GreyEyedGhost

This was kind of my opinion. I don't pretend to know a lot about stocks, but when I look at a 1Y view and see the stock had doubled, and like you said a 50% increase in the last month, this looks less dramatic. I don't doubt it has something to do with a negative reaction to his latest rally, but I'd wait at least a day or two before I assumed this was a major setback for his stocks. Obviously, I'm not day trader material.

On the face of it, your point is valid, just like on the face of it landing rockets is too complicated. Both are likely solved the same way - active management by responsive computers to negate environmental effects to behave in a stable manner in an unstable environment. This idea certainly wouldn't have worked 100 or even 50 years ago, but may be quite possible now.

Imagine a world where the government valued its citizens. Look back at history to see what happens when governments value their citizens too little. It's never good, and sometimes it's even bad for the government.

Don't know why my folks didn't order one like that for me.

And realistically, there are no good reasons America couldn't have a decent high speed rail system across the eastern seaboard and maybe the western seaboard with a couple connecting links between them where the population supports it.

So what's your plan to get people to exercise 150 minutes per week in the current adult generation? This would reasonably cost almost nothing and dramatically reduces your risk for diabetes, yet, 60% of Canadians are overweight or obese. I don't imagine reducing their access to medical services is going to change that, besides making them die faster, yet that's what you first proposed.

And as you said, and as I was trying to point out, there are a lot of health risks, and many of them are entirely within their power to change.

Make it a referendum, but everyone who is engaging in an activity that risks their health has to vote against removing treatment for lifestyle diseases, and you'll be at 80% before the ballots are printed. Most people think their poor lifestyle choices aren't that big of a problem, just everyone else's.

I'm going to say this real slow one last time. Then promote funding for helping people to change their lifestyle rather than removing healthcare. Another wildly inconceivable idea is to add funding to healthcare, rather than cut it every year. Yes, taxes may have to increase, yes, people will call that socialism, and yes, quality of life will go up for most people, without even requiring those you find morally reprehensible to die sooner than necessary.

Ah, that woowoo bs health science of germ theory. Using UV light as a disinfectant is such a ridiculous idea that you would never find it being used in hospitals.

So, have you been to a doctor? When you walk in with high blood pressure, do you think they don't mention reducing your weight, sodium, and cholesterol? Some people follow that advice, some don't. Some don't know how to achieve that.

A lot of the things you talk about already happen, at the most superficial level. It isn't working. But, much like drug addiction, people would rather vilify those who are so weak as to succumb to addiction (or overeating) rather than providing the resources to help them beyond a handy little pamphlet telling them everything they already know.

But that isn't what you started with advocating. Rather than advocating better resources to help people deal with the causes, you promoted the idea of removing help treating their symptoms if they didn't meet your criteria of trying enough to fix the underlying causes, of what I imagine are your personal pet peeves.

...and if they didn't make the right choices, they can suffer more and die sooner. Good choices, there.

Sorry, you had me laughing at 1700 a year being expensive. And do you have any idea what it would cost to determine if someone was sufficient to meet your standards? 1700 per person per year would be on the low end. Now, what about smokers, drinkers, recreational drug users, people who eat too much, people who drive too fast, people who use recreational motor vehicles, the list goes on forever. Accept the fact the people are going to do things that negatively impact their health in ways that you don't, and vice versa, and wading through the list to see who's sufficiently worthy to receive care will cost more than caring for them, and will add yet another burden to the group of people caring for those patients.