In article ,
says...

"BAR" wrote in message ...

In article , lid says...

On 7/6/2012 4:10 AM, BAR wrote:
In article , lid says...

On 7/5/2012 8:10 PM, Califbill wrote:
"thumper" wrote in message ...

So you were happy with the status quo? If you are wealthy you always
have alternatives.

-----------------------------------------------------
Look at the rest of government programs. Way over budget, 40 cents on
the dollar being barrowed and you think government run health care
system will be an improvement?

status quo may be screwed, but why screw it up, most likely, even
more?

How do you explain numerous other nations getting better results at
less
cost? Are they smarter than us? Have more integrity?

http://blogs.ngm.com/blog_central/20...t-of-care.html

Better results? What are these better results you talk about. If I have
a problem I can go to a doctor today, be seen, diagnosed and prescribed
a method to wellness.

Will that be the case when the government is running health care.

Be careful that you don't substitute longevity for quality of life.

How would you quantify quality of life? Shorter lifespan is somehow
better? As I said, If you are wealthy you always have alternatives.

Quality of life is determined by each individual. When one person tries
to define it in general terms it is biased with their view.

I do not view quality of life as how long you live. It is how well you
live with "well" being defined as what you value most.
-----------------------------------
I define it a little different than you. True quality of life is being
healthy and not trashing those around you. Even if Harry is healthy, his
quality of life sucks. Quality of life is not really now rich you are
materially. And quantity of life is not quality of life.

You are determining Harry's quality of life based upon your biases.

Harry may believe that he has a great quality of life. He has a woman
who is supporting him which enables him to write posts to USENET all day
long from his basement.