Quote:
Originally Posted by LessinSF
I apparently misunderstood. By your shorthand "the coverage won't be as good as most people's current coverage. it cannot be," you were not supporting the current system. You were either: (1) agreeing with me that we spend too much money on too much "coverage" for "most" people; (2) agreeing with me that we need to have a system that kills more people at a lower cost; or (3) both.
|
I agree that really fucked up people should be allowed to just die (note this is where you and I sign onto Palin worst nightmare, but ok) instead of costing a half million before they die.
I also happen to support covering the uncovered, which will raise our overall costs, but is the right thing to do.
I'm just saying that to look at how "effective" our health care is "on average" based on life span when 20% of us don't have any coverage is silly, like Ty-think, beneath you.
Threaded Mode