"Robert" <no at (no spam) e.mail> wrote in message
news:ppave554bvemgkqhvtf218o04plmfgu9pb at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 10:57:41 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
okamuraj005 at (no spam) hawaii.rr.com> wrote:


"Robert" <no at (no spam) e.mail> wrote in message
news:mk0qe5tchffpljmh9370bhl95hqbc586o7 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:13:53 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
okamuraj005 at (no spam) hawaii.rr.com> wrote:


"Robert" <no at (no spam) e.mail> wrote in message
news:kmvoe5ta05k88huv8sago3trp054uimpci at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:17:15 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
okamuraj005 at (no spam) hawaii.rr.com> wrote:


"Robert" <no at (no spam) e.mail> wrote in message
news:8d9ke5tci7g4fcn16999os64q5vcucn9u3 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:00:40 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
okamuraj005 at (no spam) hawaii.rr.com> wrote:


"Robert" <no at (no spam) e.mail> wrote in message
news:bi2ie5d73qnqpm9eour4dll3ofrfeq0oj0 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:25:03 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
okamuraj005 at (no spam) hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

When you pay for your own medical needs, what are the odds that
anyone
other
than yourself will decide on whether you live or die? When
someone
else
pays for your medical needs, what are the odds that in order to
save
money,
they will decide if you live or die? When you depend on someone
else
to
pay
for your medical needs CAN they decide not to pay?

Your argument is wholely emotional. You're afraid someone will
pull
the
plug on you. Not
out of malevolence, just to save money.

Not emotional at all, a simple fact. The person who pays the bill,
can
either pay the bill or not pay the bill. When you allow someone to
pay
the
bill, you have given them the right to make that decision.

The root cause is you don't trust other people. I suspect your
insecurity
comes from being
neglected or ignored as a child. That's your burden, don't insist
everyone
else pay for
it.

You have got it backwards. I am the one who trusts people to do
what
is
best for them. I trust people enough to want them to have the
freedom
to
choose, what is best for them. A child is the one who needs someone
to
take
care of them. An adult would prefer to take care of themselves. If
you
are
an adult, and you want someone to take care of you, you are saying
you
want
to be treated like a child.

What about 38% now on government aid or uninsured who cannot afford
to
pay
the bill? Would
you have them crawl into the woods to die, like animals?

No, I would provide them with the means to take care of their own
needs
and
not depend on the government to provide them with what they need. And
no
all of the uninsured cannot afford to pay the bill. I am willing to
bet
yoou cannot define in any detail who these uninsured are, will you
prove
me
wrong?

Most are uninsured because insurance companies refuse to cover them,
and
they're not
insured through employment. The claim that 25% of them are
non-citizens
is
irrelevant
because citizenship is not required to buy a policy. The claim that
most
could afford to
buy coverage confirms my position. They are not uninsured because
they're
stupid or short
sighted, they're uninsured because they can't get coverage.

Your statement is an assertion, back it up with facts.

Personal experience. I had private insurance for ten years until my wife
(#1) had a
non-repeatable surgery costing $10K. My premium tripled and I couldn't
buy
insurance from
any other company. Round two. I had private insurance for ten years
until
my wife (#2) was
diagnosed with diabetes. That company (Mutual of Omaha) got out of the
health insurance
business and I couldn't buy insurance from any other company.

So? In other words, you did not continue with the insurance policy you
did
have becuase you were too cheap to pay for the increase? So, you made a
"choice" that the extra cost of the insurance was not worth the protection
that the insurance would have given you. You mean you couldn't find some
other insurance company that would sell you a policy at a price you were
willing to pay, don't you?

The premium was exorbitant, $1,500 per month. They were telling me to go
away.
In round two, I couldn't buy insurance at any price.

Inconsistent. You start out by saying the premium was "exorbitant" and in
the next sentence you said you couldn't buy the insurance at any price.
Which is the correct statement?

Now I need private insurance and am forced to shop states for affordable
coverage.
Massachusetts is the best by far. It should be a model for the whole US.
I'm not moving
there because the weather sucks and housing is expensive. I'm going with
the FL limited
liability plan. If she needs a $50K heart bypass, she's SOL.

No!!! You don't NEED insurance. You only need insurance if you get sick
enough to need the insurance. You can pay for your own needs, with your
own
money.

You may not be aware that most private non-group coverage has a deducable
of at least
$5,000, sometimes $10,000. It's not first dollar, it's catastrophic
coverage. The premium
is about $500/mo, even though you get to pay the first $5,000 with your
own money.

Which is relevant to what I said how?

They ALL have a cost problem, so that is a lie. And they all have a
problem
with medical inflation. Check it out for yourself. Everyone one of
those
countries have a medical inflation rate that is higher than their
overall
inflation rate.

I found you're right. But you say "the only way you can reduce the
medical
inflation rate"
is to take decisions away from government and return them to the
people.
Most of Africa
did exactly that in the 1980's. Their medical inflation didn't go
down,
but health became
worse because the poor could no longer see doctors.

No, I said that the only way to control prices effectively is to return
the
rationing decision back to the user of the service. The only way the user
of the service will make the rationing decision is when they use their own
money to pay for the service. And I doubt if the people in Africa are
paying for their own medical care, most of them are too poor to be able to
do that. And since they are too poor to pay for their own needs, it is
hard
to see how there can be a high level of inflation, since that only means
they are less likely to be able to afford to pay for their healthcare.
And
if they cannot afford to pay for their own healthcare, how can prices
rise?

Bottom line, average Africans got excluded from the system. They're not
getting ANY
medical care becase they can't afford it. Setting aside humane and
altruistic, is that an
EFFICIENT way to deal with illness that can be fixed for a few dollars?

The average African can't even feed themselves. If they cannot feed
themselves, the will die from starvation.

We're told market economies create efficiency due to competition. This is
a case where
market economy created INEFFICIENCY. People are dying from infectious
diseases that could
inexpensively be prevented.

NO!!! It has nothing to do with market economics. It has everything to do
with the fact that the people in Africa cannot survive on their own without
help from other countries.

That does not make any sense at all. If you are poor, you don't have
the
money to spend on your own healthcare needs. If you do not have the
money,
how can the cost go up?

The cost per 'unit' of healthcare is going up, independant of who pays.

How can that happen, if you don't have the money, is the question I asked.

There are fewer
buyers because the World Health Organization, in the 1980's, urged
countries to privatize
healthcare, as you advocate. Most governments did it eagerly. Their
contributions went
from 5% of GDP to well under 1%. The form of payment became, and still
is,
insurance or
out of pocket. Problem is, the dirt poor people cannot afford either. As
a
result they do
without.

I did not say privatize healthcare, I said return the rationing decision
back to the person needing that care.

Your idealism is contradicted by facts.

The median age of death in industrial countries is around 70; in Africa,
it's 5. Half of
African deaths occur before the age of 5. The rate of women dying during
childbirth is
more than five times the rate elsewhere.

Another irrelevant point. The death rate in African countries is due to the
fact that the "people" living in these countries, are not able to take care
of their own needs.

yes, but that is not solely or even mostly due to the healthcare system.
It
has more to do with the simple fact that they struggle just to put food on
their table.

People in all third world countries struggle to put food on the table.
They don't all have
substandard health care.

Yep, and if you do not have enough food, you can have the best healthcare in
the world and you will still die at a young age.

That's the outcome when countries follow your advice to get government
out
of healthcare.

Apples and oranges. The governments of Africa would find that their
people
would do a whole lot better, if the government helped people to help
themselves, rather than ourtright helping them. It is an age old
question.
Is it better to feed a person, or is it better to teach a person to feed
themselves.

You mean work for multinational companies at subsistance wages. You mean
make clothes for
WalMart at $1-2 per hour. That's not teaching people to feed themselves,
that's teaching
them to be slaves.

I said if government would help people help themselves. When you do that,
it is up to the "people" to decide who they are going to work for, or if
they are going to work for anyone at all.

The people of northern Mexico used to be self sufficient on rice, corn and
beans.
Multiinationals convinced them to switch to asparagus and strawberries for
shipment to the
US. Now, the price of rice and beans, grown elsewhere, has more than
tripled. They went
from self-sufficient to unable to meet basic needs.

Apples and oranges. No one "forced" them do to what they did do. If they
did what they did do, and what they did was wrong, then they made the wrong
choice. But it was their decision to make.

You have more freedom when you are able to take care of your own needs.
Anytime you depend on someone else to provide you with what you need or
want, you have less freedom. When you allow the government to provide you
with what you need or want, you have said your safety is more important
than
your freedom. Benjamin Franklin said it best when you make that choice,.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety".

I didn't say anything about safety.

No, you did not say anthing about safety, but that is the question before
us. Is freedom more important than safety, or is safety more important than
freedom....you cannot have both at the same time.

Antismokers are the ones bleating safety wrt second
hand smoke.If you think that's a good thing, you've confirmed idealism is
a question of
whose ox is being gored. If it's your ox, your position is based on
morality. If it's
someone else's ox, it deserves whatever it gets.

The second hand smoking claim is a scam.

"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005 at (no spam) hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:DskIm.541$6c2.109 at (no spam) newsfe03.iad...



willing to pay, don't you?

The premium was exorbitant, $1,500 per month. They were telling me to go
away.
In round two, I couldn't buy insurance at any price.

Inconsistent. You start out by saying the premium was "exorbitant" and
in the next sentence you said you couldn't buy the insurance at any
price. Which is the correct statement?


He clearly stated this was two different instances, Jerry. I got that
right away, maybe you should read just a little slower.

We're told market economies create efficiency due to competition. This
is a case where
market economy created INEFFICIENCY. People are dying from infectious
diseases that could
inexpensively be prevented.

NO!!! It has nothing to do with market economics. It has everything to
do with the fact that the people in Africa cannot survive on their own
without help from other countries.


They cannot survive on their own because people from the western world
interfered with ttheir way of life and imposed, by force, market
economics, among other western ideas.

That does not make any sense at all. If you are poor, you don't have
the
money to spend on your own healthcare needs. If you do not have the
money,
how can the cost go up?

The cost per 'unit' of healthcare is going up, independant of who
pays.

How can that happen, if you don't have the money, is the question I
asked.

There are fewer
buyers because the World Health Organization, in the 1980's, urged
countries to privatize
healthcare, as you advocate. Most governments did it eagerly. Their
contributions went
from 5% of GDP to well under 1%. The form of payment became, and still
is,
insurance or
out of pocket. Problem is, the dirt poor people cannot afford either.
As a
result they do
without.

I did not say privatize healthcare, I said return the rationing decision
back to the person needing that care.

Your idealism is contradicted by facts.

The median age of death in industrial countries is around 70; in
Africa,
it's 5. Half of
African deaths occur before the age of 5. The rate of women dying
during
childbirth is
more than five times the rate elsewhere.

Another irrelevant point. The death rate in African countries is due to
the fact that the "people" living in these countries, are not able to
take care of their own needs.


Why did you place quotation marks around people?
Are these somehow less than (or different from) people in your view?

Nitpicking.....

yes, but that is not solely or even mostly due to the healthcare system.
It
has more to do with the simple fact that they struggle just to put food
on
their table.

People in all third world countries struggle to put food on the table.
They don't all have
substandard health care.

Yep, and if you do not have enough food, you can have the best healthcare
in the world and you will still die at a young age.

That's the outcome when countries follow your advice to get government
out
of healthcare.

Apples and oranges. The governments of Africa would find that their
people
would do a whole lot better, if the government helped people to help
themselves, rather than ourtright helping them. It is an age old
question.
Is it better to feed a person, or is it better to teach a person to feed
themselves.

You mean work for multinational companies at subsistance wages. You mean
make clothes for
WalMart at $1-2 per hour. That's not teaching people to feed themselves,
that's teaching
them to be slaves.

I said if government would help people help themselves. When you do
that, it is up to the "people" to decide who they are going to work for,
or if they are going to work for anyone at all.


I keep hearing this "help people help themselves". Can you flesh out this
idea a little for us? By what means do you propose doing this? What
opportunities do you plan on creating? Or is that detail someone elses
problem?

The people of northern Mexico used to be self sufficient on rice, corn
and beans.
Multiinationals convinced them to switch to asparagus and strawberries
for shipment to the
US. Now, the price of rice and beans, grown elsewhere, has more than
tripled. They went
from self-sufficient to unable to meet basic needs.

Apples and oranges. No one "forced" them do to what they did do. If
they did what they did do, and what they did was wrong, then they made
the wrong choice. But it was their decision to make.

They were not given the information they needed to make an intelligent
decision. Illiterate farmers with dollars dangled in front of them may not
be the best judges of what is in their own long term interests. The
multinationals used them for their own profit and are now discarding them.
Do you ever wonder why the third world hates you enough that htey are
willing to die just for a chance to strike back at you?

You have more freedom when you are able to take care of your own needs.
Anytime you depend on someone else to provide you with what you need or
want, you have less freedom. When you allow the government to provide
you
with what you need or want, you have said your safety is more important
than
your freedom. Benjamin Franklin said it best when you make that
choice,.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety".

I didn't say anything about safety.

No, you did not say anthing about safety, but that is the question before
us. Is freedom more important than safety, or is safety more important
than freedom....you cannot have both at the same time.

Why? Even if, for a moment, we were to accept your premise that society
working together for the greater good instead of individual greed is
somehow an infringement on freedom, is it not possible there is a
compromise available with reasonable amounts of freedom and reasonable
amounts of safety?

yes, "if" you can indeed achieve that balance, without the lost of too much

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 07:55:57 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
okamuraj005 at (no spam) hawaii.rr.com> wrote:


"Robert" <no at (no spam) e.mail> wrote in message
news:ppave554bvemgkqhvtf218o04plmfgu9pb at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 10:57:41 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
okamuraj005 at (no spam) hawaii.rr.com> wrote:


"Robert" <no at (no spam) e.mail> wrote in message
news:mk0qe5tchffpljmh9370bhl95hqbc586o7 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:13:53 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
okamuraj005 at (no spam) hawaii.rr.com> wrote:


"Robert" <no at (no spam) e.mail> wrote in message
news:kmvoe5ta05k88huv8sago3trp054uimpci at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:17:15 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
okamuraj005 at (no spam) hawaii.rr.com> wrote:


"Robert" <no at (no spam) e.mail> wrote in message
news:8d9ke5tci7g4fcn16999os64q5vcucn9u3 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:00:40 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
okamuraj005 at (no spam) hawaii.rr.com> wrote:


"Robert" <no at (no spam) e.mail> wrote in message
news:bi2ie5d73qnqpm9eour4dll3ofrfeq0oj0 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:25:03 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
okamuraj005 at (no spam) hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

When you pay for your own medical needs, what are the odds that
anyone
other
than yourself will decide on whether you live or die? When
someone
else
pays for your medical needs, what are the odds that in order to
save
money,
they will decide if you live or die? When you depend on someone
else
to
pay
for your medical needs CAN they decide not to pay?

Your argument is wholely emotional. You're afraid someone will
pull
the
plug on you. Not
out of malevolence, just to save money.

Not emotional at all, a simple fact. The person who pays the
bill,
can
either pay the bill or not pay the bill. When you allow someone
to
pay
the
bill, you have given them the right to make that decision.

The root cause is you don't trust other people. I suspect your
insecurity
comes from being
neglected or ignored as a child. That's your burden, don't
insist
everyone
else pay for
it.

You have got it backwards. I am the one who trusts people to do
what
is
best for them. I trust people enough to want them to have the
freedom
to
choose, what is best for them. A child is the one who needs
someone
to
take
care of them. An adult would prefer to take care of themselves.
If
you
are
an adult, and you want someone to take care of you, you are saying
you
want
to be treated like a child.

What about 38% now on government aid or uninsured who cannot
afford
to
pay
the bill? Would
you have them crawl into the woods to die, like animals?

No, I would provide them with the means to take care of their own
needs
and
not depend on the government to provide them with what they need.
And
no
all of the uninsured cannot afford to pay the bill. I am willing to
bet
yoou cannot define in any detail who these uninsured are, will you
prove
me
wrong?

Most are uninsured because insurance companies refuse to cover them,
and
they're not
insured through employment. The claim that 25% of them are
non-citizens
is
irrelevant
because citizenship is not required to buy a policy. The claim that
most
could afford to
buy coverage confirms my position. They are not uninsured because
they're
stupid or short
sighted, they're uninsured because they can't get coverage.

Your statement is an assertion, back it up with facts.

Personal experience. I had private insurance for ten years until my
wife
(#1) had a
non-repeatable surgery costing $10K. My premium tripled and I couldn't
buy
insurance from
any other company. Round two. I had private insurance for ten years
until
my wife (#2) was
diagnosed with diabetes. That company (Mutual of Omaha) got out of the
health insurance
business and I couldn't buy insurance from any other company.

So? In other words, you did not continue with the insurance policy you
did
have becuase you were too cheap to pay for the increase? So, you made a
"choice" that the extra cost of the insurance was not worth the
protection
that the insurance would have given you. You mean you couldn't find
some
other insurance company that would sell you a policy at a price you were
willing to pay, don't you?

The premium was exorbitant, $1,500 per month. They were telling me to go
away.
In round two, I couldn't buy insurance at any price.

Inconsistent. You start out by saying the premium was "exorbitant" and in
the next sentence you said you couldn't buy the insurance at any price.
Which is the correct statement?

Both are correct. I described two independent cases, separated by ten
years time.

Now I need private insurance and am forced to shop states for
affordable
coverage.
Massachusetts is the best by far. It should be a model for the whole
US.
I'm not moving
there because the weather sucks and housing is expensive. I'm going
with
the FL limited
liability plan. If she needs a $50K heart bypass, she's SOL.

No!!! You don't NEED insurance. You only need insurance if you get sick
enough to need the insurance. You can pay for your own needs, with your
own
money.

You may not be aware that most private non-group coverage has a
deducable
of at least
$5,000, sometimes $10,000. It's not first dollar, it's catastrophic
coverage. The premium
is about $500/mo, even though you get to pay the first $5,000 with your
own money.

Which is relevant to what I said how?

You said a person can pay for his own needs. I pointed out that private
insurance
purchasers DO pay for their own health care until the total in a year
becomes higher than
the average person can afford. They don't get 'first dollar coverage,'
which used to be
the norm with group policies.

They ALL have a cost problem, so that is a lie. And they all have
a
problem
with medical inflation. Check it out for yourself. Everyone one
of
those
countries have a medical inflation rate that is higher than their
overall
inflation rate.

I found you're right. But you say "the only way you can reduce the
medical
inflation rate"
is to take decisions away from government and return them to the
people.
Most of Africa
did exactly that in the 1980's. Their medical inflation didn't go
down,
but health became
worse because the poor could no longer see doctors.

No, I said that the only way to control prices effectively is to return
the
rationing decision back to the user of the service. The only way the
user
of the service will make the rationing decision is when they use their
own
money to pay for the service. And I doubt if the people in Africa are
paying for their own medical care, most of them are too poor to be able
to
do that. And since they are too poor to pay for their own needs, it is
hard
to see how there can be a high level of inflation, since that only means
they are less likely to be able to afford to pay for their healthcare.
And
if they cannot afford to pay for their own healthcare, how can prices
rise?

Bottom line, average Africans got excluded from the system. They're not
getting ANY
medical care becase they can't afford it. Setting aside humane and
altruistic, is that an
EFFICIENT way to deal with illness that can be fixed for a few dollars?

The average African can't even feed themselves. If they cannot feed
themselves, the will die from starvation.

Africa is home to a billion people who have not starved to death, and are
not on the brink
of starvation.

We're told market economies create efficiency due to competition. This
is
a case where
market economy created INEFFICIENCY. People are dying from infectious
diseases that could
inexpensively be prevented.

NO!!! It has nothing to do with market economics. It has everything to
do
with the fact that the people in Africa cannot survive on their own
without
help from other countries.

I hope you're not one who thinks Africans are genetically inferior to
other humans.

"Robert" <no at (no spam) e.mail> wrote in message
news:aha4f5l1i7kae6apt0sb4se8aj1e1affd9 at (no spam) 4ax.com...

Bottom line, average Africans got excluded from the system. They're not
getting ANY
medical care becase they can't afford it. Setting aside humane and
altruistic, is that an
EFFICIENT way to deal with illness that can be fixed for a few dollars?

The average African can't even feed themselves. If they cannot feed
themselves, the will die from starvation.

Africa is home to a billion people who have not starved to death, and are
not on the brink
of starvation.

Only because the more developed countries have been feeding them. Without
that help, the would be starving to death, until they reach a level of
population that can survive without any ouside help for food.

"Robert" <no at (no spam) e.mail> wrote in message
news:99e1f5lbmofb752r8sq5qrc9aancsqvmjj at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 07:58:35 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
okamuraj005 at (no spam) hawaii.rr.com> wrote:


"Robert" <no at (no spam) e.mail> wrote in message
news:2i5qe5pnqfagrp6dg3hmtq9v6v5nb5rlen at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:35:56 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
okamuraj005 at (no spam) hawaii.rr.com> wrote:


"Robert" <no at (no spam) e.mail> wrote in message
news:indpe5p40eq4febpvhqs123nk76cc8srsr at (no spam) 4ax.com...

They like to see you. It's been said every time a surgeon does a heart
bypass, he earns
another sports car. Maybe that's an exaggeration, he could buy a 2006
car
or use the
earnings from two operations to buy a new car. Hotshot surgeons make a
million dollars per
year.

How much does he earn when you performs a heart bypass surgery? Does he
make as much money today from doing that surgery, or would he have made a
heck of a lot more money, had that operation been available fifty years
ago?

The first open heart surgery using a heart-lung machine was done in 1960,
as was the first
arterial graft. Their fiftieth anniversaries will be in a few months.
Arterial grafts
using today's techniques began in 1967, 42 years ago.

Which is relevant to the questions I asked,,,how?

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 08:33:58 -1000, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005 at (no spam) hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

"Robert" <no at (no spam) e.mail> wrote in message
news:aha4f5l1i7kae6apt0sb4se8aj1e1affd9 at (no spam) 4ax.com...

Bottom line, average Africans got excluded from the system. They're not
getting ANY
medical care becase they can't afford it. Setting aside humane and
altruistic, is that an
EFFICIENT way to deal with illness that can be fixed for a few dollars?
The average African can't even feed themselves. If they cannot feed
themselves, the will die from starvation.
Africa is home to a billion people who have not starved to death, and are
not on the brink
of starvation.
Only because the more developed countries have been feeding them. Without
that help, the would be starving to death, until they reach a level of
population that can survive without any ouside help for food.

US aid to all third world countries comes to $4.95 per US resident (1998 dollars). About
half goes to Africa. There are are three Africans for each American. Thus, the average
African received 83 cents in US aid PER YEAR. But wait, more than half the money was spent
on government and military, not food.

No wonder they're starving. We expect a family of four to survive for a year on one
Snickers bar or half a cup of rice.

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 08:33:58 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
okamuraj005 at (no spam) hawaii.rr.com> wrote:


"Robert" <no at (no spam) e.mail> wrote in message
news:aha4f5l1i7kae6apt0sb4se8aj1e1affd9 at (no spam) 4ax.com...

Bottom line, average Africans got excluded from the system. They're
not
getting ANY
medical care becase they can't afford it. Setting aside humane and
altruistic, is that an
EFFICIENT way to deal with illness that can be fixed for a few
dollars?

The average African can't even feed themselves. If they cannot feed
themselves, the will die from starvation.

Africa is home to a billion people who have not starved to death, and
are
not on the brink
of starvation.

Only because the more developed countries have been feeding them. Without
that help, the would be starving to death, until they reach a level of
population that can survive without any ouside help for food.

US aid to all third world countries comes to $4.95 per US resident (1998
dollars). About
half goes to Africa. There are are three Africans for each American. Thus,
the average
African received 83 cents in US aid PER YEAR. But wait, more than half the
money was spent
on government and military, not food.

No wonder they're starving. We expect a family of four to survive for a
year on one
Snickers bar or half a cup of rice.

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:54:31 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
okamuraj005 at (no spam) hawaii.rr.com> wrote:


"Robert" <no at (no spam) e.mail> wrote in message
news:99e1f5lbmofb752r8sq5qrc9aancsqvmjj at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 07:58:35 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
okamuraj005 at (no spam) hawaii.rr.com> wrote:


"Robert" <no at (no spam) e.mail> wrote in message
news:2i5qe5pnqfagrp6dg3hmtq9v6v5nb5rlen at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:35:56 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
okamuraj005 at (no spam) hawaii.rr.com> wrote:


"Robert" <no at (no spam) e.mail> wrote in message
news:indpe5p40eq4febpvhqs123nk76cc8srsr at (no spam) 4ax.com...

They like to see you. It's been said every time a surgeon does a heart
bypass, he earns
another sports car. Maybe that's an exaggeration, he could buy a 2006
car
or use the
earnings from two operations to buy a new car. Hotshot surgeons make a
million dollars per
year.

How much does he earn when you performs a heart bypass surgery? Does he
make as much money today from doing that surgery, or would he have made
a
heck of a lot more money, had that operation been available fifty years
ago?

The first open heart surgery using a heart-lung machine was done in
1960,
as was the first
arterial graft. Their fiftieth anniversaries will be in a few months.
Arterial grafts
using today's techniques began in 1967, 42 years ago.

Which is relevant to the questions I asked,,,how?

You asked "would he have made a heck of a lot more money, had that
operation been
available fifty years ago?" I replied, it was available 40 years ago.

Good point, then all you need to do is replace the word fifty with forty,