On Dec 19, 6:16*am, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
"Giles" wrote in message

...

Try it
sometime.....let's see what happens.

I'll take that under consideration, but it seems that Dave understood me
perfectly,

Well,if your understanding of what Dave understood is perfect......

so I'm not exactly fired with great urgency because you failed to
grasp my meaning.

I'm not certain that I failed to grasp your meaning. How about you
spell it out and we'll see if that's what I thought?

Ah....see.....there's the problem. *When you said "just 'reduce
costs'" *I took that to mean reduce costs, not reduce benefits. *Silly
of me.......one of those basic English things, I guess.

it is.

See, that's what I thought. This is going very well!

But, when you tell folks you are going to spend less on a
program('reduce costs'), they often make the leap to a reduction of benefits
being the most likely spot to reduce costs. Does that make sense to you?

Nuance, my dear. 'reduce costs' isn't quite the same thing as "just
'reduce costs.'"
It's a basic English thing.

Do you have any idea at all of which side you are on in this issue?
Do you have any idea at all of what the issue is? *Do you have any
idea at all of what the words you use mean?

yup. Do you?

Well, I can come up with a few ideas. The problem is in coming up with
reliable ways to test hypotheses.

Yeah, you're a legend in the health care field......something I
wouldn't know anything about.

working in research gives you one perspective. Working at the provider end
of things gives another.

And there are ways to arrive at yet others.

That, I understand. It's just that I choose not to
belittle your perspective because it is different. What I belittle is the
small-minded way you handle the opinions of others.

That last sentence is a gem worth preserving. You should have a
calligrapher write it out nicely on some good quality vellum and then
hang it on your wall.

We
cannot, as a society provide state of the art care to every person, and
afford it, without a massive taxation increase.

Yep, we'd end up like the Canadians, eh?

really?? Canada provides state of the art care for all citizens under the
public plan? As compared to what is available in the US, or even to those in
Canada willing to pay extra? That isn't my understanding of reality, but I'd love
to hear the Canadian contingent weigh in.

Nah, the Canadian's don't provide state of the art health care for all
their citizens under a public plan. They couldn't afford to do that
without a massive taxation increase. As a matter of fact, they
couldn't afford to do that even WITH a massive taxation increase. Nor
could we. In point of fact, providing state of the art health care to
all citizens of any country is sort of a nonsensical
idea.......wouldn't you say?

Uh huh, but I have it from an unimpeachable source that we can't
approach that without fatal tax increases.

what source would that be?

Someone you know.....but not very well.

You remember a time when you had something resembling opinions that
you could call your own? *You remember something vaguely resembling
self-respect?

I haven't changed a bit.

The one reliable constant in the universe, eh?

Check your mirror.

O.k., what am I looking for?

With or without me, I see precious little reason to expect intelligent
discourse from some quarters. *You want to tell me where I've gone
wrong in this analysis?

well, if you leave it THAT vague, I couldn't argue....simply because it is
as vague a statement as it is vaucous.

Vague and vacuous.....yeah, there's a lot of that going around, I
hear.

You see, when you make your mind up
before starting to read and/or listen to others, that is the outlook one
develops.

I bow to your experience.

Sad to see you descend to that level.

Ah, you'll get over it.

Like I said, I haven't changed my
outlooks, thought processes, or manner of presentation one bit.

Stultified, huh? Pity. Life is change. No change......

Look in the mirror to find the shortcomings.......


I see some wrinkles that didn't used to be there.

g.