Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #461424
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.electronics.design |
| Subject | Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? |
| Date | 2017-05-23 13:26 -0700 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <og25mc$3rq$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (4 earlier) <ofmije$c75$1@gioia.aioe.org> <ofniet$5vo$1@dont-email.me> <oforlu$5rn$1@gioia.aioe.org> <ofqhep$uo7$1@dont-email.me> <og0uts$1j0g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
On 5/23/2017 2:21 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 20/05/2017 23:58, Don Y wrote:
>> On 5/20/2017 12:36 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
>>> On 19/05/2017 20:56, Don Y wrote:
>
>>>> 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!
>
> ie what the market will stand and like Nike and Addidas they have suckers in
> American queueing up for the branded product and ignoring equally good generic
> alternatives.
Actually, the difference between ethical manufacturers has pretty much
disappeared. Folks now tend to realize generics to be equivalent (both
in efficacy and manufacturing standards) as their innovator counterparts.
(some "inert" other characteristics may differ -- e.g., dissolution time,
shape/color/size, etc. As such, the "patient information sheet" typically
dispensed with each product will identify the visual characteristics
of the tablet from THIS manufacturer -- cuz it may not resemble the
tablet that was dispensed the last time you filled THIS Rx)
Most Rx forms (paper and electronic) now include a box that the prescriber
can tick that "allows (generic) substitutions". And, many prescribers
don't use "brand names" on their prescriptions. Most insurance plans
will only reimburse for the cost of the generic so foolish to willingly pay
for a more expensive version of the (functionally) same item!
OTOH, pharma can advertise their products, now. This includes the
(brand) name of the product, its indications and, almost always /sotto voce/,
the contraindications and side effects. The goal, obviously, being to
get the PATIENT to suggest the product to their provider -- instead of relying
on the provider to initiate the dosing.
>> Companies worry about the dollars on their bottom line; not their "moral
>> constraints". The days of the Salks are long past.
>
> Perhaps the capitalism has lost its way and we are back in a devil take the
> hindmost kill or be killed culture. The UK still has some businesses with an
> ethical stance on the treatment of their workers.
There is a high degree of variability -- both in the "corporate attitude"
and the attitude of individual workers.
Some firms fold the costs of keeping customers happy into their "cost of
doing business". E.g., most folks would rate Costco's customer experience
highly. No hassles returning items, helpful/friendly staff, etc. OTOH,
there's no haggling over prices -- they are what they are.
I recall buying a copy of AutoCAD in the 80's and haggling with the dealer
over price. Finally settling on a price "with no support" -- made sense
to me as I didn't need help using the product and surely wouldn't want to PAY
for that help without using it. When I encountered a bug in the AME package,
the dealer was quick to remind me of the "no support" condition of the sale.
"Look, I'm not asking YOU to tell me that I'm doing something wrong.
I just want you to pass this tiny demo file that I have carefully created
along to the folks at AutoDesk so they can *see* the bug in their product."
A week later, he called me to pick up another set of floppies and another
license key. Did I get more "support" than I paid for? Or, was this EXACTLY
the usage case that we'd discussed?
>>> 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.
>
> That would backfire spectacularly on the company that tried it here.
Except for the folks who are afflicted with the disease/illness. While they
might grumble that the NHS doesn't cover the care (because the provider
doesn't want to meet the NHS's terms), that doesn't mean they won't try to
figure out how to GET it for themselves!
A certain part of business relies on understanding the psychology of your
customers. And, adjusting your practices (e.g., prices) to maximize their
benefit to *you*.
E.g., pharma knows people WON'T make significant lifestyle changes -- esp
if they can develop a "pill" that will allow them to continue their old,
familiar practices/habits. Trade money for behavioral inertia -- esp if
its someone else's money (vs. YOUR behavioral adjustments)!
>> 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.
>
> One really serious problem is developing new antibiotics. The new ones will be
> held in reserve and *NOT* used for as long a possible meaning that all the R&D
> costs and no foreseeable payback for the company. So guess what they don't
> invest much in new antibiotics. We will pay dearly for this mistake (and also
> for pumping them into cattle to make them get fatter quicker).
Of course! The same is true in other industries. As a kid, I developed a
little tool, disclosed it to the manufacturer. Was surprised (young/naive)
to see that they had an established process by which they evaluated the tool,
its impact on sales of OTHER products/tools AND its value to the company...
and, ultimately, to me as the "inventor".
"We surely don't want to start selling Sandpaper2.0 and cut into sales
of Sandpaper1.0 -- until we are forced to do so by a competitor developing
a product that steals market share from our 1.0 product! We know how to
make Sandpaper2.0 so we'll just keep it in the vault, for now..."
>> 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.
>
> There was a time when industrialists and businessmen in the UK had a conscience
> - most but not all of them were Quakers and founded some major companies with
> relatively benign (for the time) conditions of employment. Notable among the
> was Robert Owen:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owen
>
> These days commerce is dominated by spivs and speculators who are out to make
> money and have no ethics or principles beyond selfish greed.
That wasn't uncommon in the past, here, either. Some early industrialists
built their fortunes on the backs of The Multitudes.
Here, the most discouraging trend is the short-sightedness of "investments"
and business decisions. The need for more immediate (if not instant)
gratification, the aversion to risk esp on any sort of extended time scale,
etc. (though this largely mirrors how individuals tend to behave)
Its amusing when folks are told to "invest" in an education, etc. -- and
the timeframes are considerably longer than what BUSINESS would consider
as an "investment".
>> 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.
>
> The main local income that the local governments get is the Poll Tax to provide
> local services and other amenities. But they are in practice heavily dependent
> on national government to give them funding.
The Feds pay for very little of the services that we use on a daily basis.
Property taxes and sales taxes cover most of the costs for services
that aren't directly covered with "fees".
Non-local income sources are subject to being withdrawn on the whims of
those who have control over them. And, rarely do the funds flow back to the
same geographical areas that generated them. I.e., folks in my city may
end up paying $X in gas (petrol) taxes and receive only $Y (< X) in
services/products paid for by those taxes.
>>>>> 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?)
>
> Because there are no beds in suitable nursing homes available to buy! The
Ah! Then, why not invest in building such facilities? If only to light
a fire under the private sector ("Hey, if you guys can't address this need,
we'll go into competition with you!")
> private sector nursing homes are run with 100% occupancy rates and no spare
> capacity to obtain maximum ROI. There was a time when the state did run some
> nursing homes but they were sold off (and in some cases then closed down to
> create a shortfall and increase prices).
>>> 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)
>
> In the UK most people are unaware of the brand names of such drugs so the
> problem of wanting medical pill versions of RoundUp(TM) instead of generic
> glyphosate simply do not arise. UK citizens are much less brandname pill
> popping hypochondriacs than our US cousins.
(see above) I think most folks are comfortable reciting a UNIQUE "brand name"
for a drug than trying to recall a scientific name of a compound. Its
more common for folks to say "Advil" or "Tylenol" than "ibuprofen" or
"acetaminophen". Similarly, folks refer to "Kleenex" and "Xerox" instead
of "facial tissue" and "photocopy".
In each case, rarely would the person requesting the product complain that
"This isn't Advil (TmReg)" or "This isn't Kleenex!"
>>>> 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.
>
> Well you will have supersize portions and junk food on tap everywhere.
We also have nutritious foods available (almost) everywhere. But, they
tend to be more expensive -- in terms of direct product costs AND the
associated (in)convenience. I can't eat a piece of salmon while driving
to work -- but, I can wolf down a battered, fried piece of (questionable)
cod held between two slices of bread!
And, I doubt many would complain if given a "supersize" portion of salmon
("Can you wrap up the leftovers for me, please? I'll reheat it and have
it for lunch, tomorrow...")
In general (IME) things tend to be more rushed, here. I recall my first
visit to England and spending what seemed like FOREVER in the executive dining
room: "Sheesh! Where the hell is the food? When can I get back to work
so I can get back *home*??"
>>>> [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.
>
> If the carriers all do it then they will have no choice.
Yes, but no one wants to be the FIRST to do so! And, if they all "get
together" and "conspire" to do such a thing, it smells of collusion...
esp if it can be seen as a way for them to charge more for the "same"
service!
The subtler way is to quietly put into place such a policy (knowing
full well that it will quickly become public knowledge) *and*, simultaneously,
highlight "enhanced comfort" for the flyers that don't need two seats and
won't be subjected to sitting adjacent to someone whose "body floweth over".
As customers move away from the first carrier to avoid the double seat charge,
the discomfort of the rest of the passengers flying on those carriers
increases until they find the "enhanced comfort" offer more appealing.
But, this is a gamble on the part of the business. And, may take time to
realize any returns. AND, if it just causes your competitors to adopt
the same policy, you haven't gained any advantage!
>> 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??)
>
> We haven't reached the point in the UK where being considerably overweight is
> normal.
They are redesigning aircraft to handle an increase in the average
passenger weight -- both in terms of the space allowed for them
and the fuel budgets, etc. (I think previous target was 150#/seat
and that is now up to 200#/seat -- and that's just an AVERAGE!)
<http://www.aircraftinteriorsinternational.com/articles.php?ArticleID=422>
And, more fluff:
<http://www.travelchannel.com/interests/travel-tips/articles/tips-for-the-weight-challenged-traveler>
<http://www.ifly.com/overweight-passengers>
<https://www.cheapair.com/blog/travel-tips/airline-policies-for-overweight-passengers-traveling-this-summer/>
>>>> 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?
>
> Screening the more common ones and hope that doctors recognise the symptoms and
> refer their patients for tests. Otherwise fit men are a bit of a problem in
> this respect as they present with symptoms too late.
Again, if folks don't have access to those providers (because of cost),
there's no way for the provider to ever NOTICE the symptoms!
I had two friends eventuall diagnosed with brain tumors by observations
from their *ophthalmologists*. Many people don't have an optometrist,
let alone an ophthalmologist! They buy "reading glasses" to handle
their vision changes.
>>>> 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...
>
> Sigh. You can't prevent people doing stupid things. Over here most (but sadly
> not all) diabetics are pretty careful about what they eat.
Its not an indictment of ALL diabetics. The neighbor across the street
is also diabetic -- keeps his weight under control, exercises daily, etc.
I have no problem gifting him (and his family) 8-10 dozen cookies as I
know he understands the risk he takes if he opts to just "indulge himself".
(He will excitedly announce that he rations "just four daily" for himself).
The other neighbor (mentioned above) would eat himself into a sugar
crisis if given the same treats.
(As I don't want to do things that enable people to hurt themselves,
I only offer him treats that aren't as "risky")
But, in the context of health care, I pay for BOTH of these guys'
problems -- in terms of my insurance premium, the resources that
are diverted to handle their avoidable/controllable problem
and their impact on their families, etc. (are you teaching your
kids to adopt the same unhealthy behaviors?).
What, if any, right do I have to constrain their lifestyle choices?
How does that deprive *me* over some measure of controlling *my*
costs?
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