"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 09:41:53 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
The numbers don't add up.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...602436388116.h
tml

The Wall Street Journal, 4 March 2010.

Joe Gwinn


PS: If the URL doesn't work, ensure that you got the whole thing.

Are these more b.s., Joe, like the piece on Chile you linked to
yesterday?
Did you check the facts, or do you swallow this stuff whole?

Ad hominem.

Huh? I'm talking about the failure of *facts*, not of any person. The
facts
in your link regarding Chile don't stand scrutiny. Over 25 years ago,
riding
to my editing job, on my regular train to NYC with a WSJ editorialist
whose
name I won't mention, I told him that if they would pay me a decent rate
to
fact-check their editorials, I could make a living out of correcting their
mistakes. He did not disagree.
================
A few of the many problems in attempting any kind of health
coverage cost:benefit analysis is defining exactly what and how
many people are covered, what they are covered for, and how the
"costs" are calculated, i.e. "out of pocket," "total societal,"
and many more.

snip


Thus it is entirely possible to get wildly varying cost estimates
through the inclusion or exclusion of various revenue and cost
line items. Most unfortunately much of this debate is driven by
ideology and the way things should be, rather than facts and the
way things are.

more snip -- but I read the whole thing, honest

Right. It's great material for ideological editorials, isn't it? I've tried
to hack through a few of them but I've concluded that it isn't even worth
reading them.

--
Ed Huntress