wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:31:02 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I was discussing this with someone else last night and we have another
interesting statistic to throw in the fray.
Heart disease in the leading cause of death in the US but we also lead
the world in obesity. The numbers when compared to the other countries
we use as models for the successes of public medicine are striking.
Chew on this and tell me spending a trillion on insurance will make us
healthier.
Percentage of citizens who are clinically defined as being obese


I'm no expert re the methodology. I don't have the time to look right now,
but let's just assume it is as you say.

In any case, the latter part of your comment... "spending a trillion" is
not
actually spending, since the criteria is deficit neutral, which it pretty
much is currently (FYI, I don't think it needs to be deficit neutral, but
that's not the issue/question). It would actually save money compared to
the
high cost of doing nothing. You think a trillion is bad? Just wait if we
do
nothing.


Anyone who really thinks this is deficit neutral also believes the
post office is self sustaining.


It's as deficit neutral as possible in a political environment. It certainly
won't be spending trillions more.

--
Nom=de=Plume