From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Harel posts a particularly clumsy lie.  (Was Re: "STRONG FAMILY VALUES" (III) (1))
Date: 12 Sep 92 03:06:18 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <ck9pbycp@csv.warwick.ac.uk> csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~) writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.182402.27238@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>In article <t8tpbzjf@csv.warwick.ac.uk> csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug30.224116.13550@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:


Just for a quick recap, WISP said that the "health care situation for
the population as a whole" was worse in the US than in any other
Western democracy.  I pointed out that this was a load of bogus
propaganda because the "helath care situation fo the population as a
whole" is not a meaningful thing to discuss unless you define it.
WISP responded by claiming that fewer Americans have coverage than
citizens in other countries.  I pointed out that this is not a measure
of the "health care situation for the population as a whole" and that
it wasn't very meaningful anyway.  Therefore, the bogus propaganda
charge still stood.  WISP responded by calling me one of "those "fuck
you, jack, I'm alright" products of the Reagan/Thatcher years..." but
still didn't bother to define the "health care situation of the
population as a whole."

>[Stuff about Harel's posting deleted...]
>>>>Evidence please...  To begin with, please define "The health care
>>>>situation for the population as a whole."  I don't think you can and I
>>>>think your statement above is just someone blowing hot air and
>>>>propaganda out their ass.

>>>OK, how about this? How many people in Europe, Oz, NZ, Canada and Japan (I
>>>haven't got the stats for Korea...) have no health cover?  THAT makes the
>>>health care situation worse in the US than in those other places, if you
>>>happen to care what happens to other people.

>>So, in other words, the sole measure of "The health care situation for
>>the population as a whole" is the number of people with health
>>insurance?  

>Well, I'm not going to say any more about Harel's stuff, because he's
>posted his source. 

And his source didn't say that the US "health care situation for the
populations as a whole" was theo worst in the industrialized world.
That was you, blowing propaganda out your ass without a single
supporting fact.  In fact you can't even define your terms.

>And no, the quality of health care available does not
>matter *if it is not available to you*! 

Good point.  Maybe instead of measuring the number of Americans with
or without health insurance we should see who does and doesn't get
treated.

>I said in an earlier post that no system is perfect,
>but that the national schemes at least have the basic humanity to provide
>cover for everyone. 

Which is cold comfort if you end up being the guy who has to wait six
months for a heart bypass.

>>>As for the hot air crack, I always take it as a good sign that I'm on the
>>>right track when someone who disagrees resorts to personal abuse. It's a
>>>typical response from those who know they hold the moral low ground...

>>Well, Chris, worrying about who is "more moral" is the typical
>>response of those who know they will lose if they rely on the numbers.

>So why the original insult then? If you know you'll win on numbers, why didn't
>you just quote them at me, rather than clutch at some pitiful dig which
>further undermines your cause?

How can I use numbers when you are incapable of defining your terms?
I tell you what...

The overal US health care score is 1000.  The second highest in the
Western world is 50.  Go ahead - disprove it.  Of course, to disprove
it you will have to define your own god-damned term.  You can't
because it is meaningless.  That's why I said that you are blowing hot
air and propaganda out your ass.  It isn't an insult.  It's the truth.
If you disagree then prove me wrong - define your term.

>All your glorious MRI scanners and single rooms with TV, sauna & jacuzzi
>and personal casino

I don't know about you, but except for the MRI scanners I don't rate
any of the stuff above when I'm in the hospital.

>don't count for anything alongside the worst peri-natal
>and infant mortality rates in the developed world, 

Except, of course, you have presented absolutely no evidence that
these problems are caused by failures of our helath care system.  For
example, I think you could reduce pre-natal and infant mortality much
more effectively by lining up drug users and pushers and shooting them
than you could by spending an extra trillion dollars on health care.

>or the hideous discrepancy
>between those who have and those who don't.

Does that mean that the situation improves if the people who have get
treated like those who don't?  Of course not.  The discrepancy has
nothing to do with how good our system is.

>Of course, if you're into
>social Darwinism, then you'll be delighted by the discrepancies. The only
>trouble with that philosophy is that when all the poor people have died out,
>there'll be no-one to do the jobs that, finally, keep the society from
>drowning in its own excrement. Happy drowning, Michael.

Interesting idea, WISP.  The only problem with it is that municipal
workers like the ones who deal with garbage and sewage almost
universally have health insurance for them and their families.  So
drowning in our own excrement isn't a worry.  The rest of your
reasoning suffers from the same faults - too much frothing at the
mouth and too little cold hard logic.


>The Wisp. [very grateful I'm not an American...]

Don't worry.  So are we.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12845 alt.politics.clinton:4911 alt.politics.bush:4715