Quote from: myrkul on October 31, 2012, 11:14:18 PM

Quote from: sturle on October 31, 2012, 10:52:19 PM

Quote from: myrkul on October 31, 2012, 10:42:21 PM

Quote from: sturle on October 31, 2012, 10:38:31 PM

Quote from: myrkul on October 31, 2012, 10:16:15 PM

Quote from: sturle on October 31, 2012, 10:08:41 PM

Did Standard Oil give away free oil? Free public health care will not benefit at all from being a monopoly. Quite the opposite.

Wait, I thought you said it wasn't a monopoly. Now you say it is, but it won't benefit.

What did I say wasn't a monopoly or is? I don't get it.

/sigh... Let me know when you can keep up with your own statements.

I think you must have misread something. I'm reading my quotes over and over again, and can't understand where you think I wrote that free public health care is a monopoly or has anything in common with a monopoly.

Nope, I didn't misread. "Free public health care will not benefit at all from being a monopoly. Quite the opposite."

There must be some subtle language detail there I don't understand. English is not my first language. My meaning was the opposite. I'll try to write it differently: It will be a disadvantage for the free public health care to have a monopoly on health services.

Quote

Not "would not," not "isn't a monopoly," but "will not benefit from being a monopoly."
That means that it is a monopoly, but will not benefit.

I probably meant "would not" then. It should be clear from the context that I don't see any reason for the free public health service to be the only choice for patients (those who are in a position to choose). I.e. not a monopoly. I wrote this very clearly until you started diverting the discussion with some irrelevant oil company.

Quote

"Quite the opposite" goes on to imply that it will, in fact, go through money like it was water.

Huh? I didn't get that one either. My intention was to express even stronger that there is no reason for the free public health care to be a monopoly.