The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Retirement Discussions / Retire Early CampFIRE


Subject:  Re: Retire Early Group Health Plan Date:  3/21/2000  2:56 AM
Author:  jpkiljan Number:  6592 of 801283

And now for my last relpy (read carefully!):

Four Gone Fool wrote:

You consider calling me "The ForGone Fool" (go back and reread your post) to be not name calling and you consider calling
your actions childish and un-civil to be name calling. Hmmmmm. I think this is a shoe-fits. What I did was criticism. What you
did was name calling.

Oh rubbish! I think you are being overly sensitive. There are three ways of interpreting your signature name and, without a reference frame, I just picked the wrong one. If you took offense, I do indeed apologise--nothing was meant by it. I guess you didn't have wait so long for your apology after all.

I noticed that at first you mentioned an infant mortality rate and then it became an under-five mortality rate. Is this deliberate
obfuscation or are you really this imprecise? . . .

No, it's just poor sentence structure mixing two ideas. One-year mortality is the most tracked indicator. The argument made is that our children (not just infants) are most shortchanged by our national for-profit healthcare system--after all, they can't go out and buy their own coverage. In places like rural Africa where kids start dying again when they are weaned at about 24 months, the public health programs often target older children (up to five). I well remember a "Give your child some peanuts or meat every week." bill board in Ghana when I was there.

. . .As is often quoted by the advocates of bi