Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
When does the idiot finally get it?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="inactive" data-source="post: 1426933" data-attributes="member: 7488"><p>I won't bother even looking as it's not relevant. I was talking about the relevance of a Nobel prize, not Friedman's take on health care.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I guess I missed that amid the content of his article that states:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I patently disagree with this, and any other economist worth their salt should too. Sure, companies are in the business to make money. But companies are not any LESS inherently self-serving than consumers are. When it comes down to it, most people couldn't care less about OTHERS' care, only that they are taken care of.</p><p></p><p>I don't give a damn if Mickey or Johnny or whomever, who never bothered to get insurance, and eats himself to death, has a heart attack and is riddled with medical debt after his bypass. I just care that my son can be taken care of when I take him to the doctor. Calloused? Sure but that's life. Maybe I'm just an a-hole. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>By "current" do you mean Pre- or Post- Affordable Healthcare Act? Neither requires ANYONE to purchase health care, though the latter will tax those that do not.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="inactive, post: 1426933, member: 7488"] I won't bother even looking as it's not relevant. I was talking about the relevance of a Nobel prize, not Friedman's take on health care. I guess I missed that amid the content of his article that states: I patently disagree with this, and any other economist worth their salt should too. Sure, companies are in the business to make money. But companies are not any LESS inherently self-serving than consumers are. When it comes down to it, most people couldn't care less about OTHERS' care, only that they are taken care of. I don't give a damn if Mickey or Johnny or whomever, who never bothered to get insurance, and eats himself to death, has a heart attack and is riddled with medical debt after his bypass. I just care that my son can be taken care of when I take him to the doctor. Calloused? Sure but that's life. Maybe I'm just an a-hole. By "current" do you mean Pre- or Post- Affordable Healthcare Act? Neither requires ANYONE to purchase health care, though the latter will tax those that do not. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
When does the idiot finally get it?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom