01-30-2005, 05:35 AM
Ghostiger,Jan 29 2005, 10:43 PM Wrote:A system that most people would never agree to isnt worth wasting time considering.
Now we may well at somepoint agree that some specific problems arent worth treating.(such as ressucitating terminal cancer patients, or doing a heart operation on a late stage Alzhiemers patient). But a simplistic system like was described is aburd because people wouldnt agree to it.
[right][snapback]66708[/snapback][/right]
What system are you suggesting that would work better? Besides people not agreeing to it, are there any other problems with it that you see and are arguing against?
My guess on this is that "basic health care" would have in it some basic cancer checks, and possible more complex cancers/heart diseases/etc. that are far cheaper to treat with prevention than with waiting, and/or certain groups of people have more risks of, and accidents. The more complex health care is everything else. Maybe accidents would get split into a third group if somethign liek this system were actually used.
I may be dead, but I'm not old (source: see lavcat)
The gloves come off, I'm playing hardball. It's fourth and 15 and you're looking at a full-court press. (Frank Drebin in The Naked Gun)
Some people in forums do the next best thing to listening to themselves talk, writing and reading what they write (source, my brother)
The gloves come off, I'm playing hardball. It's fourth and 15 and you're looking at a full-court press. (Frank Drebin in The Naked Gun)
Some people in forums do the next best thing to listening to themselves talk, writing and reading what they write (source, my brother)