Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #461075
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.electronics.design |
| Subject | Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? |
| Date | 2017-05-20 15:58 -0700 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <ofqhep$uo7$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <aOVRA.13351$EE3.7170@fx09.am4> <offjpt$j6f$1@dont-email.me> <ofmije$c75$1@gioia.aioe.org> <ofniet$5vo$1@dont-email.me> <oforlu$5rn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
On 5/20/2017 12:36 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 19/05/2017 20:56, Don Y wrote:
>>>>> My 95yo mother was offered investigations into augmenting
>>>>> her aortic valve. After due consideration she declined because
>>>>> even if the risky process succeeded, it wouldn't affect
>>>>> her worst health issues.
>>>>>
>>>>> We don't have "death by unaccountable insurance company
>>>>> rules" here :)
>>>>
>>>> Most 95yo patients, here, would be covered by Medicare. These
>>>> patients often receive more care than they (in terms of expected
>>>> value of outcome) "should". SWMBO's 95yo mother was offered
>>>> dialysis treatment which could have prolonged her life -- the
>>>> downside being the perpetual visits to the dialysis clinic.
>>>
>>> That is tedious but if she was otherwise fit and healthy then it would
>>> not be
>>> unusual. If it was because her kidneys were just the most failed organ
>>> of a
>>> multiple systems failure then it might only delay death by a few days
>>> to go for
>>> invasive surgery repair.
>>
>> I'd think it highly unusual for a practitioner to be able to claim
>> time of anticipated death to that level of precision, let alone suggest
>> an expensive course of treatment in that time frame.
>
> In the very frail and elderly 90+ population it is actually quite common.
> Though the most common mode of failure is from falls at home. The bed rest to
> recover combined with loss of confidence leads to a downward spiral and then
> pneumonia. It is a well trodden path. :(
Perhaps in *specific* cases. SWMBO's mom (see above) had been pushed
towards kidney transplantation many years earlier; she declined. As
her GFR fell over the following years, the MD's pushed for dialysis;
she declined (despite the retirement home in which she resided having
an on-site "hospital" in which she could receive her treatment).
We had assumed she would have "stroked out" as her BP was significantly
elevated for *decades* (despite medication) -- no doubt one of the causes
of her renal failure.
>>> It does seem odd that in a market as large as the US has such
>>> exceptionally
>>> high prices for many common prescription drugs.
>>
>> The gummit is *banned* from negotiating prices for those drugs
>> in Medicare recipients -- i.e., the portion of the population
>> that consumes the *most* drugs!
>
> Wow! Those lobbyists sure are good at buying politicians votes!
It pays to understand ALL aspects of The Problem before suggesting a
remedy -- hence my attempt to elicit "first hand" details of other
"solutions" (and the little details that make dramatic differences)
>>> But then in a country with the
>>> best politicians that money can buy and plenty of lobbyists with fat cash
>>> stuffed brown paper envelopes I suppose it is only to be expected.
>>> That is
>>> before unethical buyout specialists grab small pharma companies and
>>> then price
>>> gouge by orders of magnitude:
>>
>> There are more "ethical" problems as well.
>>
>> HepC can be cured (in most patients) with Sovaldi. But, its an expensive
>> treatment (in the US) -- as an alternative to an eventual liver transplant.
>> Amazingly, the treatment cost is only high in the USA:
>> <http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-drug-price-sofosbuvir-sovaldi-india-us-20160104-story.html>
>
> No wonder if the drugs companies can charge what they like!
To be fair, they are charging what they feel they can get away with!
I'm sure if the demand fell, the price would, as well. In India,
perhaps they simply couldn't sell *any* doses at $1000/tablet and
decided $4 was what THAT market could bear.
If we did away with insurance, here, (i.e., CASH only, paid by patients)
would the price drop? Probably. But, I suspect a lot of *people* would
end up suffering/dying as well.
Companies worry about the dollars on their bottom line; not their "moral
constraints". The days of the Salks are long past.
> We are having similar bother with a few unusual off patent drugs and US style
> creative accountancy price gouging in the UK market now:
>
> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-fines-pfizer-and-flynn-90-million-for-drug-price-hike-to-nhs
>
> But we do have a competition authority to kick them in the teeth.
OTOH, they can simply decide "not to play" -- exit YOUR market and engage
in a publicity campaign to let your patients (voters) know that there IS
a treatment but that your gummit doesn't want to provide it to them.
You can spin an issue any way you want. Drug developers can claim they've
taken a risk, made an investment, etc. and SHOULD be rewarded -- else they
won't bother developing new products.
It's hard to try to imagine a set of circumstances that would cause folks
to "do the right thing" (whatever THAT might be) in the face of self-interests
to the contrary.
(Witness how poorly folks are at making "investment decisions" -- whether
that's investing in a financial instrument, a product purchase, their
retirement savings, or their own *personal* health decisions. "Smoking
WILL kill you" "You have a 1 in a billion chance of winning the lottery")
>> Do you disallow the drug in your plan's formulary (list of covered Rx's)
>> due
>> to its cost ($1000/dose)? Even if that means those patients will end up
>> incurring HIGHER costs (and poorer outcomes) with liver transplants?
>
> It's a pay now or pay a lot more later calculation. The rational solution
> depends on future interest rates and worker productivity.
But you also have patients expressing *their* "wishes" -- regardless of
the rationale behind them!
What do you do if a population (voters) opt to spend (shared) resources on
care that enables them to continue their destructive/unhealthy behaviors?
Tell them, "No, I know better..."? Or, appease them in the short run and worry
about the proverbial fan, later?
>> What about treating "destructive behaviors"? Naloxone can reverse the
>> effects
>> of an opiod overdose (think oxycodone... think heroin!) and potentially
>> save
>> the victim's life. But, at a cost (in treatment dollars as well as the
>> cost
>> to society -- by enabling a "destructive behavior" to persist in light of
>> natural selection:
>> <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/massive-price-hike-for-lifesaving-opioid-overdose-antidote1/>
>
> Its a reasonable treatment for poisoning. Making illegal drugs legal and taxing
> them like Switzerland would be a far more rational approach.
So, someone opted to divert resources into saving lives that would have
been lost to overdoses -- despite the fact that most overdoses are the
result of illegal activity.
It's like investing in an "automatic fuse replacer" instead of fixing the
problem that is causing fuses to blow... and, pitching it as a CONVENIENCE
FEATURE ("Save time replacing those pesky fuses...")
>> Its easy for folks to get emotional about these sorts of questions -- esp
>> if their only skin in the game is their tax dollars! :>
>>
>>>>> The bed-blocking issue is largely a dysfunctional consequence
>>>>> of different-pots-of-golds coming from different parts
>>>>> of the government. Anybody that has worked in a large
>>>>> company will have seen similar: "companies are condemned to
>>>>> produce products that reflect their organisational structure"
>>>>> There are moves to break that impasse. They probably will but
>>>>> will bring different dysfunctional behaviour.
>>>>
>>>> So, why not move those two "parts of government" into the same
>>>> "healthcare" part? Then, given that the funds are all coming from
>>>> the same "pie", that "part of government" can figure out how best
>>>> to shuffle resources between the "providers" to meet the ACTUAL
>>>> needs.
>>>
>>> It is a national government vs local government issue.
>>
>> Ah, so *different* governments, not different DEPARTMENTS (agencies)
>> in the *same* government. (Of course, to the tax payer, it's still
>> The Government)
>
> Exactly but they are from different pots of money. The problem is that central
> government has drastically cut local government funding.
<frown> I think you just added another issue to complicate my understanding.
The *central* government (the equivalent of our "federal gummit") is the
source of funds for the *local* gummits?
(I'm having a hard time deciding what our equivalent to your "local gummit"
would be -- a state? county? city? etc.)
Here, funding 9and sources of funding) originate at many different levels
of The Government (an indirect reference to my earlier claim that they are
DIFFERENT gummits).
The Federal gummit ("Washington DC") imposes taxes in the form of income tax,
excise taxes (on certain classes of products), fees, etc. Much of this is
administered (spent) by the Feds. Some is passed out to the "States" for
various purposes.
Each State government has additional, independent sources of funds. Many
states have income taxes, or, (sales) taxes on certain services/products.
They administer those funds and/or disburse portions to other "sub"governments
within the state.
Counties have their own governments and own taxing means -- sales taxes,
property taxes, etc. -- to augment monies received from the state gummit
(in addition to "grants" from the federal gummit).
Cities have their own gummits and funding sources that they administer
(sales tax and property tax as well as fees on services). Some cities
also have "head taxes" that amount to a sort of income tax.
It is usually clear who provides a *service*; but, who (where) provides
the funding source for that may be more complicated. And, can change, over
time.
E.g., our property taxes used to cover the costs of trash pickup. Until the
city decided they could spin that off as a separate "fee" (of course, this is
done to allow TOTAL revenues to be increased as the property tax doesn't
DECREASE by the amount of the trash fee :> )
Our police are funded by property taxes, federal grants, private grants,
state taxes/grants, and local sales tax. So, I know who *hires* the cops
but no idea how much of his salary comes out of my pocket -- and via which
taxing mechanism. (Monies aren't typically explicitly "earmarked")
I would assume your "local gummits" have some sort of "local" revenue source?
Or, are you saying they are (largely) funded from above?
>>> Not surprisingly there are territorial turf wars at each of these
>>> boundaries
>>> with creative bean counters playing "pass the parcel".
>>
>> <frown> I guess I can't understand the (apparently common!) "need for a
>> bed".
>
> Because people are living much longer and ultimately end up frail and disabled
> or demented - therefore not safe to go home.
But people are living much longer here, as well. It is rare for someone to
be DISALLOWED to return to their home (house, apartment). And, I can't
think of anyone opting to pay for them to "reside" in a hospital setting.
(I.e., why don't your hospitals *pay* for the CHEAPER beds in those other
facilities as a means of cutting THEIR costs of warehousing those folks?)
>> If I call an ambulance in response to a medical emergency <somewhere>, the
>> paramedics will do some on-site care and, possibly, arrange to transport me
>> to a "nearby" hospital. The choice of hospital is typically theirs and
>> can be driven by the nature of my "problem" as well as the current
>> "availability" of staff/resources at the various likely hospitals (e.g.,
>> there
>> are two or three equidistant from my home; others if I want to tack a
>> few more
>> travel miles on). E.g., most trauma care is provided at just *one* of the
>> local hospitals (in a metro area of 500K+)
>>
>> If a hospital is "on divert" (rejecting all but CRITICAL patients), they
>> will
>> be elided from the mix. I suspect if I were to drive myself to such a
>> hospital, I would be cared for -- though perhaps with much longer wait
>> times.
>>
>> Once in the ER, triage determines my place in the queue. I may end up
>> waiting for a bed in the ER department -- unless it is a *real* emergency
>> in which case I may be treated on a gurney in the hallway, etc.
>>
>> I can be discharged directly from the ER *or* admitted into the hospital
>> therefrom.
>
> In the UK for patients presenting with complex multiple problems though most
> likely one main acute problem they go to the emergency assessment unit where a
> multidisciplinary team look at the best approach.
The same happens, here. EVERY hospital has these facilities. Many
"urgent care" facilities operate along the same lines -- including
referring folks to more capable facilities (e.g., if you present
with a gunshot wound to the head, they are NOT going to treat you
beyond keeping you alive until the ambulance can fetch you)
>> When my care is complete, I would typically be discharged to my *home*;
>> an inquiry made as to whether or not someone can drive me home, etc.
>>
>> In some small number of cases, you might be discharged to a continuing care
>> facility (convalescent home, nursing home, etc.).
>
> Ageing population so that this is invariably the dominant pathway.
Yes, but *our* population is also aging. Are *your* demographics
that different from ours?
I see a 0.8% figure for >= 90 UK but can't quickly find a
corresponding one for the US (0.44% @ 85+ = 4M souls).
Returning to the 90+ source and adding in the 80-89 figure
suggests 2.3% (1.4M souls)
[NB: data sources differ; UK not, just England]
Wow! What a bunch of old geysers! ;) That might explain the need for
places to warehouse folks. OTOH, its a screwy statistic as out population
is 10 times yours and the over 85 crowd is 3 times yours (instead of 10X)
in terms of body count.
>> By far, most discharges are to your own home (or apartment) -- even if you
>> "live alone". My neighbor was hauled off late one night with a heart
>> attack.
>> And, returned home a few days later -- "his problem" if he thinks he needs
>> help around the house. Likewise, neighbors who've had hips replaced,
>> shoulders, back surgery, neck surgery, amputations, etc.
>>
>> They typically will receive "a la carte" continuing care/therapy on an
>> out-patient basis in the days/weeks thereafter. But, The System avoids
>> the cost of housing them during that period.
>
> It is the same in the UK but they are somewhat more careful about the welfare
> of the people they discharge from hospital than in the USA if things are truly
> as you describe.
I'm thinking of my CHF friend. He was in his early (?) 80's when he gave up
the ghost. He'd be released from the hospital, spend a week or two abusing
his diet until his body had swelled enough to make breathing and moving
difficult. Then, take an ambulance BACK to the hospital. This happened
several times (with decreasing intervals between "visits" and lengthening
"stays") in the last year of his life.
Clearly, he was unable to take proper care of himself at home...
>> Prolonged hospital stays are typically in the final stages of life
>> (folks complaining they don't want to DIE in the hospital -- but
>> death being almost immediately assured if they were discharged)
>
> Therein lies the problem hence bed blocking in the NHS.
>
>> There is a lot of pressure on hospitals to discharge people earlier instead
>> of later. Insurers don't want to be paying for "expensive hotel rooms".
>> Many surgical procedures are now done without an overnight stay.
>>
>> [This is kinda a Good Thing cuz being IN the hospital is one of the bigger
>> risk factors (infections, etc.)]
>>
>> I just don't see the Magic Bullet that makes "single payer" any better
>> than "private health care" (at least the US form thereof). I suspect
>> this option will see renewed interest when Trumpcare (whatever it
>> becomes) also proves inadequate to tackling the healthcare cost crisis.
>> So, I'd like to have a leg up on the likely downsides that come with
>> it (based on existing implementations, elsewhere) instead of the
>> inevitable EMOTIONAL appeals that rely on specious reasoning ("Gee,
>> that SOUNDS like it might be true, therefore, it IS!")
>
> Mostly it just works. Some places are better than others. Chances are that I
> may not get value for money out of my contributions to the NHS scheme but I am
> *GLAD* of that. We buried one of my friends who has been struggling with MS for
> three decades this week. She certainly got her and perhaps 500 other peoples
> money's worth of NHS care which kept her alive this long. What would happen to
> someone in the USA who was struck down by such an ailment and so eventually
> lost their job?
Worked with a guy many years ago who (eventually) succumbed to MS. While
employed, the company's healthcare covered his costs for care. I suspect
he resorted to a combination of COBRA (allows you to continue your employers
health care coverage "out of pocket" for 18 months after leaving a job)
and social security disability benefits.
Another friend who died from ALS had purchased "long term care" insurance
(one of the best "investments" she made) so they covered most of her costs
(incl in-home care).
> The NHS treats people according to their medical needs and by averaging the
> risk over the entire population can treat everyone and not just a favoured few
> who can afford extortionately priced private insurance.
But "ability to pay" doesn't correlate with "health" -- just the amount
of care of which you can avail yourself. Likewise, *price* of care doesn't
correlate with quality of life, etc.
(There was a concerted effort to convince folks of the equivalent efficacy
of ethical drugs, regardless of source. Folks initially considered "generic"
drugs as somewhat inferior to the innovator's variant)
Here, the insurer is just the *payer*; it can't "practice medicine" -- that
is reserved for licensed doctors.
So, if your insurance policy covers a particular illness, treatment, etc.
AND you can get a doctor to recommend that treatment, then you get it
and the policy pays for it. The insurance company doesn't say, "you're
85 and have 4 other comorbidities so we're not going to pay for this
treatment".
Medicare is similar -- except that the "terms of the policy" have these
sorts of constraints built in.
In either case, you can obtain whatever treatment you can "convince" a
doctor to provide if you can pay that doctor directly. Many might resist
"prescribing" a particular treatment plan but there are lots of doctors
and ANY one can act as your source! (CASH talks)
>> And, how you regulate health care delivery ("rationing") will differ
>> based on the mechanisms available in each system (here, not having
>> insurance
>> is one way to restrict access to healthcare -- but not the NEED for that
>> care or the externalities arising from its "denial"!)
>>
>> ISTM that the only way to get those costs under control is to limit the
>> *need* for them. I.e., have a healthier population. But, perversely,
>> that tends to require MORE services (at least in the short term) to
>> "top off" the health of the population. Passing "some" of the cost on
>> to the patient is demonstrably NOT an effective way to alter behavior!
>
> A healthier population is still a problem. The only thing certain in life is
> death and taxes. Eventually even if you are fit and healthy you will fall and
> break a bone or some internal organ will fail.
Of course. But, expectations can change based on typical longevity.
I doubt many folks (today) would complain if they took a fall at 115
and died in short order, thereafter -- having been healthy up to that
point. OTOH, there re audible gasps when someone in their 50's dies.
Esp if a result of something that could have been "treated" or
"managed" -- medically or with lifestyle changes.
The problem we face (US) is chronic illnesses that affect quality
of life AND cost of care. And, because we've found treatments that
can allow people to live WITH these problems for long periods of time,
the costs soar.
>> [I wonder what it would be like if you told smokers (e.g.) "We WON'T cover
>> any of the following ailments associated with smoking". Or, the obese
>> (e.g.) "We WON'T cover any of the following ailments associated with
>> obesity".
>> I suspect even that wouldn't be enough to verifiably alter behaviors]
>
> Rationing access to surgery for those with BMI>30 is one such policy but it is
> controversial (and pretty stupid if the surgery is to apply a stomach band as
> treatment for being overweight!).
But, people complain that they are being unfairly discriminated against!
Tell someone he has to buy *two* airline seats and he'll fly another carrier.
His "freedom" to hang over into the seat adjoining has been impacted.
Tell him he can't have a particular medical procedure and he'll be calling the
local newspapers to complain.
When there are lots of people like (or similar) to him in society at large,
what do you do? He's got "sympathy": "How do I know that they won't deny
*me* that care -- I know I'm 'a few pounds' overweight...?"
That's why its so much easier to pick on drug addicts (treatments for
overdoses), homosexuals (AIDS/HIV), etc. -- people "lacking in some moral
capacity" (surely over-eating isn't such a failing??)
>> Or, to alter the *expectations* people have of them ("You have cancer.
>> Start making your final arrangements...")
>
> Plenty of cancers are survivable these days if caught early enough.
But if access to health care is gated (by policy, price, etc.) then
how do you "catch it"... early?
>> I just don't see how changing the payment (*or* provisioning) aspect will
>> do anything to change the trajectory of healthcare costs.
>
> The trajectory will always be upwards (unless we completely ruin the power of
> antibiotics to knock down infections). We can cure more things now and keep
> people alive who would not have survived in the past.
Exactly. And, people *expect* it. "Don't you have a PILL for that?"
They think that whatever the malady, regardless of their role in its
genesis, there WILL be a magic bullet. And, that magic bullet WILL allow
them to continue life as usual.
A neighbor is diabetic. Both are significantly obese. The canister set
that adorns their kitchen counter is filled with midget candy bars (milky
way, snickers, etc.). Really??? You CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT THOSE?? Yet
the spare bedroom full of exercise equipment is covered in a thick layer
of dust...
> It is now rare for people to die in a few days from blood poisoning arising
> from a minor infection like they did before penicillin. MRSA and other hospital
> acquired infections are changing that though...
Back to sci.electronics.design | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 15:10 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-05-13 22:54 +0000
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 15:59 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 00:34 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 17:11 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 08:49 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-14 02:00 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 10:14 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-14 08:31 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 15:56 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-14 09:04 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 18:02 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-14 16:10 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-15 01:12 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-16 10:57 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-18 10:42 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 14:10 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 10:19 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 15:48 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 13:19 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 18:47 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 15:40 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-18 00:03 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 19:39 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-18 08:09 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> - 2017-05-18 09:13 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-18 09:37 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 04:57 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 09:58 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-17 08:21 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 13:28 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 09:13 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 10:14 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 13:31 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 19:17 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 17:47 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 23:45 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-19 19:57 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 23:35 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-20 07:42 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-20 00:48 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-23 09:24 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 12:19 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-23 17:44 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 16:49 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-05-24 08:29 +1000
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 19:26 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-05-24 11:32 +1000
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 01:16 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-24 18:04 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-24 07:40 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-05-31 11:57 +0000
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 09:05 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-06-20 05:12 +0000
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-23 21:07 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-23 19:04 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-23 18:46 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-24 12:56 +0200
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 12:37 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-24 18:12 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-24 16:11 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-24 19:49 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-26 15:41 +0200
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-23 18:44 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 18:18 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 18:54 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-14 23:00 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-15 15:32 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-15 15:01 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-16 00:52 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? kevin93 <kevin@whitedigs.com> - 2017-05-15 19:17 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-15 19:26 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-16 12:01 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-16 21:12 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-16 13:51 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-16 20:26 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 15:50 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-14 13:27 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 22:00 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? kevin93 <kevin@whitedigs.com> - 2017-05-14 18:39 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-13 16:20 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 17:05 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-13 17:49 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-13 18:02 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-13 21:25 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 21:28 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-13 19:39 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-15 13:05 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-15 20:37 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-15 18:19 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-15 21:53 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-16 09:18 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-16 12:51 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-20 11:54 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-20 12:05 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-22 08:58 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-22 11:58 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-15 19:29 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 18:06 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-13 18:38 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 18:44 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-05-13 17:35 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-13 17:56 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-13 21:00 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-13 18:11 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-13 21:29 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-13 18:47 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-13 22:37 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-13 19:56 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-14 00:08 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-13 21:20 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-14 18:02 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 18:16 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 18:02 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 15:58 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-14 09:19 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-14 13:29 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 18:40 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-14 18:04 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-05-14 11:12 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-14 12:23 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-05-14 10:55 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-14 13:32 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-13 20:44 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 21:03 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-13 20:17 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 20:57 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 08:55 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-14 08:11 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 14:25 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 23:54 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-15 09:09 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 18:43 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-18 00:05 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-13 19:30 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-05-13 16:32 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 17:00 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-13 16:39 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 17:18 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-13 17:31 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 17:36 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-13 20:58 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 21:40 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-15 12:58 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 21:35 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-15 13:17 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-15 19:04 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-16 09:27 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-16 19:49 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 21:27 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-15 13:13 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-15 18:53 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-16 09:16 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-16 19:43 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 18:52 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-17 18:23 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 09:59 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 18:47 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Riddle <martin_ridd@verizon.net> - 2017-05-13 20:06 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? mrdarrett@gmail.com - 2017-05-17 12:53 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Clifford Heath <clifford.heath@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 13:33 +1000
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 23:53 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-14 00:11 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-15 13:24 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-15 20:39 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-15 19:16 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-16 09:29 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 18:58 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-13 21:04 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-14 00:10 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Clifford Heath <clifford.heath@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 14:29 +1000
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 00:48 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 00:13 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-14 18:10 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-18 09:44 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-18 12:34 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-18 09:34 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-18 09:03 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-18 12:36 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 14:12 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-18 14:36 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-18 17:43 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-18 18:01 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-18 15:18 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-18 19:39 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 21:26 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-19 09:22 +0200
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 13:37 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-19 17:51 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-22 11:30 +0200
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 12:32 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-23 10:58 +0200
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 17:09 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-23 14:30 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-24 13:30 +0200
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 13:01 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-26 15:43 +0200
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 21:13 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-05-19 07:50 +1000
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-18 20:03 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 20:39 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Rheilly Phoull <rheilly@bigslong.com> - 2017-05-14 12:19 +0800
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-13 22:08 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 22:20 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-18 18:10 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 21:31 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 10:28 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 10:53 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-16 12:30 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 19:17 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 11:49 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-19 12:56 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-19 18:05 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-20 08:36 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-20 15:58 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-23 10:21 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-23 13:26 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 17:41 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-05-24 08:37 +1000
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 00:45 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-23 18:52 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-15 00:52 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-15 15:16 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-15 08:08 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-15 13:33 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 09:50 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 01:32 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-16 08:05 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 19:19 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2017-05-25 08:57 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-25 11:49 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-25 18:04 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-25 13:15 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-26 09:15 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-26 09:28 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 04:40 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-05-31 06:19 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-31 18:08 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-25 18:30 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-25 13:15 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-26 09:54 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-26 12:23 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-26 13:44 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-26 13:47 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-06-24 00:18 +0000
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-06-24 00:24 +0000
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-24 09:20 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-06-24 12:38 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-06-24 12:11 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-24 13:04 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-06-29 14:20 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-29 15:37 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-06-30 11:05 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-30 08:13 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-06-30 12:26 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-06-30 03:43 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 21:07 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-26 18:59 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-26 22:17 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-27 09:37 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-27 09:30 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-27 18:23 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2017-05-26 08:47 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-26 13:43 -0700
csiph-web