I've been going through my various newsletter email subscriptions today and here's another one I thought I'd paste into here. I was supposed to be getting alot more work done than I have....slack.

========================================

Published in the Jakarta Post--letter to editor

Socialized Medicine Kills
August 27, 2007
By Don Watkins

A new study that compares international cancer survival rates demonstrates what opponents of socialized medicine have been saying for years: socialized medicine kills.

The study finds that Britain (whose much-touted "universal health care" system is held up by the left as a model for America) has among the lowest cancer survival rates in the West--drastically lower than the United States, which has the world's highest survival rate.

Researchers attribute Britain's dismal numbers primarily to late diagnoses and lengthy waiting lists for treatment. But long lines and waiting lists are necessarily endemic under socialized medicine. Just as a "free" grocery store would not be able to keep its shelves stocked, a "free" health care system necessarily lacks sufficient resources to adequately treat all those seeking care. The result is thousands of unnecessary deaths--and millions of grief-stricken families.

Rather than adopt Britain's deadly socialized health care system, we should end the government interference which is increasing the costs and reducing the quality of U.S. health care, and increase freedom in medicine.

Your article is one of those articles that points out one example where US health care is doing better while failing to address the many areas where it is worse. Propaganda at it's best.

Here is an extract from the New York TImes article:

"Life and death.

In a comparison of five countries, the United States had the best survival rate for breast cancer, second best for cervical cancer and childhood leukemia, worst for kidney transplants, and almost-worst for liver transplants and colorectal cancer. In an eight-country comparison, the United States ranked last in years of potential life lost to circulatory diseases, respiratory diseases and diabetes and had the second highest death rate from bronchitis, asthma and emphysema. Although several factors can affect these results, it seems likely that the quality of care delivered was a significant contributor."

Full article here: World’s Best Medical Care?

---

Account frozen...

I've been going through my various newsletter email subscriptions today and here's another one I thought I'd paste into here. I was supposed to be getting alot more work done than I have....slack.

========================================

Published in the Jakarta Post--letter to editor

Socialized Medicine Kills
August 27, 2007
By Don Watkins

A new study that compares international cancer survival rates demonstrates what opponents of socialized medicine have been saying for years: socialized medicine kills.

The study finds that Britain (whose much-touted "universal health care" system is held up by the left as a model for America) has among the lowest cancer survival rates in the West--drastically lower than the United States, which has the world's highest survival rate.

Researchers attribute Britain's dismal numbers primarily to late diagnoses and lengthy waiting lists for treatment. But long lines and waiting lists are necessarily endemic under socialized medicine. Just as a "free" grocery store would not be able to keep its shelves stocked, a "free" health care system necessarily lacks sufficient resources to adequately treat all those seeking care. The result is thousands of unnecessary deaths--and millions of grief-stricken families.

Rather than adopt Britain's deadly socialized health care system, we should end the government interference which is increasing the costs and reducing the quality of U.S. health care, and increase freedom in medicine.

Your article is one of those articles that points out one example where US health care is doing better while failing to address the many areas where it is worse. Propaganda at it's best.

Here is an extract from the New York TImes article:

"Life and death.

In a comparison of five countries, the United States had the best survival rate for breast cancer, second best for cervical cancer and childhood leukemia, worst for kidney transplants, and almost-worst for liver transplants and colorectal cancer. In an eight-country comparison, the United States ranked last in years of potential life lost to circulatory diseases, respiratory diseases and diabetes and had the second highest death rate from bronchitis, asthma and emphysema. Although several factors can affect these results, it seems likely that the quality of care delivered was a significant contributor."

Full article here: World’s Best Medical Care?

I'm familiar with that article and report and regard it as a sham mainly. Are you SERIOUSLY trying to claim that the NHS is providing BETTER quality health care than that of the USA? Seriously?

The problem with all of that is is that it's entirely irrelevent to our health coverage/care in this country. Just because more of us choose to be fat sedentary slobs doesn't mean that our less socialized system is WORSE. You're comparing apples and oranges.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

...and what about mental health care in the United States. Here we use the jails instead mental hospitals.

---

Account frozen...

I have seen the US media's representation of British Healthcare first hand. Now that is a very biased one.

Sure. Media is generally biased. It's wrong when Ann Coulter does it, it's wrong when Michael Moore does it.

I don't doubt that for a lot of people your system provides good care...but for those cannot access it (and right there is the crime..you actually have a significant proportion of your population that cannot access your health service in the first place!! THIS IS DOWN RIGHT SHOCKING!!) The consequences are disastrous. Not inconvenient like having do without a mobile phone..but disastrous. Lives are wrecked.

To you, maybe. Why aren't you and Thorin doing more to save them? Right now, this very instant, you both, individually have enough resources to save some lives. But you aren't. For all your theatrics, and your SHOCKINGness, some people who are dying could be saved by what you have.

Yet you don't do it. Why not? "The consequences are disastrous. Not inconvenient like having do without a mobile phone..but disastrous. Lives are wrecked."

Exactly.

You make a valid point here about nature of taxes. However... pretty much all the population want to pay taxes for their healthcare. WE WANT TO DO IT. We like to do it. The amount we actually pay for it is less than the cost of a mobile phone each month. The reason it works out so cheap is it is collective and every one who can pays.

If this is true, please explain why those who wish to, cannot opt out? Those of you that really want to, can. Those that don't, use informed consent, and can opt out, realizing that they are not entitled to NHS service, and will be left to die in their time of need (kinda like NHS does when it won't pay 100% of all medical necessities to keep all people alive at all costs).

This sounds like more US propaganda. No..we can't afford everything because of the high cost of drugs charged by the drug companies. But we do a damn good job with what we have.

It's not propaganda, the point is very simple, and has nothing to do with the US: Why won't the NHS pay for everything? Why won't it bear 100% of the costs of keeping you (or anyone else) alive 100% of the time? Why aren't you ALWAYS going to get the medicines you need to keep you alive?

You note two things in your response, a) "[you] cannot afford everything," and b) that there are "high cost[s] of drugs." Hence the dilemma. That you happen to think that you "do a damn good job with what we have," does not refute the point, which was: Since the health care doesn't keep you alive at all costs, it's rationed. Since it's rationed, NHS saves money with actuarial tables. In other words, people die out of the system.

As asked previously: why must NHS buy their drugs and supplies on the open market and why does it refuse to create them out of whole cloth? Why do you pay a fee for prescription drugs, if your health care is free?

We the people chose to fund our healthcare system this way.

Heh. What is more accurate, is that you used the gov't to force those that didn't agree with you to fund your health care system that way.

The choice when you have a heart attack in the U.S. is the same choice you have in the U.K.; you go to the closest place that can save your life, whether you can pay for it or not. Whether you are a multi-millionaire "locust" like Michael Moore or some wino.

The "choice" I am referring to is not the very very few times in your life that you have a heart attack or deadly threat to your life, it's all the times during your life that choice would make the system better. Actual, true monopolies (not the I-hate-them-so-much kind like Microsoft, that aren't), the ones created by law, couldn't care less, don't have to improve, and get this, don't have any incentive to drive costs DOWN. In fact, in reality, it IS driving costs UP. This is why NHS needs ever more funding, the costs are rising faster than they can afford it. Which, over time, means greater numbers of people receive less care.

As previously noted, the poor in the U.S. and the U.K. can afford mobile phones. That little bit of technology packed into their hands, and the prerequisite networks cost enormous amounts of money, far far more than a pill, or a needle, or a wheelchair, or a hospital bed does. The factories that make the chips alone can cost BILLIONS of dollars, far more than any hospital costs. Yet the poor can afford it because Motorola and HTC and Nokia are trying to utterly slaughter each other to drive prices down. Why? Because consumers have the choice to leave. They can choose a different phone (and get a new one every year or so, if they wish). Bring those same tools to bear on health care and costs would drop by orders of magnitude. Because the corporations involved would be forced to compete. Note, if you look into a bottle of prescription pills, there are no chips, no buttons, no LCD screens, no highly polished molded parts, or antennas, all of which are SUBSTANTIALLY more expensive to create than pills. Driving the costs of pills down is FAR easier than doing it with mobile phones, yet it still gets done with phones. Conversely, NHS pays more for drugs over time...

That's why choice is important. Not when your life is at stake, but to keep the system in a state where it constantly has to offer the consumer something better, just like happens with consumer goods.

The costs are going up because there are more and more treatments for illnesses available that weren't available 20 years ago..and these treatments are more expensive. People are living longer (probably because of our successful health care system) and we have an ageing population in this country. You need to check your facts and not make assumptions.

Sure, the costs go up for that reason as well, just like the costs go up for mobile phone technology or cars, yet the real costs for mobile phone and cars drops over time because there is MASSIVE incentive to drive costs down, to keep the fickle consumer happy, present them with better technology, and make them keep coming back.

With NHS there is no downward price pressure, in fact, there is upward price pressure because, like you said, the simps will riot at the gates. Big Pharms know they can charge NHS as much as they can get away with (note I did not say as much as they wish) and because of that fact costs tend to rise.

As far as checking facts and not making assumptions, I made no factual errors, nor any erroneous assumptions. I was explaining to you why choice matters, less so at the onset of a heart attack, but dearly over the course of your life.

Our service is not in danger of becoming bankrupt. Costs are driven down by the desire to get better patient care for the money. The more efficient you are the more you can spend on patients. People work in medicine because they want to help people. Businesses go bankrupt all the time so I am not sure how your argument applies here.

True, it will not go bankrupt per se, you will just get less care as costs rise. Kinda like why they instituted a fee for prescription medicines. The "desire to get better patient care for the money," does not drive costs down, nor does it even put much (if any) downward pressure on costs because the suppliers don't care. The guy that makes your needles knows you need needles, and lots of them. Same with the Big Pharms, they charge what they can get away with, and try like hell to keep pushing that up.

Businesses go bankrupt all the time because their consumers went somewhere else. That's the point.

People die Mr Rush..sadly. But there is a difference between a system that is set up to do everything it can do to help you and one that is set up to milk you of every penny it can while you are ill and at the same time doing as little as it can for you in return.

That's funny. To use your terms, the mobile phone carriers are trying to "milk you of every penny [they] can," and look what happens--the costs are driven so low that even the poorest of the poor can afford to get milked. Milked by getting a free marvel of modern technology. Even funnier, those same carriers are "doing as little as [they] can for you in return." Even though, let's see, they have made the phones smaller than a deck of cards, instead of briefcase size. They have crammed cameras into them. Provided the ability to talk on demand. Send texts. E-mails. Pictures. Watch TV. Browse the internet. Yep, they're really screwing those poor people by providing all that stuff at a price the poor can afford. T-Mobile gets their money fer nuthin' and their chicks for free...

You see, driving medical costs below the costs of technologies such a mobile phones helps the consumer immensely. They WANT to get "milked" for their pennies, because it's the best deal out there. $300 dollar gauze pads aren't.

Yay, an unsupported conclusion. Socialized medical care is more expensive than it needs to be, by far, because of its monopoly. It always teeters on the brink of bankruptcy because the gov't won't fund it 100%. Consumers have wildly different experiences depending on their location, but they cannot choose to go anywhere else. The costs always trend up, and you pay for it, indirectly, but dearly.

Let me ask you this: Why can't you (or anyone else) opt out of the system? Why can't you say, "Nope, I'm not going to pay for this health care, conversely, I'm not going to use it either. You can leave me at the side of the road to die, no matter what happens." Why isn't anyone given this option, to use informed consent and opt out?

Privatised healthcare has actually been shown to be more expensive Mr Rush. And people generally don't want to opt out. We like paying for it this way. It works out better for us.

Really, open market health care is more expensive? Then shouldn't you be ecstatic that I want out of the system? It's one (lots) less people who aren't a drain on your system. Yet, they won't let me opt out. I mean, you're fond of saying "we" but they don't have any choice: Why aren't they allowed to opt out?

That I think is factually incorrect Mr Rush. For a start..the average birth costs in the US over $10,000. I assume you were born at some point in your life Mr Rush.

It's not incorrect, simply look at your costs of living, look at the amount of space you live in.

The average cost of a birth in the U.S. is irrelevant because the U.S. isn't a free market either. There are many of the same pressures here as there are in the U.K. driving costs up.

Of course your insurance leaves you with the same problem. Some people will pay more than they use. In fact the system would not work if it were otherwise.

Because? "The system would not work if it were otherwise because..." The mobile phone system works extremely well, nearly every single poor person in the U.S. can afford to get skrewed outta their pennies--and they WANT TO. They can leave if they aren't happy.

So tell me. If you do not like socialised medicine..and the US Insurance system clearly also fails to meet your criteria. How exactly do you propose to make sure there is a fair health system that is accessible to all at their time of need and does not financially cripple those with long term health problems? Because after all those people are more likely to be the ones in financial difficulty in the first place.

I've told you, get the gov't out of the way. Drive costs down relentlessly. The overwhelming majority of medical procedures don't need anything resembling mobile phone technology, so costs will fall very very fast. For those that are broke, finance companies will loan them what little money they may need, just as they do today. One can walk into almost any cosmetic surgery center in the U.S. and have a choice of no money down, low or no interest, signature loans to pay for their new nose or breasts. That isn't financially crippling to anyone. Especially when the real costs of supplies, machines, drugs and procedures drops in line with advances like mobile phones and laptops.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Just because more of us choose to be fat sedentary slobs doesn't mean that our less socialized system is WORSE.

And who would those be who 'choose to be fat'?

'Choose to be lazy' would be a more accurate assesment... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Just because more of us choose to be fat sedentary slobs doesn't mean that our less socialized system is WORSE.

And who would those be who 'choose to be fat'?

'Choose to be lazy' would be a more accurate assesment... ;)

I'm too lazy to respond to Jeffrey today so I'll just post a winky. ;)

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

I'm familiar with that article and report and regard it as a sham mainly.

That is your opinion. Please back it up with evidence.

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to claim that the NHS is providing BETTER quality health care than that of the USA? Seriously?

Absolutely. Yes.

The problem with all of that is is that it's entirely irrelevent to our health coverage/care in this country. Just because more of us choose to be fat sedentary slobs doesn't mean that our less socialized system is WORSE. You're comparing apples and oranges.

The part of the article pointing out what fat slobs Americans are was not relevant to my argument. ;)

Your system is worse. It leaves many people without access to healthcare altogether and provides substandard healthcare to a large proportion of the American people.

However, the main thrust of the movie 'sicko' is that the insurance companies are doing their best to get out of providing healthcare to as many people as it can because this saves them money.

---

Account frozen...

Now I respond to the other man with the strange avatar. (are you in some sort of club together?)

I have seen the US media's representation of British Healthcare first hand. Now that is a very biased one.

Sure. Media is generally biased. It's wrong when Ann Coulter does it, it's wrong when Michael Moore does it.

This is a good point. However..Mr Moore has produces a movie that resonates with a lot of American's actual experiences.

I don't doubt that for a lot of people your system provides good care...but for those cannot access it (and right there is the crime..you actually have a significant proportion of your population that cannot access your health service in the first place!! THIS IS DOWN RIGHT SHOCKING!!) The consequences are disastrous. Not inconvenient like having do without a mobile phone..but disastrous. Lives are wrecked.

To you, maybe. Why aren't you and Thorin doing more to save them? Right now, this very instant, you both, individually have enough resources to save some lives. But you aren't. For all your theatrics, and your SHOCKINGness, some people who are dying could be saved by what you have.

Yet you don't do it. Why not? "The consequences are disastrous. Not inconvenient like having do without a mobile phone..but disastrous. Lives are wrecked."

Exactly.

Who says we are not doing what we can to help them? I think trying to convince as many people as possible to change the system is one way of helping people. It will help more people that we could as individuals acting alone.

You make a valid point here about nature of taxes. However... pretty much all the population want to pay taxes for their healthcare. WE WANT TO DO IT. We like to do it. The amount we actually pay for it is less than the cost of a mobile phone each month. The reason it works out so cheap is it is collective and every one who can pays.

If this is true, please explain why those who wish to, cannot opt out? Those of you that really want to, can. Those that don't, use informed consent, and can opt out, realizing that they are not entitled to NHS service, and will be left to die in their time of need (kinda like NHS does when it won't pay 100% of all medical necessities to keep all people alive at all costs).

Because only a heartless monster would advocate leaving people to die.. I agree that some people are let down by a system that can only do so much. But lest people are left to die by our system than by yours.

This sounds like more US propaganda. No..we can't afford everything because of the high cost of drugs charged by the drug companies. But we do a damn good job with what we have.

It's not propaganda, the point is very simple, and has nothing to do with the US: Why won't the NHS pay for everything? Why won't it bear 100% of the costs of keeping you (or anyone else) alive 100% of the time? Why aren't you ALWAYS going to get the medicines you need to keep you alive?

You note two things in your response, a) "[you] cannot afford everything," and b) that there are "high cost[s] of drugs." Hence the dilemma. That you happen to think that you "do a damn good job with what we have," does not refute the point, which was: Since the health care doesn't keep you alive at all costs, it's rationed. Since it's rationed, NHS saves money with actuarial tables. In other words, people die out of the system.

As asked previously: why must NHS buy their drugs and supplies on the open market and why does it refuse to create them out of whole cloth? Why do you pay a fee for prescription drugs, if your health care is free?

When the NHS tries to get cheaper generic drugs in a lot of cases they are blocked by the larger drug companies through legal action. We pay for prescription charges..which is actually a nominal fee because the government wants to pay more for wars in Iraq than it wants to pay for the health care of it's citizens.

We the people chose to fund our healthcare system this way.

Heh. What is more accurate, is that you used the gov't to force those that didn't agree with you to fund your health care system that way.

That is a stupid thing to say because anyone who doesn't like the way we do things can leave. So they have a free choice.

The choice when you have a heart attack in the U.S. is the same choice you have in the U.K.; you go to the closest place that can save your life, whether you can pay for it or not. Whether you are a multi-millionaire "locust" like Michael Moore or some wino.

The "choice" I am referring to is not the very very few times in your life that you have a heart attack or deadly threat to your life, it's all the times during your life that choice would make the system better. Actual, true monopolies (not the I-hate-them-so-much kind like Microsoft, that aren't), the ones created by law, couldn't care less, don't have to improve, and get this, don't have any incentive to drive costs DOWN. In fact, in reality, it IS driving costs UP. This is why NHS needs ever more funding, the costs are rising faster than they can afford it. Which, over time, means greater numbers of people receive less care.

As previously noted, the poor in the U.S. and the U.K. can afford mobile phones. That little bit of technology packed into their hands, and the prerequisite networks cost enormous amounts of money, far far more than a pill, or a needle, or a wheelchair, or a hospital bed does. The factories that make the chips alone can cost BILLIONS of dollars, far more than any hospital costs. Yet the poor can afford it because Motorola and HTC and Nokia are trying to utterly slaughter each other to drive prices down. Why? Because consumers have the choice to leave. They can choose a different phone (and get a new one every year or so, if they wish). Bring those same tools to bear on health care and costs would drop by orders of magnitude. Because the corporations involved would be forced to compete. Note, if you look into a bottle of prescription pills, there are no chips, no buttons, no LCD screens, no highly polished molded parts, or antennas, all of which are SUBSTANTIALLY more expensive to create than pills. Driving the costs of pills down is FAR easier than doing it with mobile phones, yet it still gets done with phones. Conversely, NHS pays more for drugs over time...

That's why choice is important. Not when your life is at stake, but to keep the system in a state where it constantly has to offer the consumer something better, just like happens with consumer goods.

The costs are going up because there are more and more treatments for illnesses available that weren't available 20 years ago..and these treatments are more expensive. People are living longer (probably because of our successful health care system) and we have an ageing population in this country. You need to check your facts and not make assumptions.

Sure, the costs go up for that reason as well, just like the costs go up for mobile phone technology or cars, yet the real costs for mobile phone and cars drops over time because there is MASSIVE incentive to drive costs down, to keep the fickle consumer happy, present them with better technology, and make them keep coming back.

With NHS there is no downward price pressure, in fact, there is upward price pressure because, like you said, the simps will riot at the gates. Big Pharms know they can charge NHS as much as they can get away with (note I did not say as much as they wish) and because of that fact costs tend to rise.

As far as checking facts and not making assumptions, I made no factual errors, nor any erroneous assumptions. I was explaining to you why choice matters, less so at the onset of a heart attack, but dearly over the course of your life.

Our service is not in danger of becoming bankrupt. Costs are driven down by the desire to get better patient care for the money. The more efficient you are the more you can spend on patients. People work in medicine because they want to help people. Businesses go bankrupt all the time so I am not sure how your argument applies here.

True, it will not go bankrupt per se, you will just get less care as costs rise. Kinda like why they instituted a fee for prescription medicines. The "desire to get better patient care for the money," does not drive costs down, nor does it even put much (if any) downward pressure on costs because the suppliers don't care. The guy that makes your needles knows you need needles, and lots of them. Same with the Big Pharms, they charge what they can get away with, and try like hell to keep pushing that up.

Businesses go bankrupt all the time because their consumers went somewhere else. That's the point.

People die Mr Rush..sadly. But there is a difference between a system that is set up to do everything it can do to help you and one that is set up to milk you of every penny it can while you are ill and at the same time doing as little as it can for you in return.

That's funny. To use your terms, the mobile phone carriers are trying to "milk you of every penny [they] can," and look what happens--the costs are driven so low that even the poorest of the poor can afford to get milked. Milked by getting a free marvel of modern technology. Even funnier, those same carriers are "doing as little as [they] can for you in return." Even though, let's see, they have made the phones smaller than a deck of cards, instead of briefcase size. They have crammed cameras into them. Provided the ability to talk on demand. Send texts. E-mails. Pictures. Watch TV. Browse the internet. Yep, they're really screwing those poor people by providing all that stuff at a price the poor can afford. T-Mobile gets their money fer nuthin' and their chicks for free...

You see, driving medical costs below the costs of technologies such a mobile phones helps the consumer immensely. They WANT to get "milked" for their pennies, because it's the best deal out there. $300 dollar gauze pads aren't.

Yay, an unsupported conclusion. Socialized medical care is more expensive than it needs to be, by far, because of its monopoly. It always teeters on the brink of bankruptcy because the gov't won't fund it 100%. Consumers have wildly different experiences depending on their location, but they cannot choose to go anywhere else. The costs always trend up, and you pay for it, indirectly, but dearly.

Let me ask you this: Why can't you (or anyone else) opt out of the system? Why can't you say, "Nope, I'm not going to pay for this health care, conversely, I'm not going to use it either. You can leave me at the side of the road to die, no matter what happens." Why isn't anyone given this option, to use informed consent and opt out?

Privatised healthcare has actually been shown to be more expensive Mr Rush. And people generally don't want to opt out. We like paying for it this way. It works out better for us.

Really, open market health care is more expensive? Then shouldn't you be ecstatic that I want out of the system? It's one (lots) less people who aren't a drain on your system. Yet, they won't let me opt out. I mean, you're fond of saying "we" but they don't have any choice: Why aren't they allowed to opt out?

That I think is factually incorrect Mr Rush. For a start..the average birth costs in the US over $10,000. I assume you were born at some point in your life Mr Rush.

It's not incorrect, simply look at your costs of living, look at the amount of space you live in.

The average cost of a birth in the U.S. is irrelevant because the U.S. isn't a free market either. There are many of the same pressures here as there are in the U.K. driving costs up.

Of course your insurance leaves you with the same problem. Some people will pay more than they use. In fact the system would not work if it were otherwise.

Because? "The system would not work if it were otherwise because..." The mobile phone system works extremely well, nearly every single poor person in the U.S. can afford to get skrewed outta their pennies--and they WANT TO. They can leave if they aren't happy.

So tell me. If you do not like socialised medicine..and the US Insurance system clearly also fails to meet your criteria. How exactly do you propose to make sure there is a fair health system that is accessible to all at their time of need and does not financially cripple those with long term health problems? Because after all those people are more likely to be the ones in financial difficulty in the first place.

I've told you, get the gov't out of the way. Drive costs down relentlessly. The overwhelming majority of medical procedures don't need anything resembling mobile phone technology, so costs will fall very very fast. For those that are broke, finance companies will loan them what little money they may need, just as they do today. One can walk into almost any cosmetic surgery center in the U.S. and have a choice of no money down, low or no interest, signature loans to pay for their new nose or breasts. That isn't financially crippling to anyone. Especially when the real costs of supplies, machines, drugs and procedures drops in line with advances like mobile phones and laptops.

I am sorry Mr Rush..but i got lost in all the quotes so I will make a couple of general points:

The most effective way that a company drives costs down is to drive wages down. I do not want a system in place that encourages people not to get a working wage.

You go on about people being 'forced' to pay taxes. I am going to take your argument about free choice and the consequences (ie..pay no tax towards healthcare and die when you get seriously ill..refuse to take a poorly paid job because the employers are exploiting you and starve.. these are the 'free choices' you go on about it.). So people have a choice not to pay taxes. If they really want that they can go elsewhere. No one is making them stay here. Tell them to go to all those successful countries that run with no one paying taxes.

---

Account frozen...

I'm familiar with that article and report and regard it as a sham mainly.

That is your opinion. Please back it up with evidence.

It's a sham because it's illogical.

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to claim that the NHS is providing BETTER quality health care than that of the USA? Seriously?

Absolutely. Yes.

Back this up with evidence refuting some of what others have posted about the NHS's excessively long waiting lists and the empirically proven numbers who die and the unavailability of drugs as a result of a socialized system going broke. It'
s been demonstrated here several times over how a system like the U.K.'s can only lead to higher costs and lower outputs (ie less healthcare)

The problem with all of that is is that it's entirely irrelevent to our health coverage/care in this country. Just because more of us choose to be fat sedentary slobs doesn't mean that our less socialized system is WORSE. You're comparing apples and oranges.

The part of the article pointing out what fat slobs Americans are was not relevant to my argument. ;)

Your system is worse. It leaves many people without access to healthcare altogether and provides substandard healthcare to a large proportion of the American people.

This is simply false and has been pointed out here in this thread before. Every American and even ILLEGAL ALIENS have access to healthcare. Period. Maybe what you mean is private health COVERAGE? What percentage of those in the UK have private health coverage to escape the government run one? Very few can afford that there.

However, the main thrust of the movie 'sicko' is that the insurance companies are doing their best to get out of providing healthcare to as many people as it can because this saves them money.

Anectdotal testimony really isn't good evidence. If you have a scientific background you should know that you need good hard numbers and solid empirical studies to make grand conclusions. Part of the problem in America is that too many people are becoming spoiled with the notion of entitlement and think that their insurance policies should cover every procedure without regard to necessity or even their own overall welfare. Doctors comply for fear of being sued.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Well done, ♥ Mystique ♥

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

I'm familiar with that article and report and regard it as a sham mainly.

That is your opinion. Please back it up with evidence.

It's a sham because it's illogical.

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to claim that the NHS is providing BETTER quality health care than that of the USA? Seriously?

Absolutely. Yes.

Back this up with evidence refuting some of what others have posted about the NHS's excessively long waiting lists and the empirically proven numbers who die and the unavailability of drugs as a result of a socialized system going broke. It'
s been demonstrated here several times over how a system like the U.K.'s can only lead to higher costs and lower outputs (ie less healthcare)

The problem with all of that is is that it's entirely irrelevent to our health coverage/care in this country. Just because more of us choose to be fat sedentary slobs doesn't mean that our less socialized system is WORSE. You're comparing apples and oranges.

The part of the article pointing out what fat slobs Americans are was not relevant to my argument. ;)

Your system is worse. It leaves many people without access to healthcare altogether and provides substandard healthcare to a large proportion of the American people.

This is simply false and has been pointed out here in this thread before. Every American and even ILLEGAL ALIENS have access to healthcare. Period. Maybe what you mean is private health COVERAGE? What percentage of those in the UK have private health coverage to escape the government run one? Very few can afford that there.

However, the main thrust of the movie 'sicko' is that the insurance companies are doing their best to get out of providing healthcare to as many people as it can because this saves them money.

Anectdotal testimony really isn't good evidence. If you have a scientific background you should know that you need good hard numbers and solid empirical studies to make grand conclusions. Part of the problem in America is that too many people are becoming spoiled with the notion of entitlement and think that their insurance policies should cover every procedure without regard to necessity or even their own overall welfare. Doctors comply for fear of being sued.

After being admitted into hospital (a major trauma II center) with a heart attack last August and not seeing a doctor for a day and a half and none forthcoming after repeated pleas to see one...damn right I'm suing...if I live long enough. Afterwards, after walking out of the hospital, my own doctor diagnosed me as having had uncontrolled angina (a life threatening condition) which is now under control with medication.

This and other experiences I've had with the American medical system is that it is completely FUBAR.

---

Account frozen...

This is a good point. However..Mr Moore has produces a movie that resonates with a lot of American's actual experiences.

So what? Romantic comedies resonate with "a lot of American's actual experiences," too. That a movie piques people's emotions does not mean that it provides an accurate representation of the situation. That is the important point, regardless of whether it resonates or not, its biased and misleading information means it is not accurate.

Who says we are not doing what we can to help them? I think trying to convince as many people as possible to change the system is one way of helping people. It will help more people that we could as individuals acting alone.

Mystique, THEY'RE DYING. This very minute. As we speak. A few dollars from you will save them. And I can guarantee you this: they would deeply prefer that you feed them or buy them medicine that will actually save their lives TODAY, instead of patting yourself on the back, comforting yourself that you *may* have gotten the word out.

Because only a heartless monster would advocate leaving people to die.. I agree that some people are let down by a system that can only do so much. But lest people are left to die by our system than by yours.

One isn't a heartless monster if those people that die opt out of the system. A socialized system pushes costs higher and even more people are then let down by that system that, as you said, can only do so much.

Heh. What is more accurate, is that you used the gov't to force those that didn't agree with you to fund your health care system that way.

That is a stupid thing to say because anyone who doesn't like the way we do things can leave. So they have a free choice.

To some extent this is true. But it is STILL force. Just like it will be force when women are forced to carry children to term. I mean, if those chicks don't like the way the gov't treats them, they can just leave.

The choice when you have a heart attack in the U.S. is the same choice you have in the U.K.; you go to the closest place that can save your life, whether you can pay for it or not. Whether you are a multi-millionaire "locust" like Michael Moore or some wino.

The "choice" I am referring to is not the very very few times in your life that you have a heart attack or deadly threat to your life, it's all the times during your life that choice would make the system better. Actual, true monopolies (not the I-hate-them-so-much kind like Microsoft, that aren't), the ones created by law, couldn't care less, don't have to improve, and get this, don't have any incentive to drive costs DOWN. In fact, in reality, it IS driving costs UP. This is why NHS needs ever more funding, the costs are rising faster than they can afford it. Which, over time, means greater numbers of people receive less care.

As previously noted, the poor in the U.S. and the U.K. can afford mobile phones. That little bit of technology packed into their hands, and the prerequisite networks cost enormous amounts of money, far far more than a pill, or a needle, or a wheelchair, or a hospital bed does. The factories that make the chips alone can cost BILLIONS of dollars, far more than any hospital costs. Yet the poor can afford it because Motorola and HTC and Nokia are trying to utterly slaughter each other to drive prices down. Why? Because consumers have the choice to leave. They can choose a different phone (and get a new one every year or so, if they wish). Bring those same tools to bear on health care and costs would drop by orders of magnitude. Because the corporations involved would be forced to compete. Note, if you look into a bottle of prescription pills, there are no chips, no buttons, no LCD screens, no highly polished molded parts, or antennas, all of which are SUBSTANTIALLY more expensive to create than pills. Driving the costs of pills down is FAR easier than doing it with mobile phones, yet it still gets done with phones. Conversely, NHS pays more for drugs over time...

That's why choice is important. Not when your life is at stake, but to keep the system in a state where it constantly has to offer the consumer something better, just like happens with consumer goods.

The costs are going up because there are more and more treatments for illnesses available that weren't available 20 years ago..and these treatments are more expensive. People are living longer (probably because of our successful health care system) and we have an ageing population in this country. You need to check your facts and not make assumptions.

Sure, the costs go up for that reason as well, just like the costs go up for mobile phone technology or cars, yet the real costs for mobile phone and cars drops over time because there is MASSIVE incentive to drive costs down, to keep the fickle consumer happy, present them with better technology, and make them keep coming back.

With NHS there is no downward price pressure, in fact, there is upward price pressure because, like you said, the simps will riot at the gates. Big Pharms know they can charge NHS as much as they can get away with (note I did not say as much as they wish) and because of that fact costs tend to rise.

As far as checking facts and not making assumptions, I made no factual errors, nor any erroneous assumptions. I was explaining to you why choice matters, less so at the onset of a heart attack, but dearly over the course of your life.

Our service is not in danger of becoming bankrupt. Costs are driven down by the desire to get better patient care for the money. The more efficient you are the more you can spend on patients. People work in medicine because they want to help people. Businesses go bankrupt all the time so I am not sure how your argument applies here.

True, it will not go bankrupt per se, you will just get less care as costs rise. Kinda like why they instituted a fee for prescription medicines. The "desire to get better patient care for the money," does not drive costs down, nor does it even put much (if any) downward pressure on costs because the suppliers don't care. The guy that makes your needles knows you need needles, and lots of them. Same with the Big Pharms, they charge what they can get away with, and try like hell to keep pushing that up.

Businesses go bankrupt all the time because their consumers went somewhere else. That's the point.

People die Mr Rush..sadly. But there is a difference between a system that is set up to do everything it can do to help you and one that is set up to milk you of every penny it can while you are ill and at the same time doing as little as it can for you in return.

That's funny. To use your terms, the mobile phone carriers are trying to "milk you of every penny [they] can," and look what happens--the costs are driven so low that even the poorest of the poor can afford to get milked. Milked by getting a free marvel of modern technology. Even funnier, those same carriers are "doing as little as [they] can for you in return." Even though, let's see, they have made the phones smaller than a deck of cards, instead of briefcase size. They have crammed cameras into them. Provided the ability to talk on demand. Send texts. E-mails. Pictures. Watch TV. Browse the internet. Yep, they're really screwing those poor people by providing all that stuff at a price the poor can afford. T-Mobile gets their money fer nuthin' and their chicks for free...

You see, driving medical costs below the costs of technologies such a mobile phones helps the consumer immensely. They WANT to get "milked" for their pennies, because it's the best deal out there. $300 dollar gauze pads aren't.

Yay, an unsupported conclusion. Socialized medical care is more expensive than it needs to be, by far, because of its monopoly. It always teeters on the brink of bankruptcy because the gov't won't fund it 100%. Consumers have wildly different experiences depending on their location, but they cannot choose to go anywhere else. The costs always trend up, and you pay for it, indirectly, but dearly.

Let me ask you this: Why can't you (or anyone else) opt out of the system? Why can't you say, "Nope, I'm not going to pay for this health care, conversely, I'm not going to use it either. You can leave me at the side of the road to die, no matter what happens." Why isn't anyone given this option, to use informed consent and opt out?

Privatised healthcare has actually been shown to be more expensive Mr Rush. And people generally don't want to opt out. We like paying for it this way. It works out better for us.

Really, open market health care is more expensive? Then shouldn't you be ecstatic that I want out of the system? It's one (lots) less people who aren't a drain on your system. Yet, they won't let me opt out. I mean, you're fond of saying "we" but they don't have any choice: Why aren't they allowed to opt out?

That I think is factually incorrect Mr Rush. For a start..the average birth costs in the US over $10,000. I assume you were born at some point in your life Mr Rush.

It's not incorrect, simply look at your costs of living, look at the amount of space you live in.

The average cost of a birth in the U.S. is irrelevant because the U.S. isn't a free market either. There are many of the same pressures here as there are in the U.K. driving costs up.

Of course your insurance leaves you with the same problem. Some people will pay more than they use. In fact the system would not work if it were otherwise.

Because? "The system would not work if it were otherwise because..." The mobile phone system works extremely well, nearly every single poor person in the U.S. can afford to get skrewed outta their pennies--and they WANT TO. They can leave if they aren't happy.

So tell me. If you do not like socialised medicine..and the US Insurance system clearly also fails to meet your criteria. How exactly do you propose to make sure there is a fair health system that is accessible to all at their time of need and does not financially cripple those with long term health problems? Because after all those people are more likely to be the ones in financial difficulty in the first place.

I've told you, get the gov't out of the way. Drive costs down relentlessly. The overwhelming majority of medical procedures don't need anything resembling mobile phone technology, so costs will fall very very fast. For those that are broke, finance companies will loan them what little money they may need, just as they do today. One can walk into almost any cosmetic surgery center in the U.S. and have a choice of no money down, low or no interest, signature loans to pay for their new nose or breasts. That isn't financially crippling to anyone. Especially when the real costs of supplies, machines, drugs and procedures drops in line with advances like mobile phones and laptops.

I am sorry Mr Rush..but i got lost in all the quotes so I will make a couple of general points:

I'll let it stand, others readers can clearly see the arguments for themselves.

The most effective way that a company drives costs down is to drive wages down.

Which, of course, is simply not entirely true. For some sectors that is may be true, for others, it is not. For many, it is a mix. Costs are costs, no matter the source.

I do not want a system in place that encourages people not to get a working wage.

You would be better served with a few economics classes. Any economic system has incentive to drive down costs, always, whether communism, socialism, or capitalism. You cannot take that out of economics. You can however, introduce drags that drive costs up. In a free economy, like the U.S. the overwhelming majority of people make FAR MORE than a living wage because the system cannot drive such costs as labor too low.

You go on about people being 'forced' to pay taxes. I am going to take your argument about free choice and the consequences (ie..pay no tax towards healthcare and die when you get seriously ill..refuse to take a poorly paid job because the employers are exploiting you and starve.. these are the 'free choices' you go on about it.). So people have a choice not to pay taxes. If they really want that they can go elsewhere. No one is making them stay here. Tell them to go to all those successful countries that run with no one paying taxes.

OK, then I will take your argument about abortion laws. So, women will not have a choice to have an abortion. If they really want that they can go elsewhere. No one is making them stay here. Tell them to go to all those countries that run with abortions on every street corner. I mean, right? I have no right to my body to hear you tell it, they should have no right to their body to their body? Right?

But, you evaded the point. I have never said that there should be no taxes, what I have said is that since there is no rational principle guiding when and where taxes should be imposed on others, the systems fail, and the charge those that can afford it the least, the most.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Oh Rush...

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Oh Rush...

Still you post absolutely nothing.

Tell, do you think that helps convince those on the edge of your position?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I'm not here to convince anyone. I have my own views but they are already present here in others comments. I only hope you eventually see what your missing.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

I'm not here to convince anyone. I have my own views but they are already present here in others comments. I only hope you eventually see what your missing.

Rest safely assured, readers can clearly see what you are missing. It's been demonstrated to them repeatedly.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Look around,

See the construct and it's effects on our society and the world. Your living in a dream. Wake up and look at the cause of so many people being swept under the rug. Put yourself in the other mans shoes for just a moment.

Imagine being brought up in a home where you hear your parents and grand parents talking about being beaten by people because of the color of their skin. Your Grandmother, old and frail, telling of days where she was thrown to the asphalt for not giving way to white people who were walking on the sidewalk near you. Hung and shot for no other reason than being a different color. Stories and documentaries about your people being abducted from their homes around the world to be sold to the highest bidder. The lies of 40 acres and a mule, share cropping, segregated water fountains, bathrooms, restaurants. Then going out to school to be harassed by police because you live in a certain area. Then hearing and seeing people like BrainsmasheR spouting further hate.

Imagine having no food and no medical. No school because the school sucks for whatever reasons; teachers are prejudice, don't care, or getting to the antiquated school is a life or death problem in itself. Imagine having no job opportunities because of this.

What would you do? What option is left to you? Gang Banging and crime are the result of these social inadequacies. If you were constantly looked down on, beaten, turned away, and swept under the rug... What would you do? What would you have to do to survive?

News reports about Mel Gibson, Martha Stewart, ENRON, and yes... Paris Hilton, walking from charges, hours after being arrested, while people they know have been locked up for years, even if it was their first offense. Due and speedy process being non existent.

Do you think the Kennedy family always had money? Do you remember reading about Irish and Italians being shunned by American society? Crime is the result of these issues and is simply the only way people in these situations can empower themselves to survive and help their families survive. These people are not evil by birth or nature. They are forced into it by being beaten mentally and physically so that they gladly turn to crime. I do not blame them for trying to live outside the matrix and live life.

So, now people of the upper, middle, and lower white classes, (and others.) have a big joke running for a couple hundred years here in America. It's not funny or realistic. They go out of their ways to promote and perpetuate the construct, not realizing they are wrong and that it is the cause of suffering on both sides of the line. Separate and conquer. Rich vs poor, Black vs White, beautiful vs unattractive, the list goes on.

Meanwhile, 10% or less of the rich have aquired 80% or more of the worlds real property and wealth with the consent and adoration of their population who value money over all things. Capitalism has run amok with those below the elite rooting them on as heroes.

The system is failing because we have allowed it to fail. Whether by not doing anything or not knowing any better, we have become consumers; sheeple.

America is not the same place I was born in, but I will not sit with my hands folded while we are run into the ground any longer. I will not perpetuate the problems. I will not condone that which is socially condoned. I will not view the system as a monster that can not be changed. Checks and balances need to be installed before it is too late. We Americans are no longer in control of our freedom. Think about it a little. Just a little. Not for me but for yourselves and your families.

If the majority is wrong or acting in their own self interest while causing perpetuation of human suffering, I will speak out.

I will not live in the matrix silently. If the system is failing: modify or place it.

This is my right as an American.


(If you've read all of this you have my thanks.)

Time for lunch. (I wonder how many people in the world wish they had a refrigerator to hit up, or electricity to run that refrigerator, or a phone or car to order food or go get some. Or the money to buy some once they order or go to the store. Or a store, water hole, garden, for that matter.)


.

.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

[quote]I'm not here to convince anyone.[quote]

You're doing an excellent job at not convincing us.

:-)

(sorry, couldn't resist that meatball you laid up there.)

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Look around,

See the construct and it's effects on our society and the world. Your living in a dream. Wake up and look at the cause of so many people being swept under the rug. Put yourself in the other mans shoes for just a moment.

Imagine being brought up in a home where you hear your parents and grand parents talking about being beaten by people because of the color of their skin. Your Grandmother, old and frail, telling of days where she was thrown to the asphalt for not giving way to white people who were walking on the sidewalk near you. Hung and shot for no other reason than being a different color. Stories and documentaries about your people being abducted from their homes around the world to be sold to the highest bidder. The lies of 40 acres and a mule, share cropping, segregated water fountains, bathrooms, restaurants. Then going out to school to be harassed by police because you live in a certain area. Then hearing and seeing people like BrainsmasheR spouting further hate.

Imagine having no food and no medical. No school because the school sucks for whatever reasons; teachers are prejudice, don't care, or getting to the antiquated school is a life or death problem in itself. Imagine having no job opportunities because of this.

What would you do? What option is left to you? Gang Banging and crime are the result of these social inadequacies. If you were constantly looked down on, beaten, turned away, and swept under the rug... What would you do? What would you have to do to survive?

News reports about Mel Gibson, Martha Stewart, ENRON, and yes... Paris Hilton, walking from charges, hours after being arrested, while people they know have been locked up for years, even if it was their first offense. Due and speedy process being non existent.

Do you think the Kennedy family always had money? Do you remember reading about Irish and Italians being shunned by American society? Crime is the result of these issues and is simply the only way people in these situations can empower themselves to survive and help their families survive. These people are not evil by birth or nature. They are forced into it by being beaten mentally and physically so that they gladly turn to crime. I do not blame them for trying to live outside the matrix and live life.

So, now people of the upper, middle, and lower white classes, (and others.) have a big joke running for a couple hundred years here in America. It's not funny or realistic. They go out of their ways to promote and perpetuate the construct, not realizing they are wrong and that it is the cause of suffering on both sides of the line. Separate and conquer. Rich vs poor, Black vs White, beautiful vs unattractive, the list goes on.

Meanwhile, 10% or less of the rich have aquired 80% or more of the worlds real property and wealth with the consent and adoration of their population who value money over all things. Capitalism has run amok with those below the elite rooting them on as heroes.

The system is failing because we have allowed it to fail. Whether by not doing anything or not knowing any better, we have become consumers; sheeple.

America is not the same place I was born in, but I will not sit with my hands folded while we are run into the ground any longer. I will not perpetuate the problems. I will not condone that which is socially condoned. I will not view the system as a monster that can not be changed. Checks and balances need to be installed before it is too late. We Americans are no longer in control of our freedom. Think about it a little. Just a little. Not for me but for yourselves and your families.

If the majority is wrong or acting in their own self interest while causing perpetuation of human suffering, I will speak out.

I will not live in the matrix silently. If the system is failing: modify or place it.

This is my right as an American.


(If you've read all of this you have my thanks.)

Time for lunch. (I wonder how many people in the world wish they had a refrigerator to hit up, or electricity to run that refrigerator, or a phone or car to order food or go get some. Or the money to buy some once they order or go to the store. Or a store, water hole, garden, for that matter.)


.

.

Very well spoken, MrGray!!!

---

Account frozen...

Look around,

See the construct and it's effects on our society and the world. Your living in a dream. Wake up and look at the cause of so many people being swept under the rug. Put yourself in the other mans shoes for just a moment.

Imagine being brought up in a home where you hear your parents and grand parents talking about being beaten by people because of the color of their skin. Your Grandmother, old and frail, telling of days where she was thrown to the asphalt for not giving way to white people who were walking on the sidewalk near you. Hung and shot for no other reason than being a different color. Stories and documentaries about your people being abducted from their homes around the world to be sold to the highest bidder. The lies of 40 acres and a mule, share cropping, segregated water fountains, bathrooms, restaurants. Then going out to school to be harassed by police because you live in a certain area. Then hearing and seeing people like BrainsmasheR spouting further hate.

Imagine having no food and no medical. No school because the school sucks for whatever reasons; teachers are prejudice, don't care, or getting to the antiquated school is a life or death problem in itself. Imagine having no job opportunities because of this.

What would you do? What option is left to you? Gang Banging and crime are the result of these social inadequacies. If you were constantly looked down on, beaten, turned away, and swept under the rug... What would you do? What would you have to do to survive?

News reports about Mel Gibson, Martha Stewart, ENRON, and yes... Paris Hilton, walking from charges, hours after being arrested, while people they know have been locked up for years, even if it was their first offense. Due and speedy process being non existent.

Do you think the Kennedy family always had money? Do you remember reading about Irish and Italians being shunned by American society? Crime is the result of these issues and is simply the only way people in these situations can empower themselves to survive and help their families survive. These people are not evil by birth or nature. They are forced into it by being beaten mentally and physically so that they gladly turn to crime. I do not blame them for trying to live outside the matrix and live life.

So, now people of the upper, middle, and lower white classes, (and others.) have a big joke running for a couple hundred years here in America. It's not funny or realistic. They go out of their ways to promote and perpetuate the construct, not realizing they are wrong and that it is the cause of suffering on both sides of the line. Separate and conquer. Rich vs poor, Black vs White, beautiful vs unattractive, the list goes on.

Meanwhile, 10% or less of the rich have aquired 80% or more of the worlds real property and wealth with the consent and adoration of their population who value money over all things. Capitalism has run amok with those below the elite rooting them on as heroes.

The system is failing because we have allowed it to fail. Whether by not doing anything or not knowing any better, we have become consumers; sheeple.

America is not the same place I was born in, but I will not sit with my hands folded while we are run into the ground any longer. I will not perpetuate the problems. I will not condone that which is socially condoned. I will not view the system as a monster that can not be changed. Checks and balances need to be installed before it is too late. We Americans are no longer in control of our freedom. Think about it a little. Just a little. Not for me but for yourselves and your families.

If the majority is wrong or acting in their own self interest while causing perpetuation of human suffering, I will speak out.

I will not live in the matrix silently. If the system is failing: modify or place it.

This is my right as an American.


(If you've read all of this you have my thanks.)

Time for lunch. (I wonder how many people in the world wish they had a refrigerator to hit up, or electricity to run that refrigerator, or a phone or car to order food or go get some. Or the money to buy some once they order or go to the store. Or a store, water hole, garden, for that matter.)




.

What does this rant have to do with healthcare.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!