What BASH and SSH Mean for Windows Systems Administration
-
I don't think I've seen a topic more derailed. Is topic splitting even possible on nodeBB yet?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
That's because of the broken costs involved in healthcare. We non healthcare people look at healthcare and the massive amounts of costs that we are charged and just figure we're all being ripped off. If those costs are really, truly lower, I think people in general would be good with not seeing others suffer and getting help.
Maybe but, I doubt it. Even knowing without a doubt since everyone has that healthcare today, Americans are adamant about not wanting cheap, universal healthcare. Even if it lowers their own costs, they don't want it. If they did, we'd have it by now.
really ? You really think they don't want cheaper yet better healthcare?
a problem that I have is that I don't believe them. I look at things like the Snowden leaks and don't believe a damned thing the government says it does to help us.
can it be done cheaper? Hell yea it can! Get rid of insurance companies that alone will save billions a year, somehow get drugs and drug search done non for profit, again massive savings to everyone.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
That's because of the broken costs involved in healthcare. We non healthcare people look at healthcare and the massive amounts of costs that we are charged and just figure we're all being ripped off. If those costs are really, truly lower, I think people in general would be good with not seeing others suffer and getting help.
Maybe but, I doubt it. Even knowing without a doubt since everyone has that healthcare today, Americans are adamant about not wanting cheap, universal healthcare. Even if it lowers their own costs, they don't want it. If they did, we'd have it by now.
really ? You really think they don't want cheaper yet better healthcare?
a problem that I have is that I don't believe them. I look at things like the Snowden leaks and don't believe a damned thing the government says it does to help us.
can it be done cheaper? Hell yea it can! Get rid of insurance companies that alone will save billions a year, somehow get drugs and drug search done non for profit, again massive savings to everyone.
If you just get rid of insurance companies, if you get injured or get cancer, or anything that costs more than you can pay right now, you'll be probably worse off than if you had insurance under a more expensive system.
-
@tonyshowoff said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
That's because of the broken costs involved in healthcare. We non healthcare people look at healthcare and the massive amounts of costs that we are charged and just figure we're all being ripped off. If those costs are really, truly lower, I think people in general would be good with not seeing others suffer and getting help.
Maybe but, I doubt it. Even knowing without a doubt since everyone has that healthcare today, Americans are adamant about not wanting cheap, universal healthcare. Even if it lowers their own costs, they don't want it. If they did, we'd have it by now.
really ? You really think they don't want cheaper yet better healthcare?
a problem that I have is that I don't believe them. I look at things like the Snowden leaks and don't believe a damned thing the government says it does to help us.
can it be done cheaper? Hell yea it can! Get rid of insurance companies that alone will save billions a year, somehow get drugs and drug search done non for profit, again massive savings to everyone.
If you just get rid of insurance companies, if you get injured or get cancer, or anything that costs more than you can pay right now, you'll be probably worse off than if you had insurance under a more expensive system.
<sarcasm>Sucks for them getting sick! Why should I be responsible for those freeloaders with their cancer and heart disease!</sarcasm>
-
@tonyshowoff said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
There is an interesting adage about Americans. I was told this by a European friend. It goes something like this:
In America if you offered a man a choice
A)You would give him $50,000 with the stipulation that all of his neighbors also got $50,000
or
B)You would give him $30,000 and his neighbors got nothing
He would most likely pick the because he earned it and he doesn't want to help any freeloaders.Not sure if it is true or not but it seems to be a running joke in Europe
This definitely seems to be a theme in this thread this morning.
Not sure why anyone else would care what their neighbor has as long as it's not directly affecting them.
I've seen similar polls before, one was:
A) You make $60,000 a year, but so does everyone else
B) You make $50,000 a year, but everyone else makes $40,000Most people pick B, even though it's a bad choice. I think it has to do with a lot of Americans believing that not everyone can do a little better, only a few can do a lot better. Of course even in capitalism that's not true, as the standards of living rise even on the lowest levels steadily. It's related to the F you I got mine thing above I talked about.
Sadly I agree with that last bit - choosing B is a power play over the others, can't have everyone else being the same as me. Until this thread though - I've never been asked a question like this before.
-
@Dashrender said:
@tonyshowoff said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
There is an interesting adage about Americans. I was told this by a European friend. It goes something like this:
In America if you offered a man a choice
A)You would give him $50,000 with the stipulation that all of his neighbors also got $50,000
or
B)You would give him $30,000 and his neighbors got nothing
He would most likely pick the because he earned it and he doesn't want to help any freeloaders.Not sure if it is true or not but it seems to be a running joke in Europe
This definitely seems to be a theme in this thread this morning.
Not sure why anyone else would care what their neighbor has as long as it's not directly affecting them.
I've seen similar polls before, one was:
A) You make $60,000 a year, but so does everyone else
B) You make $50,000 a year, but everyone else makes $40,000Most people pick B, even though it's a bad choice. I think it has to do with a lot of Americans believing that not everyone can do a little better, only a few can do a lot better. Of course even in capitalism that's not true, as the standards of living rise even on the lowest levels steadily. It's related to the F you I got mine thing above I talked about.
Sadly I agree with that last bit - choosing B is a power play over the others, can't have everyone else being the same as me. Until this thread though - I've never been asked a question like this before.
How is it a power play except in your own mind? If believing you were better than others made people more successful, America would have more wealthy people.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
That's because of the broken costs involved in healthcare. We non healthcare people look at healthcare and the massive amounts of costs that we are charged and just figure we're all being ripped off. If those costs are really, truly lower, I think people in general would be good with not seeing others suffer and getting help.
Maybe but, I doubt it. Even knowing without a doubt since everyone has that healthcare today, Americans are adamant about not wanting cheap, universal healthcare. Even if it lowers their own costs, they don't want it. If they did, we'd have it by now.
really ? You really think they don't want cheaper yet better healthcare?
a problem that I have is that I don't believe them. I look at things like the Snowden leaks and don't believe a damned thing the government says it does to help us.
can it be done cheaper? Hell yea it can! Get rid of insurance companies that alone will save billions a year, somehow get drugs and drug search done non for profit, again massive savings to everyone.
Then you have other issues. Like high risk people wouldn't get treated at all and hospitals and care takers could be much more selective then they are today as far as patients go.
-
@tonyshowoff said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
That's because of the broken costs involved in healthcare. We non healthcare people look at healthcare and the massive amounts of costs that we are charged and just figure we're all being ripped off. If those costs are really, truly lower, I think people in general would be good with not seeing others suffer and getting help.
Maybe but, I doubt it. Even knowing without a doubt since everyone has that healthcare today, Americans are adamant about not wanting cheap, universal healthcare. Even if it lowers their own costs, they don't want it. If they did, we'd have it by now.
really ? You really think they don't want cheaper yet better healthcare?
a problem that I have is that I don't believe them. I look at things like the Snowden leaks and don't believe a damned thing the government says it does to help us.
can it be done cheaper? Hell yea it can! Get rid of insurance companies that alone will save billions a year, somehow get drugs and drug search done non for profit, again massive savings to everyone.
If you just get rid of insurance companies, if you get injured or get cancer, or anything that costs more than you can pay right now, you'll be probably worse off than if you had insurance under a more expensive system.
I'm not saying JUST get rid of insurance companies and for profit drug companies.. those two things and tons more go hand and hand with national healthcare - only then do I believe that it will really cost less.
Sadly the lobbies of those drug companies and those insurance companies pay your elected officials way to much money for them to vote them into oblivion.
-
@Dashrender said:
@tonyshowoff said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
That's because of the broken costs involved in healthcare. We non healthcare people look at healthcare and the massive amounts of costs that we are charged and just figure we're all being ripped off. If those costs are really, truly lower, I think people in general would be good with not seeing others suffer and getting help.
Maybe but, I doubt it. Even knowing without a doubt since everyone has that healthcare today, Americans are adamant about not wanting cheap, universal healthcare. Even if it lowers their own costs, they don't want it. If they did, we'd have it by now.
really ? You really think they don't want cheaper yet better healthcare?
a problem that I have is that I don't believe them. I look at things like the Snowden leaks and don't believe a damned thing the government says it does to help us.
can it be done cheaper? Hell yea it can! Get rid of insurance companies that alone will save billions a year, somehow get drugs and drug search done non for profit, again massive savings to everyone.
If you just get rid of insurance companies, if you get injured or get cancer, or anything that costs more than you can pay right now, you'll be probably worse off than if you had insurance under a more expensive system.
I'm not saying JUST get rid of insurance companies and for profit drug companies.. those two things and tons more go hand and hand with national healthcare - only then do I believe that it will really cost less.
Sadly the lobbies of those drug companies and those insurance companies pay your elected officials way to much money for them to vote them into oblivion.
I wouldn't get rid of for profit drug companies, I'd certainly get rid of them directly advertising to people like they've began doing over the last 10+ years in America. There still is capitalism in drug production, unless you run into weird unique patents, but then that's another issue, not one to do with profitable drug companies.
Lobbies too are something America needs to get rid of for sure. I think that's probably the #1 thing that has ruined that country.
-
@tonyshowoff said:
@Dashrender said:
@tonyshowoff said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
There is an interesting adage about Americans. I was told this by a European friend. It goes something like this:
In America if you offered a man a choice
A)You would give him $50,000 with the stipulation that all of his neighbors also got $50,000
or
B)You would give him $30,000 and his neighbors got nothing
He would most likely pick the because he earned it and he doesn't want to help any freeloaders.Not sure if it is true or not but it seems to be a running joke in Europe
This definitely seems to be a theme in this thread this morning.
Not sure why anyone else would care what their neighbor has as long as it's not directly affecting them.
I've seen similar polls before, one was:
A) You make $60,000 a year, but so does everyone else
B) You make $50,000 a year, but everyone else makes $40,000Most people pick B, even though it's a bad choice. I think it has to do with a lot of Americans believing that not everyone can do a little better, only a few can do a lot better. Of course even in capitalism that's not true, as the standards of living rise even on the lowest levels steadily. It's related to the F you I got mine thing above I talked about.
Sadly I agree with that last bit - choosing B is a power play over the others, can't have everyone else being the same as me. Until this thread though - I've never been asked a question like this before.
How is it a power play except in your own mind? If believing you were better than others made people more successful, America would have more wealthy people.
Who said it was any thing other than in their own mind - You're absolutely right that's the only place it really is.
-
@Dashrender said:
@tonyshowoff said:
@Dashrender said:
@tonyshowoff said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
There is an interesting adage about Americans. I was told this by a European friend. It goes something like this:
In America if you offered a man a choice
A)You would give him $50,000 with the stipulation that all of his neighbors also got $50,000
or
B)You would give him $30,000 and his neighbors got nothing
He would most likely pick the because he earned it and he doesn't want to help any freeloaders.Not sure if it is true or not but it seems to be a running joke in Europe
This definitely seems to be a theme in this thread this morning.
Not sure why anyone else would care what their neighbor has as long as it's not directly affecting them.
I've seen similar polls before, one was:
A) You make $60,000 a year, but so does everyone else
B) You make $50,000 a year, but everyone else makes $40,000Most people pick B, even though it's a bad choice. I think it has to do with a lot of Americans believing that not everyone can do a little better, only a few can do a lot better. Of course even in capitalism that's not true, as the standards of living rise even on the lowest levels steadily. It's related to the F you I got mine thing above I talked about.
Sadly I agree with that last bit - choosing B is a power play over the others, can't have everyone else being the same as me. Until this thread though - I've never been asked a question like this before.
How is it a power play except in your own mind? If believing you were better than others made people more successful, America would have more wealthy people.
Who said it was any thing other than in their own mind - You're absolutely right that's the only place it really is.
Like I said above about people believing if they work hard they'll be rich one day, delusions don't help anyone. Typically though, I don't think most people believe it, Americans are not stupid, but they sure repeat it.
-
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
That's because of the broken costs involved in healthcare. We non healthcare people look at healthcare and the massive amounts of costs that we are charged and just figure we're all being ripped off. If those costs are really, truly lower, I think people in general would be good with not seeing others suffer and getting help.
Maybe but, I doubt it. Even knowing without a doubt since everyone has that healthcare today, Americans are adamant about not wanting cheap, universal healthcare. Even if it lowers their own costs, they don't want it. If they did, we'd have it by now.
really ? You really think they don't want cheaper yet better healthcare?
a problem that I have is that I don't believe them. I look at things like the Snowden leaks and don't believe a damned thing the government says it does to help us.
can it be done cheaper? Hell yea it can! Get rid of insurance companies that alone will save billions a year, somehow get drugs and drug search done non for profit, again massive savings to everyone.
Then you have other issues. Like high risk people wouldn't get treated at all and hospitals and care takers could be much more selective then they are today as far as patients go.
You and @tonyshowoff both missed that I was referring to what it would take for me to believe that nationalized healthcare could be cheaper than what we have today. Just getting rid of insurance companies does nothing to help people.
For example - I'm not looking to get rid of Car Insurance - that's an example that in general shows how awesome shared risk system in the private sector can be.
-
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
That's because of the broken costs involved in healthcare. We non healthcare people look at healthcare and the massive amounts of costs that we are charged and just figure we're all being ripped off. If those costs are really, truly lower, I think people in general would be good with not seeing others suffer and getting help.
Maybe but, I doubt it. Even knowing without a doubt since everyone has that healthcare today, Americans are adamant about not wanting cheap, universal healthcare. Even if it lowers their own costs, they don't want it. If they did, we'd have it by now.
really ? You really think they don't want cheaper yet better healthcare?
a problem that I have is that I don't believe them. I look at things like the Snowden leaks and don't believe a damned thing the government says it does to help us.
can it be done cheaper? Hell yea it can! Get rid of insurance companies that alone will save billions a year, somehow get drugs and drug search done non for profit, again massive savings to everyone.
Then you have other issues. Like high risk people wouldn't get treated at all and hospitals and care takers could be much more selective then they are today as far as patients go.
You and @tonyshowoff both missed that I was referring to what it would take for me to believe that nationalized healthcare could be cheaper than what we have today. Just getting rid of insurance companies does nothing to help people.
For example - I'm not looking to get rid of Car Insurance - that's an example that in general shows how awesome shared risk system in the private sector can be.
But you have a choice in that. Don't drive a car. You don't have a choice for not getting sick. Car Insurance is a great system for what it is. But trying to emulate that to a system where basically everyone is claiming on it doesn't work.
-
@tonyshowoff said:
@Dashrender said:
@tonyshowoff said:
@Dashrender said:
@tonyshowoff said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
There is an interesting adage about Americans. I was told this by a European friend. It goes something like this:
In America if you offered a man a choice
A)You would give him $50,000 with the stipulation that all of his neighbors also got $50,000
or
B)You would give him $30,000 and his neighbors got nothing
He would most likely pick the because he earned it and he doesn't want to help any freeloaders.Not sure if it is true or not but it seems to be a running joke in Europe
This definitely seems to be a theme in this thread this morning.
Not sure why anyone else would care what their neighbor has as long as it's not directly affecting them.
I've seen similar polls before, one was:
A) You make $60,000 a year, but so does everyone else
B) You make $50,000 a year, but everyone else makes $40,000Most people pick B, even though it's a bad choice. I think it has to do with a lot of Americans believing that not everyone can do a little better, only a few can do a lot better. Of course even in capitalism that's not true, as the standards of living rise even on the lowest levels steadily. It's related to the F you I got mine thing above I talked about.
Sadly I agree with that last bit - choosing B is a power play over the others, can't have everyone else being the same as me. Until this thread though - I've never been asked a question like this before.
How is it a power play except in your own mind? If believing you were better than others made people more successful, America would have more wealthy people.
Who said it was any thing other than in their own mind - You're absolutely right that's the only place it really is.
Like I said above about people believing if they work hard they'll be rich one day, delusions don't help anyone. Typically though, I don't think most people believe it, Americans are not stupid, but they sure repeat it.
But your own example stated that people felt they could have worked harder - and they probably could have.... again - they could have worked in a hotel at night, learning a skill that would allow them to earn more money eventually moving to a day position, they could learn how to weld and work in construction making several times what the burger flipper makes. They didn't have to stay a burger flipper for their whole life.
Of course all that said - Are there enough high paying jobs for everyone? I honestly don't know.
But no matter what, until our technology moves us to the point of Scott's proposed 90% don't even bother working and are paid a stipend to do their own thing while the other 10% actually make the world go round - we still need ditch diggers, and those jobs just don't pay that well. -
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
That's because of the broken costs involved in healthcare. We non healthcare people look at healthcare and the massive amounts of costs that we are charged and just figure we're all being ripped off. If those costs are really, truly lower, I think people in general would be good with not seeing others suffer and getting help.
Maybe but, I doubt it. Even knowing without a doubt since everyone has that healthcare today, Americans are adamant about not wanting cheap, universal healthcare. Even if it lowers their own costs, they don't want it. If they did, we'd have it by now.
really ? You really think they don't want cheaper yet better healthcare?
a problem that I have is that I don't believe them. I look at things like the Snowden leaks and don't believe a damned thing the government says it does to help us.
can it be done cheaper? Hell yea it can! Get rid of insurance companies that alone will save billions a year, somehow get drugs and drug search done non for profit, again massive savings to everyone.
Then you have other issues. Like high risk people wouldn't get treated at all and hospitals and care takers could be much more selective then they are today as far as patients go.
You and @tonyshowoff both missed that I was referring to what it would take for me to believe that nationalized healthcare could be cheaper than what we have today. Just getting rid of insurance companies does nothing to help people.
For example - I'm not looking to get rid of Car Insurance - that's an example that in general shows how awesome shared risk system in the private sector can be.
But you have a choice in that. Don't drive a car. You don't have a choice for not getting sick. Car Insurance is a great system for what it is. But trying to emulate that to a system where basically everyone is claiming on it doesn't work.
And that is why I'm saying GET RID OF IT - and move to national healthcare - I'm starting to wonder if I'm typing Greek?
-
@Dashrender said:
@tonyshowoff said:
@Dashrender said:
@tonyshowoff said:
@Dashrender said:
@tonyshowoff said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
There is an interesting adage about Americans. I was told this by a European friend. It goes something like this:
In America if you offered a man a choice
A)You would give him $50,000 with the stipulation that all of his neighbors also got $50,000
or
B)You would give him $30,000 and his neighbors got nothing
He would most likely pick the because he earned it and he doesn't want to help any freeloaders.Not sure if it is true or not but it seems to be a running joke in Europe
This definitely seems to be a theme in this thread this morning.
Not sure why anyone else would care what their neighbor has as long as it's not directly affecting them.
I've seen similar polls before, one was:
A) You make $60,000 a year, but so does everyone else
B) You make $50,000 a year, but everyone else makes $40,000Most people pick B, even though it's a bad choice. I think it has to do with a lot of Americans believing that not everyone can do a little better, only a few can do a lot better. Of course even in capitalism that's not true, as the standards of living rise even on the lowest levels steadily. It's related to the F you I got mine thing above I talked about.
Sadly I agree with that last bit - choosing B is a power play over the others, can't have everyone else being the same as me. Until this thread though - I've never been asked a question like this before.
How is it a power play except in your own mind? If believing you were better than others made people more successful, America would have more wealthy people.
Who said it was any thing other than in their own mind - You're absolutely right that's the only place it really is.
Like I said above about people believing if they work hard they'll be rich one day, delusions don't help anyone. Typically though, I don't think most people believe it, Americans are not stupid, but they sure repeat it.
But your own example stated that people felt they could have worked harder - and they probably could have.... again - they could have worked in a hotel at night, learning a skill that would allow them to earn more money eventually moving to a day position, they could learn how to weld and work in construction making several times what the burger flipper makes. They didn't have to stay a burger flipper for their whole life.
Of course all that said - Are there enough high paying jobs for everyone? I honestly don't know.
But no matter what, until our technology moves us to the point of Scott's proposed 90% don't even bother working and are paid a stipend to do their own thing while the other 10% actually make the world go round - we still need ditch diggers, and those jobs just don't pay that well.I'm not talking about becoming middle class, I'm talking about becoming wealthy, those are two different things. Most people could obviously directly benefit from better education, night school, etc. I never argued against that.
That's not what is said though, it's "be rich" nobody says "If I work hard enough, and get an education, I'll be able to do alright and maybe retire on time," much less tells everyone else that's how to do it or what the fruits of working hard are.
-
oh - well yeah, those people are just delusional.
-
@Dashrender said:
Of course all that said - Are there enough high paying jobs for everyone? I honestly don't know.
But no matter what, until our technology moves us to the point of Scott's proposed 90% don't even bother working and are paid a stipend to do their own thing while the other 10% actually make the world go round - we still need ditch diggers, and those jobs just don't pay that well.The answer is: no, that's already a problem now. And I agree, we are some time away from crappy jobs going away, the problem is a lot of industrial and middle jobs are the ones going away. And there can only be so many ditch diggers and janitors, and the irony is that as that becomes more of an issue, those wages will probably go down even more. IT didn't benefit from pollution of the industry, I can't imagine the custodial sciences will either.
-
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
That's because of the broken costs involved in healthcare. We non healthcare people look at healthcare and the massive amounts of costs that we are charged and just figure we're all being ripped off. If those costs are really, truly lower, I think people in general would be good with not seeing others suffer and getting help.
Maybe but, I doubt it. Even knowing without a doubt since everyone has that healthcare today, Americans are adamant about not wanting cheap, universal healthcare. Even if it lowers their own costs, they don't want it. If they did, we'd have it by now.
really ? You really think they don't want cheaper yet better healthcare?
a problem that I have is that I don't believe them. I look at things like the Snowden leaks and don't believe a damned thing the government says it does to help us.
can it be done cheaper? Hell yea it can! Get rid of insurance companies that alone will save billions a year, somehow get drugs and drug search done non for profit, again massive savings to everyone.
Then you have other issues. Like high risk people wouldn't get treated at all and hospitals and care takers could be much more selective then they are today as far as patients go.
You and @tonyshowoff both missed that I was referring to what it would take for me to believe that nationalized healthcare could be cheaper than what we have today. Just getting rid of insurance companies does nothing to help people.
For example - I'm not looking to get rid of Car Insurance - that's an example that in general shows how awesome shared risk system in the private sector can be.
But you have a choice in that. Don't drive a car. You don't have a choice for not getting sick. Car Insurance is a great system for what it is. But trying to emulate that to a system where basically everyone is claiming on it doesn't work.
And that is why I'm saying GET RID OF IT - and move to national healthcare - I'm starting to wonder if I'm typing Greek?
Ah, yes sorry about that I misunderstood your reasoning.
-
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
That's because of the broken costs involved in healthcare. We non healthcare people look at healthcare and the massive amounts of costs that we are charged and just figure we're all being ripped off. If those costs are really, truly lower, I think people in general would be good with not seeing others suffer and getting help.
Maybe but, I doubt it. Even knowing without a doubt since everyone has that healthcare today, Americans are adamant about not wanting cheap, universal healthcare. Even if it lowers their own costs, they don't want it. If they did, we'd have it by now.
really ? You really think they don't want cheaper yet better healthcare?
a problem that I have is that I don't believe them. I look at things like the Snowden leaks and don't believe a damned thing the government says it does to help us.
can it be done cheaper? Hell yea it can! Get rid of insurance companies that alone will save billions a year, somehow get drugs and drug search done non for profit, again massive savings to everyone.
Then you have other issues. Like high risk people wouldn't get treated at all and hospitals and care takers could be much more selective then they are today as far as patients go.
You and @tonyshowoff both missed that I was referring to what it would take for me to believe that nationalized healthcare could be cheaper than what we have today. Just getting rid of insurance companies does nothing to help people.
For example - I'm not looking to get rid of Car Insurance - that's an example that in general shows how awesome shared risk system in the private sector can be.
But you have a choice in that. Don't drive a car. You don't have a choice for not getting sick. Car Insurance is a great system for what it is. But trying to emulate that to a system where basically everyone is claiming on it doesn't work.
And that is why I'm saying GET RID OF IT - and move to national healthcare - I'm starting to wonder if I'm typing Greek?
Ah, yes sorry about that I misunderstood your reasoning.
Me too
