or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by muppetry

  You find it amazing to think that restricting access to the most efficient, effective, rapid, non-contact killing devices that are readily available to the public, and that are currently used in 2/3 of homicides in the US, will not reduce homicide numbers? Even though that is exactly what statistics from other countries indicate. Notice that I said reduce - not eliminate - that is your straw man version, as is your partial quote of my post that omitted the observation...
  Having watched the clip (NPI) her explanation was rather rambling and she did give the impression of being confused by bullets, ammunition, magazines and clips, but in the wider context of what she talked about and her involvement with the bill, I suspect that she did simply have a bad night. It was somewhat amusing though.
  The Economist article is actually a rather good lay explanation of where some of the recent discrepancies between the empirical numerical and mechanistic models might arise from. Well worth a read. The problem looks more to be that he only read the first half, didn't understand it, and then quoted a couple of selective conditional observations.
  Agreed that quality and waiting period should be factored in, but even so, US healthcare is generally acknowledged to be vastly overpriced compared to other developed nations. Here are a few of the sources that I looked at that also support some of your comments - especially relating to state restrictions on insurance and the disconnect between supplier and customer:   An obvious starting point:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Healthcare   An overview of one...
  Tempting theory, but if you mean the entire ploy - get defeated and then showered with cash - I suspect not. The most popular explanation seems to be that they want to be respected, rather than penalized with isolation and sanctions, and that they have simply overestimated the clout that comes with developing nuclear weapons.
  Those are interesting observations, not least because healthcare provision in the US is generally regarded (my understanding anyway - and I found a number of comparative studies with that conclusion) as more competitive and less restricted than almost any other developed country. So you may be correct that those restrictions exist, but it is curious that similar, or even more onerous, restrictions elsewhere have not led to such an inflation of costs.   That suggests to...
  Which restrictions are you referring to?
  We may be arguing at cross-purposes here. Whatever unreasonable factors may be inflating healthcare costs above what they should be, I was pointing out that medical care is substantially more expensive than the 1900s version for other, unavoidable reasons. You are addressing why healthcare now costs more than it should. Different discussions.   I don't disagree with some of your points on that, although I do find it a bit odd that you call out hospital markups and then...
  Yes - and I'm not sure what did exist that might be labelled as a healthcare system of any kind, but no matter. In any case, I would argue that broadening the definition doesn't change the observation: there was medicine and there were doctors, but there was little or no expensive medical technology at the turn of the century, and the pharmacological industry was in its infancy, so drug costs were also low in comparison to today. Medical care costs overall were low...
  I suggest that you remind yourself of the history of healthcare in the United States before going any further.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_health_care_reform_in_the_United_States
New Posts  All Forums: