Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 08:55:56PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: >> Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: >> >> > Iraq also does not have a functioning economy. Now, you might argue >> > that providing National healthcare is simply getting them addicted to >> > it. Which I think is true. However, I think that in this case it is >> > the right thing to do. >> >> Probably because, you know, nearly everyone in a society needs healthcare >> and pays taxes, so national healthcare is the simplest strategy to cover >> the maximum number of people, no? >> > Yes, because the government is a model of efficiency. Come on. The > simplest stratedy is to not tax people so much and let them figure it > out for themselves.
Fail. That leaves about 7% of the population, almost 47 million people, without health coverage of any kind whatsoever. >> > It would be nice if there were a better way, but I doubt there is. >> >> So since we're in agreement that collectively paying for healthcare is >> the way to go, why not introduce it here? >> > We are not in agreement. Collective, governmnet-run healthcare is a > necessity in Iraq because they currently lack a functioning market > economy. We have one of those. Barely. Since Bush came into office, Oregon has seen unemployed & discouraged rates approaching 25%. > In fact, we have arguably one of the best in the world. It would be a > colossal screw up to introduce socialized medicine here. That would be why Luxembourg and Norway have higher GDPs, right? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
