, then why not
>> focus on redistributing wealth from people in the US to the people in
>> the world who have far worse health care than those in the US?
>
> Straw man.
I understand why that question
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 12:15 PM, David Hobby wrote:
> John Williams wrote:
>>
>> Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies
>> must cover.
>
> ...
>>
>> Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what
>> health-care treat
then why not
> focus on redistributing wealth from people in the US to the people in
> the world who have far worse health care than those in the US?
Straw man.
--
GPG Fingerprint: 409B A409 A38D 92BF 15D9 6EEE 9A82 F2AC 69AC 07B9
CACert.org Assurer
__
cover.
...
Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what
health-care treatments cost.
...
John--
Going by the present state of things, the two
bullets above seem to contradict each other.
I can see why one might object to some government
mandates that insurance must cover certain
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:32 AM, John Williams wrote:
>
> http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/08/consumer-drive-health-care-plans.html
>
> Alex Tabarrok wrote:
>
> |For about the last 10 years the United States has been experimenting
> |with consum
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/08/consumer-drive-health-care-plans.html
Alex Tabarrok wrote:
|For about the last 10 years the United States has been experimenting
|with consumer driven health care plans. CDH plans typically combine
|a high-deductible insurance policy
ve to ObamaCare
Eight things we can do to improve health care without adding to the deficit":
Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of
high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts
(HSAs).
Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance
and individu
from people in the US to the people in
the world who have far worse health care than those in the US?
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 8:50 AM,
dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
> People on this list have argued for the advantages of a free market system
> for health care and health care insurance. I have thought about it, and
> decided to apply what we know from other markets that have considerab
People on this list have argued for the advantages of a free market system
for health care and health care insurance. I have thought about it, and
decided to apply what we know from other markets that have considerable
less government intervention.
For example, big screen TVs. If you have the
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 9:21 PM, John Williams wrote:
>
> I have posted articles that list a number of state mandates for health
> care plans. If a provider were to dare to sell a policy to a willing
> buyer, and that policy did not, for example, cover acupuncture in
> cert
mpel people at gunpoint to do
> as they say. Government lawmakers do. That is a huge difference.
So is the difference between criminal and civil law. So put away your
gun-toting straw men - nobody is talking about criminalizing private health
care. They're not even talking about makin
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Dan M wrote:
> How did you get > 1.2 trillion for Medicare and Medicaid?
I meant to write that Medicare and Medicaid _and other
government-related health care spending_ make up more than half. The
biggest additional component is the tax subsidy the gove
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Williams wrote:
>
>
>>> If less government regulation is better, why do are national health
>>> systems prevalent in many parts of the world?
>>
>> Why are wars prevalent in many parts of the world?
>
> Why do women lo
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 9:27 PM, Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why would it have to be restricted to a numerical scale? Couldn't you
> be polled on a range of issues to determine where the government was
> succeeding and where it wasn't?
Did you read the original post? A decision is
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 9:21 PM, Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The alternative might not seem any better, but for the money I'm
> pretty sure it couldn't be much worse, and I think its high time we
> try something else.
Your experimental system is highly inefficient. Don't you think i
John Williams wrote:
>> If less government regulation is better, why do are national health
>> systems prevalent in many parts of the world?
>
> Why are wars prevalent in many parts of the world?
Why do women love shoes?
Doug
non sequiturs r us
___
ht
John Williams
> How happy are you on a scale of 1 to 10? No, I don't think
> I'd trust my answers on that. Compared to what? Myself
> in the past? That would be hard to judge. Other people I
> know? Even worse (how do I know how happy they are?).
> And how to know how much of the "happiness" is du
Ronn! wrote:
> So what do you do if the present system is badly flawed but the only
> proposed alternative does not seem any better?
>
> (e.g., the named in the previous subject line)
If you're talking about heath care, maybe having tried the one system
and pretty much universally come to the co
At 02:26 PM Monday 11/3/2008, Wayne Eddy wrote:
>From: "John Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion"
>Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 12:18 AM
>Subject: Re: Democracy (was Health Care / The same damn topic all f-ing
&g
From: "John Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion"
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: Democracy (was Health Care / The same damn topic all f-ing
week!~)
>> Not even if they asked and you told them?
>
> Not even if they asked and you told them?
How happy are you on a scale of 1 to 10? No, I don't think
I'd trust my answers on that. Compared to what? Myself
in the past? That would be hard to judge. Other people I
know? Even worse (how do I know how happy they are?).
And how to know how much of t
John Williams wrote:
> 1) Why trust the government with measuring something as abstract as
> happiness, if it can be measured at all? I don't think I'd trust even my
> closest friends and family to measure my "happiness".
Not even if they asked and you told them?
Doug
__
Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Insurers routinely deny claims for
> no good reason except that they know a certain percentage of people won't
> fight them.
Sounds like you need to switch to another provider with better service. Although
that might be difficult, since all the government restric
1 - 100 of 273 matches
Mail list logo
