Re: Time to retire, yes
- From: Colette Reap <colette@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 23:52:04 +0100
David Friedman <ddfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <dc6i05dnbe3t1bkoqpafqr86tr8jtu72s0@xxxxxxx>,
Colette Reap <colette@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Edward McArdle <mcardle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:'[...] taxpayers rather than patients pay [...]'
But when you are retired, and have no dependents, you need very
little money. OK, I still live in the same house my parents moved
into in 1952.
Yes, having a paid-for house makes an enormous difference. As does
living in a country where the taxpayers rather than the patients pay
for medical care.
What are you suggesting here? That patients have never been taxpayers?
That taxpayers never become patients?
That whether and how much you pay depends on your status as a taxpayer
rather than your status as a patient. Do you find that distinction
Not puzzling at all, just irrelevant.
Restaurants in Scotland, so far as I know, are ordinary private firms.
One could imagine a system where they were all free to the diner, being
paid for entirely by the government, using money collected as taxes.
Wouldn't that strike you as a substantial change?
Yes it would, but the analogy is irrelevant. It is perfectly possible
to go from birth to death without ever visiting a restaurant and being
none the worse for it. How many people do you know who can go from
birth to death and never, ever require medical attention?
- Prev by Date: Re: Cowboys herding cats
- Next by Date: Re: Time to retire, yes
- Previous by thread: Re: Time to retire, yes
- Next by thread: Re: Time to retire, yes