From: Randy Smith (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jan 23 2002 - 13:01:29 MST
>From: Lee Daniel Crocker <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: RE: Healthcare (was Re: John in Alaska)
>Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 11:22:52 -0800 (PST)
> > > But at what cost, Harvey? Because medical care costs money, every
> > > spent is x.xx hours of someone's life spent laboring for themselves or
> > > for the government. Why slave away x hours of your life when you are
> > > only going to get a fraction of that back in increased life span?
> > Because I value my lifespan more than money. I want to live longer and
> > working if I can. Why die early to save a little dough?
>I think you miss the point, Harvey: "work" is, by definition, time
>spent in pursuits other than what would be one's first choice of
>what to do with that time. If you work for 12 hours to earn enough
>to increase your lifespan by only 8 hours, then you haven't really
>increased your "life" span at all--just your "work" span. You've
>actually lost 4 hours of "life"--life is doing what /you/ want with
An interesting and thoughful point.
However, how do you explain situations like the WWII Nazi concentration camp
gas chambers, where those inline to be gassed, when their turn came to enter
the dreaded chamber, would grab the person in line behind them, and throw
that person into the gas chamber in their stead. With the armed guards
blocking escape, those throwers gained a few seconds of life, but just a few
seconds, and cringing, tearful, fearful seconds...not exactly quality time
with the grandkids, either....it was a very common occurrence, however.....
Our "visceral" understanding of life is far different than our
"philosophical" understanding of life...guess which one I value more...
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:36 MST